The other day, the old faker Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, Britain’s “Chief Rabbi,” was busy expatiating in the Spectator how wonderful the non-fundamentalists faiths are, and how much the world would suffer if they vanished, taking with them all the grounding of human morality. Well, that was bogus, but Sacks also neglected the malignity of some non-fundamentalist faiths.
Take Catholicism, not generally thought of as fundamentalist. Yet I’d claim that its tenets are profoundly immoral, as evidenced by its marginalization of women and gays, its refusal to sanction birth control (therefore spreading AIDS in Africa), its retrograde stands on divorce and sex, and its official coverups of child rape. (See my series a while back on Catholic “sins of the day”.)
And speaking of coverups, have a gander at this New York Times article documenting yet another perfidy of the Church. It’s fighting lengthening the statue of limitations for child abuse, so that child-raping Church officials can get off the hook more easily:
Victims and their advocates in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and New York are pushing legislators to lengthen the limits or abolish them altogether, and to open temporary “windows” during which victims can file lawsuits no matter how long after the alleged abuse occurred.
The Catholic Church has successfully beaten back such proposals in many states, arguing that it is difficult to get reliable evidence when decades have passed and that the changes seem more aimed at bankrupting the church than easing the pain of victims.
Already reeling from about $2.5 billion spent on legal fees, settlements and prevention programs relating to child sexual abuse, the church has fought especially hard against the window laws, which it sees as an open-ended and unfair exposure for accusations from the distant past. In at least two states, Colorado and New York, the church even hired high-priced lobbying and public relations firms to supplement its own efforts. Colorado parishes handed out postcards for churchgoers to send to their representatives, while in Ohio, bishops themselves pressed legislators to water down a bill.
How can an institution that supposedly embodies morality be so concerned about money? What does money matter—and the church has billions—compared to the sexual abuse of a child? If they really were God’s institution on Earth, they’d be working to get rid of all time limitations on prosecution.
This is about the most cynical thing I’ve heard a Catholic say:
The church’s arguments were forcefully made by Patrick Brannigan, executive director of the New Jersey Catholic Conference, in testimony before the State Legislature in January opposing a proposal to abolish the limits in civil cases.
“How can an institution conceivably defend itself against a claim that is 40, 50 or 60 years old?” Mr. Brannigan said. “Statutes of limitation exist because witnesses die and memories fade.”
“This bill would not protect a single child,” he said, while “it would generate an enormous transfer of money in lawsuits to lawyers.”
Uh huh. They just don’t want to pay lawyers. But of course it would protect children, because priests and other abusers wouldn’t be free from prosecution after the statue of limitations ran out. It would also protect them by deterring current abusers, some of whose crimes are long past, from transgressing again. It’s a powerful disincentive. And, as we know, many victims of abuse don’t even admit it, or become sufficiently empowered to seek redress, until decades have passed.
Finally, the Church could make the same argument about murder, which has no statute of limitations. Too many lawyers to pay! Memories fade! Tell that to Whitey Bulger.
The priests even try lobbying in their sermons!
Joan Fitz-Gerald, former president of the Colorado Senate, who proposed the window legislation, was an active Catholic who said she was stunned to find in church one Sunday in 2006 that the archdiocese had asked priests to raise the issue during a Mass and distribute lobbying postcards.
“It was the most brutal thing I’ve ever been through,” she said of the church campaign. “The politics, the deception, the lack of concern for not only the children in the past, but for children today.” She has since left the church.
What do you say, Chief Rabbi? Is this good behavior or what?
Hmm…I’d have to think about this one.
Statues of limitations are generally good things, in the spirit of “better to let ten of the guilty go free than hang one innocent.” It really is much easier to make serious mistrakes — honest or otherwise — long after the crime than when prosecution is done in a timely manner.
There’s also the matter of the prohibition of ex post facto laws. Once the statute of limitations has run out, no crime has been committed — not any more. By extending the statute of limitations after the fact, you’re criminalizing something done in the past that’s not a crime at the time the law is written. Even when the actions are heinous, we still only hold people to account for that which was illegal at the time the acts were done, nor for that which we wish we had had the foresight to have made illegal.
That doesn’t mean that we necessarily have the proper statues of limitations in child sex abuse cases. One would hope that those who wrote the laws took care in balancing all the relevant facts and came up with an impartial and just determination of what is an appropriate limit for prosecution…but those were fallible humans who made those decisions in the first place and there may be new insights that should be brought to bear since they made their decisions.
But I’m inclined to suggest that, once the statute of limitations has expired, that’s it. Extend it for the future, but not the past.
I’ll close by noting that the current pope is now unambiguously complicit in the criminal conspiracy of his predecessor as he continues to protect Bernard Law and others from prosecution. I’m all for prosecuting this most odious of criminal conspiracies to the fullest extent of the law…but only for their legally outstanding crimes, not those which they’ve already successfully evaded past the point of oblivion.
Cheers,
b&
In the Netherlands the term for statue of limitations had been prolonged a few years ago. But since our constitution prohibits ex post facto laws, these new rules only apply to new cases.
With you I agree that’s the proper way to do.
Ben:
Your discussion seems to be of criminal statutes of limitations, whereas Jerry’s post seems to concern only civil SOLs. (See also E.A. Blair’s post at No. 9 below, about the Wisconsin situation, which clearly is about civil SOLs.)
It is a general principle, not always upheld, that that which is unjust for the criminal courts is also unjust for the civil courts.
b&
Don’t worry, Joan will return as all she needs is to see this Catholic commercial (that is what they need billions for, to bamboozle people smart enough to leave the rotting corpse of the Catholic Church to swallow their disgust and return):
youtube.com/watch?v=Vs6qZd_xP1w
(hope this does not embed)
You’d think that, after the first few centuries of it not working out, they’d wise up and try something different. But, no…two millennia on, they’re still banging their heads against the same problems and getting the same results. Insane, in every sense Einstein meant.
b&
You are right, the decision to make celibacy obligatory was instituted at the beginning of the Fourth century, and despite of the problems it has originated, it still remains.
They actually claim to have invented the scientific method! Astounding.
They might have had a hold on it at some point in history,we have to remember that for centuries , with the amount of money and power they possessed, they were able to commission, the best art, and sponsored the best scholars, in many other disciplines, but that does not mean that they might selectively not have used the information they obtained, if it was not in their best interest.
“Invented the scientific method”???
Well, Franciscan monk Roger Bacon made some modest steps in that direction (and got prosecuted for heresy), but the major contributor is a different Bacon 300 years later, Francis Bacon, in his book “Novum Organum” and he was certainly not a Roman Catholic.
Roger Bacon was kept in his own house for a short period of time, and then restricted from teaching and from publishing anything before prior permission from the church (of course). But he was allowed to go back to Oxford and continue his studies until his death. Intelligent inquisitive minds are not exclusive to any groups religious or secular.
“Come back to the RCC because some American cities are named after our saints.”
Well, I’m convinced. Sorry, Jerry. 😉
(Refers to the video at the link Michelle posted.)
I’ve got to dissent on this one. Although the day care sexual abuse hysteria of the 1980s that led to many false accusations and convictions has largely subsided, the malleability of memory under the influence of investigators and therapists predisposed to elicit particular kinds of narratives is well established. Old cases too often rely on memory alone, and although courts are beginning to exercise some judgment in this area, eyewitness testimony is still among the most powerful forms of evidence for jurors.
The psychologist Elizabeth Loftus, who did much to demonstrate the influence of therapists on so-called “recovered memories”, has grappled with the fact that we cannot always know whether a particular case represents a gross miscarriage of justice (false accusation) or a horrendous crime (sexual abuse). In “cold” cases, there is apt to be an increased reliance on eyewitness testimony, as corroborating physical and circumstantial details are lost. Statutes of limitation are there for a purpose, and they serve the interests of justice, which must be concerned with the accused as well as the accuser. I have no strong opinion on the exact length of the limitations, but they are a necessary balancing of the interest os society in seeing justice for all.
…remember the real trinity: money, power and control of the masses.
Utterly repugnant.
I’ve always considered the catholic church to be fundamentalist. I think of any patriarchal religion that has a central dynamic involving suppression of women’s rights to be fundamentalist.
Strictly speaking, Fundamentalism is a flavor of Protestantism, so not only not Catholic but actually anti-Catholic.
But, practically speaking, it’s a distinction without a difference. Both are religiously and socially and politically conservative flavors of Christianity and absolutely batshit fucking insane. Their differences have much more to do with which administrative hierarchy they spend their wealth on and obscure and meaningless differences in their literary analyses of the same ancient anthology of really bad faery tales.
Cheers,
b&
To be toxic, a religion need only be broadly authoritarian and/or have very elaborate and detailed metaphysical dogmas that are required of believers.
For folks like Rabbi Sacks, fundamentalism is an easy target, and an easy scapegoat (Karen Armstrong tends to sometimes think the same way). One can then evade probing questions of troubling faiths that are not strictly fundamentalist.
The catholic church is a quite divers organization. Many priests are in fact much more liberal than the vatican wants them to be. Some parts of this church are indeed quite fundamentalistic, however the broad base is often less conservative than the official position.
True too.
“How can an institution conceivably defend itself against a claim that is 40, 50 or 60 years old?” said the man promulgating a 2000 year old fairy tale.
And if their deity is so omnipotent, why is it necessary to seek protection in secular law and courts?
No, no, no, you don’t get it. Claims made millenia ago in a pre-scientific millieu decades, or centuries, after the events they supposedly describe are highly reliable. Because Jesus.
Here in Wisconsin, our Republican senator, Ron Johnson, defended the Archdiocese of Green Bay against a proposed law to extend the statute of limitations.
Meanwhile, how many times have you heard about a teenaged couple having sex while both are underage, only to have the older one, usually the boy, arrested the minute he turns 18 (which is what is happening to Kaitlyn Hunt in Florida right now)?
As an ex-Catholic(not a secular Catholic), I find it disgusting that people continue to fund this regime. Even after all the facts are laid out on the table the Catholic people I talk to are not willing to consider walking away from this archaic system.
Maybe they don’t want to give up eating Jesus on Sunday. Where else would they get the same bullshit?
Well…they could all get together at a friend’s house to bake some bread, and serve it up fresh from the oven. It’ll take about as much time as going to church, and they can read poetry and sing songs like usual, and they get to enjoy some fresh-baked bread instead of those nasty stale crackers.
For that matter, they open a bottle of wine while they’re at it — and might as well make it something worth drinking.
And if it’s really the Jesus they’re afraid of missing, add a cheese platter to the mix and nobody’ll notice the difference.
Fresh bread, wine, and cheeses, with the company of friends at a poetry slam and singalong on a Sunday morning; what’s not to love?
Cheers,
b&
Sounds good, preserve all the good stuff of christianity, while leaving behind the bad stuff.
I think it’s the bad stuff that they like. Remember, this is a misery cult.
Indeed.
“Secular Catholic?” I don’t think that’s possible. Catholic refers only to religion, not ethnicity. So you can’t be a secular Catholic the way you can be a secular Jew.
Strictly speaking you are right, however many people with a catholic background still participate in all kind of catholic stuff such as carnaval. Even though the don’t give a damn shit about jesus/god/pope. Many religious festivals and such are now often secularized.
But: “Are you a Prodestant atheist, or a Catlick atheist?” /brogue
The correct term is “Lapsed Catholic”. To the people who stay, it’s a term of derision. To the people who leave, it’s a badge of honor (and, considering that Catholic guilt is second only to Jewish guilt in the ranking of stereotypes) a badge of courage. It’s given rise to the phrase, “I’m a member of the fastest-growing religious group in the world – former Catholics.”
On one hand the RCC claims eternal torture and suffering for people guilty of relatively minor offenses. On the other hand, they cry foul when held responsible for much worse offenses–even if only for a few Earthly years.
Can it be, I wonder, they don’t thoroughly scrutinize their applicants, because few people in their right minds would choose to give up what is normal?
Very very unfortunately this kind of criminal, crazy behavior is not exclusive of Religious groups, or those who claim to be celibate, I recently read of terrible cases of sexual abuse to boys that happened some fourty-something years ago in an exclusive school in NY, although the school still stands, all perpetrators have by now passed away. The fact that ancient Greeks and Romans practiced this type of aggressive horrendous behavior has been documented. Can someone give an insight of why does this occur in humankind?
Get even! Follow Vermont!
The Catholic misery cult has spent a lot of money fighting the legalization of doctor assisted suicide (death with dignity laws). The Vermont legislature has passed (in May) and the governor has signed, a law permitting doctor assisted suicide. This is the first time that a state legislature has stepped up and done the job. Now is a good opportunity to email your state representative(s) and urge them to pass such a bill. We need to make some noise–right now. Remind them that the Oregon law is available online and has plenty of protections against abuse. Also, the “Compassion & Choices” organization, which advocates for our end-of-life-options rights, has a legal team and my be of help. Also, just because some might abuse a right, that doesn’t justify taking the right away from everyone.
Methinks the Catholic church are shooting themselves in the foot with this one.
On the one hand they argue that because a few decades have elapsed, fair trials won’t be possible because human memory is flawed bah de blah. Which is (possibly) true and there is a shedload of psychological data to support this.
On the other hand, the second-hand reports of Jesus and his antics are accepted, even though they were written, what, decades after the alleged events?
Does not compute.
“Foot”? They don’t have even a leg to stand on, yet they keep right on going.
The church seems to tell the faithful that they have a moral imperative to follow every dot and tiddle of Catholic doctrine or they are doomed to suffer eternal torment in hell yet the Catholic higharchy feels they can have the luxery of a statute of limitation. What mendacity.
While I agree with some of the criticisms of the Catholic Church, they do additionally do an incredible amount of social justice work and tremendous social service in many areas of the world. I feel there a voice should provide some balance. And no, I am not a practicing catholic
But remember that (a) a lot of the social services they provide is not funded by themselves, but simply commercial services funded by government, (b) the services typically come with religious strings attached and (c) providing those services is less important to the church than for example persecuting homosexuals.
I’ve never seen the catholic down the street do anything for anybody that he wasn’t getting paid for. And even though he knows I’m an atheist he comes to me when he wants help, I’m the only atheist amongst a pile of christians. So, does he come to me because he knows none of the christians will help him or will they expect something in return?
The catholic organization does nothing in comparison to the hording of wealth that they do.
On the BBC’s flagship morning news programme on Radio 4 there is a daily slot – much bemoaned by atheists – called Thought For The Day where some flavour of religious usually tries to spin a topical subject with a religious twist. To reflect the multicultural face of Britain a variety of faiths get their chance to have their own say in addition to the usual Christian crowd. Many years ago the Monday morning spot was occupied by Rabbi Lionel Blue, a genial old gay guy who usually ended up with a good Jewish joke. Unfortunately we now get this heavy-handed drone Sacks occupying the Judaism spot.
Lionel Blue is a legend! But his jokes were always terrible (in a good way)…
“witnesses die and memories fade.”
Talking about the new testament by any chance?
The whole idea of a “statue of limitations” is absurd. For any crime.
Dominic, I’m guessing that you didn’t say this in jest. But since you don’t say WHY you think this to be the case (and no, it isn’t any more self-evident than “Jesus is your personal savior”), I’m at a loss to critique how you got there.
Suffice it to say that statutes of limitations have been around for thousands of years, and in most judicial systems. And getting rid of them? Be careful what you wish for. Without them, any “inconvenient” person could be subject to imprisonment at any time over a completely trumped-up charge…all the government would need to do is produce ONE well-coached, smooth-talking witness, after “your” witnesses are long gone. Think this is paranoid? Read this: http://reason.com/archives/2013/06/12/three-reasons-the-nothing-to-hide-crowd.
Now read this: http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/06/17/58555.htm.
Do you want to trust YOUR freedom to this judicial system without the safeguards of SOLs?
I’m actually a bit surprised to hear you considering extending something like the statute of limitations once it’s expired. The way I understood your position on justice and free will was that people do not have true free will and our systems of justice should act to correct behaviour or remove harmful elements from society. That would mean their primary purpose is not to punish but to prevent future crimes.
If the statute of limitations has expired then that means the crime was far in the past. It might be a horrible crime but if it’s that old then it seems unlikely that the person will re-offend and there would be little reason to seek prosecution.
This is very wrong. There is lots of data on this. Sexual molestation and abuse are known to be chronic behavior patterns in many of the people who exhibit such behavior. It is typically not something that changes without constant effort. Much like alcoholism.
And no, if the SOL is expired it does not mean that the crime was far in the past. Depending on circumstances the SOL can be as little as two or three years. For minors, anywhere from 14 years old to 24 years old depending on jurisdiction, there is a “Delayed Tolling” statute which gives more time. Typically this is based on a number of years starting from the age of majority of the alleged victim. For example, two to three years past 18 or 21 years of age. A person who committed such acts 12 to 20 years ago, or 40 years ago for that matter, is very likely to do so again if there is no intervention.
Also, Jerry clearly stated that he felt increasing or eliminating the SOL would cause more of a deterrent effect i.e., prevent more future crimes.
I’m not sure exactly what the time frames are but if it’s only two or three years then it sounds like there’s a problem with the length of time. However, in the text it talked about a 40-60 year old crime.
If the offender is likely to repeat the crime then there should be other cases in that 40-60 years and something can be done even without the oldest case. If there isn’t any other crime in those 40-60 years then the person’s hasn’t repeated the offence and rehabilitation or incarceration would serve no more purpose.
I’m doubtful increasing the SOL would be any more of a deterrent because I don’t think anyone is going to be thinking about how long until it expires when they commit a crime.
Oops. Messed up those tags, need to wake up. Sorry!
They would have to be reported cases. Even if on average those sort of offenders are repeat offenders that doesn’t mean that every single one is. And of course that would mean some crimes would go undetected (although I’m pretty sure documents have shown the priest cases were not undetected but just covered up). The problem is one can’t assume that there are other unreported cases (or at least can’t charge someone like that) as there’d be no way to differentiate between unreported cases and when nothing happened.
You appear to be assuming that the crime you posit is the only one that the person has committed and not the act of a repeat offender or career criminal.