Cardinal Sins

No one, save its many abuse victims and families, could be more angry at the Catholic Church -- and especially the Archdiocese of Philadelphia -- than I am. A recent 423-page report issued by a grand jury empaneled by Philadelphia District Attorney Lynn Abraham showed in necessarily horrid detail, priests known to abuse children were aided and abetted by senior officials of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. As has happened in dioceses in Boston and elsewhere, abuse was ignored or covered up, offending priests were transferred from parish to parish, and life after life was shattered by criminals who spent Sunday mornings claiming moral authority over the rest of us.

Still, a proposal (described here) being discussed by some Pennsylvania lawmakers to change the existing statute of limitations to allow civil suits by victims regardless of when the abuse occurred, is a bad idea. Statutes of limitations serve a number of purposes, including the important function of ensuring that claims are brought within a time that will reasonably allow a defendant to produce evidence to contest claims. As years pass, witnesses die, memories can fade and become unreliable, and documents can be lost. The despicable nature of the acts at issue, the desire to compensate victimes, as well as the anger and frustration felt over the inability to criminally prosecute most of the abusers (unlike statutes of limitations applicable to civil claims, those governing crimes cannot be changed in order to charge someone retroactively), are not good enough reasons to amend a law that has generally served valid purposes. If the Pennsylvania General Assembly wants to prospectively change the statute of limitations in abuse cases, then that proposal should be debated on its merits. But a retroactive change intended to "get" the Archdiocese of Philadelphia and others is not the way to go. The abusers don't deserve respect and consideration, but our civil justice system does.