Well, I have some questions: Whose justice is being sought and what are the principles for fairness? Tell me exactly for whom justice is being sought NOW for victims of sex abuse? Show me where the reasonableness of the proposed bill to extend the statute of limitations is? NY State Assemblywoman Margaret M. Markey (her area of concern is
Even the civil liberties groups and Jewish congregations are against the Markey bill.
As Margaret Markey explains the justification of the bill:
Sex crimes, particularly those committed against children, are among the most heinous and deeply disturbing in our society. They are crimes that leave life-long scars, multiple victims and require an all encompassing strategy to combat. This proposal would extend the authority to prosecute and to bring a civil lawsuit for damages in child sexual abuse cases in three significant ways, regardless of whether or not DNA evidence is available. This bill will provide a remedy for those whose lives have been unalterably changed by the horror of childhood sexual abuse. Victims of these horrific crimes will get their day in court and be able to seek the justice they have been denied.
I think reasonable people would agree with the first two sentences. No one would say otherwise. The rest is silly, if not plain irrational, unlawful and bigoted. Who would agree to being tried for a crime of embezzlement without proof that money was first present and then stolen? Plus, credible evidence based on someone’s memory says that memory is unreliable, period. People tested for memory recall have failed expert tests trying to prove there is infallible. A 60 Minutes article demonstrated this fact a few weeks ago. Hence, if all you have to go on is one’s memory of a supposed event 30 years ago then it seems hardly possible that a conviction will be justifiably given. From what’s presented you get the sense the Markey bill is less about justice than retribution.
That this bill could jeopardize the ministries of the Catholic Church in NY and other religious and civil groups is a serious matter to understand. It may very well force the closings of parishes, schools and other social services. Taht said, the Church being poorer may not be a bad thing because it is not built on money, fame and power but on the Lord. We all have to ask ourselves is willing the good of another actually being sought in this bill? Don’t get me wrong, money pays the bills and yet it has no intrinsic value and it won’t get you into heaven. I see no reason to stake the bill’s overturn on the premise that it will bankrupt the Church so I would rather see the bill’s overturn based on solid principles of Catholic Social Teaching and good theology first. The Church is not concerned with money for the sake of acquiring money; any assets the Church possesses is used for the proclamation of the Gospel and serving the common good. Certainly seek justice within the framework of principle not sentiment.