The monsignor at my parish church in Northeast Philadelphia had some good news to share, more than usual, in fact. He said that the Catholic Church had lately dodged a bullet aimed at it by state legislators in Harrisburg. He was partly right about that, for reasons I'll explain below.
But when the monsignor told the congregation that their calls and letters to local state legislators had, as he put it, "made a difference" in securing the removal of an anti-Church provision from a pending piece of legislation, he was being too kind. In fact, local legislators ignored their Catholic constituents' calls and letters. Members of each of the three political factions in our part of Philadelphia who sit in the state legislature-- the Democrats tied to the Boyle brothers, the Democrats connected with John Sabatina, and the Republicans-- all voted wrong on the anti-Church provision.
The provision in question concerns how long a person has to bring a lawsuit against the Church alleging that they were abused before reaching age 18 by a priest or other Church employee. Current Pennsylvania law gives people twelve years, until they reach age 30, to bring a lawsuit alleging that they were abused as a child. Both the Pennsylvania House and Senate have passed bills that would give people twenty more years, until they reach age 50, to bring suit against the Church. The retroactivity provision included in the House bill but omitted from the Senate bill would apply this change not only prospectively to cases that arise in the future but retroactively. That means that people who have remained silent about abuse they claim to have suffered in the 1970s and 1980s-- people who could no longer sue under current law-- would be allowed to sue the Church now.
If adopted, this anti-Church provision could cause Catholic dioceses across Pennsylvania, including the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, to go bankrupt in the coming years. Parish churches and schools would fold. Charity work by a Church that is one of the biggest charitable organizations in the state would be curtailed. Church property would be sold off to pay creditors. It seems unthinkable, but it has happened elsewhere, and it could happen here.
It's well known that a child sexual abuse scandal has plagued the Church in recent years. Over many years, a very small percentage of Catholic priests inflicted serious harm on some children with whom their ministry brought them in contact. Very rightly, many of those abused as children have sued the Church. Suits against dioceses throughout Pennsylvania and the country have proliferated in recent years, and many victims have been justly compensated.
As noted above, both the House and Senate bills would give future abuse victims until age 50, rather than age 30, to sue the Church. 20 extra years is a long time by any human measure. It's an extremely long time when it comes to proving something in court. Current law hasn't stopped abuse victims from obtaining compensation. Whatever social stigma used to attach to accusing priests and other authority figures of wrongdoing of this nature is long gone. People haven't had trouble making accusations in the twelve years the law currently allows. In fact, some dioceses have gone bankrupt as a result of the many payouts made to abuse victims.
In the case of abuse allegedly perpetrated by a priest, the priest may well have died by the time a person abused as a child reaches age 50, leaving the priest unable to testify in court. Even if the alleged abuser remains alive, evidence gets stale over time. Witnesses' memories fade and physical and documentary evidence is lost or destroyed. The Church and other institutions to which the proposed legal changes will apply will have to keep detailed records dating back an additional 20 years to have any hope of mounting a defense if false claims are made.
Adding 20 years to the statute of limitations may thus encourage false claims. But it has the support of both houses of the legislature. The bills they passed were not identical, though, so no bill will be sent to Governor Tom Wolf for his signature unless agreement on identical language is reached. If they manage to agree, Wolf would probably sign the bill into law.
The retroactivity provision in the House bill was left out of the Senate's bill, which resulted in the difference between them. The bill attracted surprisingly little controversy as it moved through the House months ago. Church leaders were either not paying attention, or hoped that the bill would fail without their intervention. Either way, they did not call for a campaign against it, and only a few people who saw its harmful potential contacted their legislators. When the bill reached the Senate, though, Church leaders like the monsignor told Catholics to call and write to their Senators. The Senate's Judiciary Committee chose to eliminate the retroactivity provision, and the whole Senate did not restore it before it passed its bill.
The monsignor was right to be happy about the Senate's action, but it didn't fully resolve the retroactivity issue. The conference committee may still agree to include that anti-Church provision in the bill it sends back to both houses. Then, it would be up to the Senate to decide whether it could accept the bill with retroactivity included.
Although I think that changing the statute of limitations for cases that arise in the future won't serve the interests of justice, I can understand why it's likely to happen. The Church waited too long to change its personnel policies to prevent child abuse, and legislators like to be seen to do something about widely publicized problems. The Church appears to have made the needed changes in is personnel policies to reduce the incidence of abuse, and it can change its recordkeeping policies going forward to at least attempt to protect itself from false claims.
But to change the statute of limitations retroactively is a different matter. It would expose the Church to much more legal liability than it faces now at the stroke of a pen. Catholic dioceses across the state may well have discarded records that they would need to defend against allegations of abuse that might have no basis in fact. Practically anyone who was a child 40 years ago and crossed paths with a now-deceased priest could sue alleging that they were molested way back when. Often, it would be their word against no one's, with little other evidence available either to support or refute the claim. The Church would have to litigate endlessly and would lose some cases to fraudulent claimants, with dire consequences for its finances and its future. In short, retroactively changing the statute of limitations is unfair. It may also be unconstitutional, and the precedent that such a change would set has worried business groups the members of which think that other statutes of limitation might be retroactively undone in the future.
Until the bill is finally disposed of, Catholics should keep contacting their legislators. Unfortunately, those in Northeast Philly who have contacted them already have so far been ignored. Local legislators from three political factions in our area ignored the pleas of their Catholic constituents and cast their votes to include the provision in the bill.
State Senator John Sabatina doubtless received numerous calls and letters as Catholic voters throughout his district were urged to contact him. Although he is a Church member, Sabatina ignored those pleas. As a member of Senate Judiciary Committee, he voted to include the retroactivity provision in the legislation. Luckily, a majority of Sabatina's committee colleagues recognized that the bill was unfair, probably unconstitutional, and likely to wreck the Church, and they voted to remove the retroactivity provision. When the bill reached the whole Senate, it was clear that most senators would not support putting the retroactivity provision back into the law, but Catholics in Northeast Philly have other senators, not Sabatina, to thank for that.
A Sabatina understudy and another Church member, Matt Darragh, is running for State Representative. Darragh is a Democratic committeeman in the 66th Ward, where the Democratic Party is led by Sabatina's allies. One of the two ward leaders there works in Sabatina's office. The other was Darragh's boss at the state Auditor General's office. (Good luck getting a job in that office straight out of college, as Darragh's website says he did, it you aren't the stooge of such people.) Darragh's campaign appears to rely on groups that also donate to Sabatina, and his published statements conform with positions taken by Sabatina. While Darragh hasn't published a stance on the retroactivity provision, he seems otherwise beholden to Sabatina. I doubt that he would do things differently.
That, however, is no reason to vote for Darragh's opponent Martina White, the incumbent and a Republican. In the House, she voted to amend the bill to add the obnoxious provision, then voted for it on final passage in the whole House. The House passed the bill before Church leaders paid much attention to it. But the people who argued for the bill didn't hide their intention to subject the Church to big damage lawsuits. The bill's potential to ruin the Church financially should still have been clear to White and to other House members.
But White, also a member of the Church, voted for retroactivity anyway. Then she feigned surprise when Church leaders grew alarmed as the bill moved to the Senate and told those in attendance at masses to contact their legislators. "Choking back tears," White told the Philadelphia Inquirer how, after the vote, she faced a hostile reception from priests at some parishes in her district. Her unconvincing sob story concluded with her accusation that the Church wasn't living up to its reputation for "acceptance and forgiveness." If White knew or cared that the Church had these qualities, it's a wonder that she voted to bankrupt it.
And what of the third political faction, the Democrats led by Congressman Brendan Boyle and State Representative Kevin Boyle? The Boyles, too, are Catholics. But Kevin Boyle voted to add the retroactivity provision to the House bill, then voted for it on final passage. Like White, Boyle did so before the Church campaigned actively against the bill. But that doesn't excuse his support for a measure that threatens the earthly existence of the Church, its schools, and its charitable activities in Pennsylvania. Fifteen of his House colleagues had the courage to stand up against an unfair bill. He didn't.
What do you make of a situation in which politicians representing every political faction in an area feel free to ignore the interests of a potentially decisively influential bloc of voters? To me, it's one among many reasons why a new, more responsive political grouping needs to emerge and sweep the three rotten existing ones aside. Until that happens, voting in local races isn't worth my time or yours. Once a Boyle Democrat, a Sabatina Democrat, or a Republican from the Northeast gets elected, they care only about a few donors. Northeast Philly needs an approach to politics that is less about money than about people. None of these three groups can deliver it.
