Foreword

by Marci A. Hamilton

Those who would like to pretend clergy abuse is not a real problem, or an ancient problem, ought to sit down now and listen to the entire Philadelphia Investigating Grand Jury Report.

It is sobering - recounting the stories of over 60 abusing priests and more victims, and establishing, to a virtual certainty, that there are many other victims about whom we don't even know.

Not all of the abuse is decades old. The abuse is often ritualistic, always sick, and destroys both girls and boys.

Yet the report's legal conclusion will be troubling to many: According to the D.A.'s Office, there is no possibility of bringing criminal charges against the newly discovered perpetrators or the Archdiocese. Nor is there a chance of bringing charges against Cardinals Bevilacqua and Krol, or Secretary for Clergy Monsignor William J. Lynn.

That conclusion does not stem from any finding that the institution, or these men, did not engage in indictable offenses. Rather, it is simply because the statute of limitations has expired on all of the criminal charges that might, earlier, have been lodged.

The report heavily underlines what has long been clear: It's time for all states to abolish child abuse statutes of limitations for criminal charges in the future.  It's also time for all states to retroactively and prospectively abolish statutes of limitations for civil claims based on child sex abuse.

The citizens of Pennsylvania - and especially its legislature -- should be shocked by the Philadelphia D.A's report, because it is inconceivable that the Commonwealth's laws could be so utterly inadequate to address so great an evil.

I too would have been shocked by my experience in assisting with the report. But to me, the report's conclusions were all too familiar.

I have testified and litigated on the side of clergy abuse victims in numerous states.  I also frequently write on the subject. As a result, I have met too many victims, and seen too much suffering, to have been able to hold onto the hope that perhaps Philadelphia's could be an Archdiocese that did not have such problems.

At this point, I strongly doubt there is any Archdiocese or diocese in this country immune from this plague. And I have come to this conclusion on the basis of harsh experience, with the hope it might have been otherwise. My husband and kids are Catholic; I'm Presbyterian. Certainly, I have no quarrel with Catholicism, and I am a religious person.

However, the actions of some of the Catholic Church's leaders have left me appalled, disgusted, and dismayed with them -- and also with a Church that continues to support them, while leaving children to be preyed upon, and leaving adults who once were just such children, to suffer abuse's lasting harms.

The Philadelphia investigation, like so many before it, unearthed strong evidence of enormous harm and evil. In the face of this evidence, it is extremely dispiriting for those of us who believe in the American system to think such wrongdoing cannot result in criminal charges. What the report chronicles, after all, is a series of horrific crimes against the most vulnerable of victims.

The Archdiocese's "response" to the report should be subtitled, "It's All About Us." Setting aside the throw-away opening and closing paragraphs, its 60+ pages continues the callous disregard of children that has been repeatedly evident since this controversy began.

Unbelievably, the Archdiocese's repeatedly tries to make it sound as though the lack of indictments absolves it of criminal and moral responsibility. But the truth is, they got off on a technicality.

Moreover, in civil cases, they may not be so lucky.  While extending criminal statutes of limitations retroactively has been held unconstitutional, that is not true of civil statutes of limitations. Under our Constitution, civil statutes of limitations may, indeed, be retroactively extended. Let us hope that in Pennsylvania, they are - and that when the cases are litigated, victims cite the Archdiocese's pitiful response to the D.A's report as evidence in favor of a large award of punitive damages.

Let's put the technicality of the statute of limitations aside, and look at the substance of the report. It is unequivocal. On the merits, but for the statute of limitations, the dozens of priest perpetrators who were placed in one parish after another were guilty of rape, statutory sexual assault, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, indecent assault, endangering welfare of children, and corruption of minors. The tragedy is that victims need such a long period of time to come forward and none had the capacity to come before the grand jury within the statute of limitations. It is still everyone's hope involved in this investigation that those who were more recently abused will be able to stop the cycle of abuse and come forward now.

Ten, or even twenty, years from now, the question will be asked whether Pennsylvania adequately responded to the facts laid out before it in the Philadelphia grand jury's report. No longer can lack of knowledge be used as an excuse.

Childhood sexual abuse - in Pennsylvania and every other state - cannot continue to be governed by laws that favor abusers and the institutions knowingly continuing to employ them.

Doubtless, the Catholic Church will continue to lobby against such reforms, making reform difficult. But the fact that justice is hard to achieve, is no excuse for not striving for it.

Too many children have been hurt too much, for too long. The failure to change, at this point - with all this evidence before us - would be inexcusable.

The facts demand reform, and the politics, for once, need to be set aside for the sake of our children.