DOUBLE STANDARD
The editorial “Seeking Justice” (May 8) was insightful as far as it went, but there is far more to the story of justice and statutes of limitation as applied to claims of misconduct against Catholic dioceses and institutions. The bishops are entirely justified to rally against retroactive application of revised civil statutes of limitation. As has been written by at least one bishop, “Statutes of limitations exist to promote justice, not hinder it.”
However, the U.S. bishops as a body have also aggressively lobbied the Holy See since 2002 to grant a blanket dispensation from prescription—the statute of limitations for the prosecution of a delict (a crime) in canon law—so that accused priests can face penal processes, including forced laicization, years or decades after the period of prescription in church law has expired. The bishops should not have it both ways. Retroactive application of new statutes of limitations is as unjust and immoral in canon law as it is in civil and criminal law.
Ryan A. MacDonald
Indianapolis, Ind.
CHOOSING SIDES
It is with reluctance that I respectfully disagree with the assessment by the editors in “Seeking Justice” that there is no further purpose to lifting the statute of limitations for sexual abuse perpetrated by clergy in the increasingly distant past. The contention that this will further penalize the faithful by sapping resources from diocesan programs that serve the poor and others is well taken, but it puts the church on the side of expediency rather than leaning into a course of some justice—albeit flawed and with its own “unfair” consequences.
No less an authority than Bishop Thomas Gumbleton (retired auxiliary, Detroit), who is the only prelate to admit having been abused as a youth and not disclosing it publicly until decades later, has called for a one-year moratorium on the statute so that those whose memories, circumstances, or fears inhibited disclosure in years past have their opportunity for public vindication. You are right that this is not the whole answer and that further reconciliation must happen also on individual levels. I agree that the Markey bill is flawed and should not be supported in its present form if public institutions are to be exempt. The church might do far better to promote such an opportunity by admitting, “Yes, we too may suffer further humiliation and be wounded financially, but we are not about to ask the victims of our neglect to continue to live with their wounds through a public silence.” Provisions could perhaps be made about financial settlements, but the church ought to risk itself on the side of the victim, not in the protection of its bank accounts.
David E. Pasinski
Fayetteville, N.Y.
NO MORE VICTIMS
I write to you from Riverbend Maximum Security Institution in Nashville, Tennessee, where I am serving a twenty-five-year sentence for rape and aggravated sexual battery. I was an active priest of the Diocese of Nashville, Tennessee, until February 1989. The offenses for which I was convicted happened after my time as an active priest—although there are others who were victimized by me during my time of active ministry.
First, I apologize to my victims and their families for the incredible harm that I have done in their lives and the criminal acts that I perpetrated on them. I pray for them daily and sincerely hope for their healing and recovery from my abuse. Second, I apologize to the church and especially to fellow priests who were also harmed and thus victimized by my behavior. Third, I apologize to my family for the pain and suffering they have had to endure because of me. Finally, I apologize to the community at large, which is in a very real sense an extended victim of my crimes. I ask—and expect—no sympathy, but I do ask for your prayers for all of us who are in prison.
I am writing in response to your editorial “Seeking Justice.” It is the first time I have read an editorial on the issue of sexual abuse by priests that I can wholeheartedly agree with. While I can support an extension of statutes of limitation for future cases, I agree that it is too late to go back and redo old cases where many of the principals are dead—as is the case with me. My bishop dealt with me as soon as he found out about my behavior, but he is dead and I alone stand responsible for the harm that I have done. While I readily understand the need to respond to victims with outreach and compassion, I feel that nothing is served by extending the time for lawsuits. In truth, those lawsuits didn’t really punish perpetrators; as you pointed out, “Draining church coffers will hurt Catholics in the pews and the poor more than it will punish bishops” (and, I would add, abusers themselves). I agree that “the hard work of reconciliation and healing” must begin. I am working with a local victims’-rights organization to this end. Apart from my prayers for all concerned, this is the least that I can do. I also help in our prison pre-release program, which tries to assure that, no matter the crime, there are no more victims.
Ed McKeown
Nashville, Tenn.
SPREADING THE BLAME
It is gratifying to see such honesty in the pages of Commonweal as was exemplified by Thomas Baker’s review of Practicing Catholic by James Carroll (“An Offer You Can Refuse,” May 8).
Baker depicts Carroll’s writing as “itself oppressive. It has striking parallels in the literature of the angry Catholic Right, with its ignorant enemies everywhere opposing the triumph of Truth.” It is about time someone expressed—and better yet, was able to have Commonweal print—the realization of how the self-proclaimed guardians of the “spirit of Vatican II” and memory of John XXIII are as much at fault as those who want to roll back the clock and fail to recognize the sanctity of Papa Roncalli!
Guy J. Di Spigno
Northbrook, Ill.
GENEROUS PRAISE
It is hard to believe that it has been eighteen years since I first read Luke Timothy Johnson and reviewed his Faith’s Freedom for Commonweal (“Faith Seeking Depth,” July 12, 1991). Since then, I and many others have continued to be instructed and challenged by his writing. His article “How Is the Bible True?” (May 22) is but the latest generous gift.
The following sentence struck me as an apt résumé of the conviction that has animated Johnson’s work from the beginning until now: “To read the Bible truly, one must be in the process of being transformed by the world that Scripture imagines; to speak truly about Jesus, one must be in the process of being transformed into his image.”
(Rev.) Robert Imbelli
Chestnut Hill, Mass.
