Free Press –
Sex Abuse Legislation , Justin Rigali, Dan Gambet, Fred Riegler, Paul Clymer
Dear Friends,
Good morning. Ten days ago, I heard a WHYY (national public radio) program about the Philadelphia Archdiocese response to child sex abuse. It was startling. Marty Moss-Cowain’s “Radio Times” (Aug. 22) featured two former Philadelphia Assistant District Attorneys who wrote a scathing letter to Cardinal Justin Rigali. They claimed that children remain at risk because steps to protect them have been inadequate.
Moss-Cowain told her listeners that she had invited representatives from the Archdiocese to be on the program but it sent a position paper denying the charges instead. She did read parts of the letter.
I called Father Fred Riegler, the pastor of St. Isidore’s in Quakertown, Father Dan Gambet, the former President of De Sales University, and State Representative Paul Clymer (R-145th district) for their comments. You’ll read them shortly.
In a July 26 letter to the Cardinal, former prosecutors Mariana Sorensen and Maureen McCartney accused the archdiocese of “demonstrating an all-too-familiar pattern: offering assurances and the appearance of action while failing to take steps needed to prevent sexual abuse,” the Philadelphia Inquirer wrote (Aug. 6)
One year ago, the Philadelphia Grand Jury recommended legislation to address child sex abuse. Two of the bills have been stalled in committee for 12 months and don’t look like they’ll receive an up or down vote any time soon. Representative Clymer told me that House Bill 2286 would remove the statute of limitations up to a victim’s age of 50. House Bill 2300 would provide a one-year window for abuse victims to come forward and make a claim regardless of how long ago the abuse occurred.
“[Bill] 2300 is in the Judiciary Committee,” Clymer responded. “[Bill] 2286 has finally come out of the Judiciary Committee but is now in the Appropriations Committee.” Clymer believes that both bills should be voted upon by the General Assembly but concedes that, “There are lots of moves on the checker board before it sees the light of day.”
The former assistant DA’s claim that the two bills are bottled up in legislative committees because the Catholic lobby opposes them. “The church is more worried about protecting its assets and not enough worry about on going pedophilia,” they charged.
Clymer told me that some of his fellow legislators suggest that unless the Catholic lobby strongly endorses passage, it’s unlikely that the bills will get to the Governor’s desk for signing.
Father Riegler says that the present statute of limitations is too limited and needs to be changed. “I haven’t thought things through about removing the statute of limitations forever,” he began, “and if no institution is exempt, I’m for it.” But the legislature exempts school districts from child sex abuse suits, a colleague told him. “Everyone should be held equally culpable,” Father Fred said.
I called Clymer about this. Are there exempt institutions, I asked? He referred me to Mary McDaniels who is the Executive Director for the majority members of the House Judiciary Committee. “Yes,” she replied. “It’s called sovereign immunity. People can’t sue the state government because education is part of the government.” So the public is restricted from suing any of the 501 state school districts even if a public school did not thoroughly research an employee’s background for felony charges or convictions.
If I were representing the Catholic lobby, I would argue that the church should not be singled out for suits when school districts are exempt.
“I believe that real progress has been made,” Father Gambet told me referring to the archdiocese’ response to child abuse. “But we must do everything we can as a church and as a government to guard against abuse in the future.
“[But] I can understand why the church is not rushing to endorse this legislation,” Father Gambet continued. “There are plenty of false accusations out there. People might be going after what they perceive to be [the church’s] deep pockets.”
The two former assistant D.A.’s were quick to point out that only one state has passed legislation similar to those, which Sorensen and McCartney propose. California removed the statute of limitations and opened a one-year window of opportunity for abuse victims to sue the church…in spite of the expiration of the statute of limitations. Although it faced strenuous opposition from the Catholic lobby, the California legislature didn’t back down.
Personally, I believe that the Pennsylvania Legislature should pass both bills and include language that would not make any institution immune from litigation, religious, educational or governmental. Voters are generally displeased with the General Assembly for good reason. If it continues to sit on its hands, incumbents are risking a revolt at the polls in November.
Come to think about it, that might not be such a bad idea.
Sincerely,
Charles Meredith