Ex post facto, anyone?
It seems that the Ohio legislature has joined the Popular Movement to Ban Catholicism:
The day got off to an emotional and bizarre start as people who said they were sexually abused by priests as children lined the main doorway into the House chamber, shouting and calling lawmakers names like "coward." They were upset that House Speaker Jon Husted had removed a provision in a bill that would have allowed victims a one-year window to file lawsuits seeking monetary damages against clergy for alleged abuse from up to 35 years ago.Most lawmakers ducked through another door behind an area where lobbyists and media were standing. Husted, Republican of Kettering, avoided the area altogether, taking a side door into the chamber.
Following passionate and personal speeches from legislators, the bill passed, 77 to 16. Most said that despite the tweaks from a version unanimously passed by the Senate a year ago, the bill was still strong.
The statute of limitations for suing clergy for sexual abuse - currently two years after reaching age 18 - would be extended to 12 years. The Senate wanted to extend it to 20 years.
And for cases where the statute of limitations has expired, the House version would allow the state attorney general, local prosecutor or victim to sue a priest - but not for monetary damages. If guilty, the priest would be listed by the state as a child-sex offender.
Now, far be it from me to put in a good word for pervert priests; I am sure that the Christian God created a Hell just for them. But the image of a legislature at the mercy of an angry mob, appeasing it by boosting the statute of limitations...that does not instill confidence that an answer has been found. And indeed, the only people this bill will really benefit are lawyers.
Comments
Posted by:
Posted on: March 30, 2006 03:04 PM
Am I missing something? How does this law "Ban Catholicism"?
Posted by: Jeffrey Quick
Posted on: March 30, 2006 04:08 PM
Yes, you're missing something: A NAME. If you want to come in here and start something, then show a face, even if it's just a mask.
You're also missing some reading comprehension.Where did I say the law would "ban Catholicism"? I said it was part a Popular Movement to Ban Catholicism (which, being capitalized, reads like a proper name, except that to the best of my knowledge no such political movement exists). Yes, I do think the motivations and certainly the results of this law are implicitly anti-Catholic. There's been a lot of child abuse for a long time. All of it has been wrong. Suddenly it's on the front burner because it's been a bunch of priests. This just makes it easier for everyone and their brother to sue the church with its perceived deep pockets. I'm not excusing the church here. They turned a blind eye for a long while, because they were desperate for priests and let in people who hadn't worked through their sexual issues. But there are more ways to deal with the problem besides suing, especially for believers. What would Jesus do? I think that if Jesus had been molested, he would have forgiven. If Jesus had a SON who had been molested, well, there were those whips he used on the moneychangers. :-)
Posted by: The Mask
Posted on: March 30, 2006 06:43 PM
You were talking about a law and say that the "Ohio legislature has joined the Popular Movement to Ban Catholicism". Why would people interpret it to mean anything else other than you are suggesting this laws bans Catholicism? Maybe you should try to be a little more clear in your statements, rather than attacking people that had an honest question for you and meant no insult to you. You should not be surprised that you get anonymous responses on your blog with the way you treat people.