Connecticut bill to lift statute of limitations fails
CWN - May 05, 2010
Legislation that would have lifted the statute of limitations in abuse cases in Connecticut has been withdrawn in the state House of Representatives.
“Connecticut already has the longest retroactive statute in the United States-- 30 years past the age of 18,” the state’s bishops noted in a letter read at all Masses on April 10 and 11. “Over the past several years in states that have even temporarily eliminated the statutes, it has caused the bankruptcy of at least seven dioceses. House Bill 5473 would make Connecticut the only State without a statute of limitations. This bill would put all Church institutions, including your parish, at risk.”
Additional sources for this story
Some links will take you to other sites, in a new window.
|
An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus: Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach five million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you! |
Progress toward our June expenses ($13,107 to go):
$30,000.00
$16,892.93
44%
56%
|
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
-
Posted by: unum -
May. 06, 2010 7:23 AM ET USA
Ah, would that the bishops teach as Jesus did with the same fervor that they protect "institutional assets". I don't recall that Jesus had any assets (or a place to lay His head) to get in the way of preaching the message of the gospels.
-
Posted by: paulmay6949 -
May. 05, 2010 7:18 PM ET USA
I am probably "off base" here, but, what would the "statute of limitations" matter if a diocese had no criminals in its employ? Protection of "institutional assets" means, in these times, money and physical property. If the "Spiritual assets" had been more vigorously valued and tended to, none of this would have been a worry.
-
Posted by: Savonarola -
May. 05, 2010 5:44 PM ET USA
The Church's vigorous opposition to this stems, of course, for its ferocious concern for protecting its institutional assets. Why don't we see from the Connecticut bishops the same sort of vigor in defending life? When will the "heavily Catholic" state of Connecticut elect some pro-life politicians?
