An anti-Catholic editorial in Hell’s Bible… again

From Hell’s Bible (aka The New York Times) comes this anti-Catholic blast.

Justice for Child Abuse Victims
Published: May 14, 2010

The Catholic Church is working against the interests of child abuse victims in state legislatures around the country. [Absurd.] In recent weeks, lobbying by the church has blocked measures [Ummm… how does lobbying block anything?  Also, you are being asked to accept their premise, namely, that that is what is going on, that "the Catholic Church" is trying to do something bad.  Lobbying is bad (unless perhaps you are a lobbyist with a job in the present White House Administration).] in Wisconsin, Arizona and Connecticut intended to widen the legal window for victims to file lawsuits against hidden predators. [What is meant by "hidden predator"?]

We urge the New York State Legislature to rise above intense lobbying by the New York State Catholic Conference [But wait… there’s more…] and Orthodox Jewish officials [Sooooo…. it is not just the Catholic Church involved?  However, the one group the editors of Hell’s Bible hates nearly as much as Catholics, its practicing orthodox Jews.] and pass the overdue Child Victims Act. Like a similar measure enacted in 2003 by California, it would create a one-time, one-year suspension of the statute of limitations for bringing civil lawsuits over the sexual abuse of children.

Once that window closes, people alleging abuse would have until age 28 to bring a claim. Current law sets the limit at 23 in most circumstances.

The measure recognizes that it typically takes many years before victims are ready to come forward. [Get this…] The measure also recognizes the Catholic Church’s history of intimidating victims and burying abuses in church files, creating a shroud of secrecy that extended in many cases until victims were in their 30s or older, well beyond existing time limits for prosecutions or civil lawsuits.  [I wonder what the language of this "measure" is.]

An earlier version of the bill passed the Assembly in 2006, 2007 and 2008, but the Senate, then under Republican control, [eeeevil REPUBLICANS!  They are as bad as Catholics or even ORTHODOX Jews.  Incredible.] refused to consider it. Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver expresses strong support for the latest bill, amended to cover abuses by both religious and non- religious entities. But he is insistent that the Senate act first before requiring his members to cast another politically sensitive vote on the issue.

The Senate Codes Committee is set to consider the measure by mid-June. The committee’s chairman, Eric Schneiderman, Democrat of Manhattan, should work to ensure passage of the bill, which has safeguards against the filing of bogus claims.

The Catholic Church fears a wave of costly settlements and damage awards like those that followed California’s temporary lifting of the statute of limitations several years ago. [But don’t worry, subscribers! We’ll tear at them until they BLEEEEEED.] Those concerns, and the difficulty of trying to judge decades-old accusations, are outweighed by the need to afford victims a measure of justice, the demands of public safety, [What a smear.  The Church has done more than any other organization in the USA to deal with the problem of abuse of children.] and the injustice of rewarding any group for covering up sexual abuse of children.

A version of this editorial appeared in print on May 16, 2010, on page WK9 of the New York edition.


If you needed a demonstration of their ability to hate, here it is, draped in the guise of self-righteousness.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Biased Media Coverage, Clerical Sexual Abuse, The Drill, The Last Acceptable Prejudice, Throwing a Nutty. Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Rob Cartusciello says:

    I have a modest proposal. Include an extension of the statute of limitations & a waiver of sovereign immunity for abuse committed in public schools.

    Only then should it be allowed to pass.

  2. Rob: How do you think the teachers’ unions would like that?

  3. ghlad says:

    As I was telling some friends a few weeks ago (when was running a horribly-misleading story about Connecticut’s attempt to legislate this same anti-Catholic law), even in the Justinian Code there is made us of Statute of Limitations. To do away with them is a monumental step backwards in law.

    They don’t exist to shield wrong-doers from justice, but to ensure fair evaluation. Most of these priests are dead or dying (for better or worse, God help them), the parish records have been moved or lost, the victims are decades older… in other words, the facts will be impossible to establish. There is no rigorous evaluation to be made other than conflicting statements when the Statute of Limitations are tossed aside.

    Talk about a lawyer’s paradise.

    By the way, wasn’t it Jeff Anderson (a lawyer) that was whipping up the media about all of these decades-old stories of abuse? Oh, probably a coincidence.

  4. Grabski says:

    How about extending the statute but also capping lawyers fees to a modest ‘costs’.

    That would end this end run around our legal system.

    Ghlad You are right; and he was whipping up stories in the NYT itself.

  5. Bosco says:

    Frankly I’m surprised no one has yet attempted to invoke the R.I.C.O. statutes against the Church as a ‘corrupt enterprise’. Give them time and they will though.

  6. peregrinPF says:

    I am getting to the point, no I am already beyond the point, where I do not see that civilization is worth saving. The utter and complete hatred of Our Lord by those infected by the plagues of Liberalism, Socialism Materialism, Relativism, and Capitalism is so pervasive that is impossible to cure.

    I say let civilization fall and have the Church rebuild it. We, as Catholics, must really take a look at establishing a white market economy (the current on is a black market one) along with all other services needed for when, not if, civilization implodes.

  7. TrueLiturgy says:

    Fr. Z to Rob: haha!! Yeah, let’s see that happen!

    Honestly, I think that the NYtimes is grasping for things now that the media attack of the Church has died down a bit. They are trying to bring it back. On the main page of they put up an article on Bishop Dolan which I can’t tell if it is in favor of him or not:

  8. Elly says:

    I’m suprised by the mention of Orthodox Jews. I was unaware that they were hated by the media. I thought that since they are a minority they are considered unique and special and Catholics are the hated cultural threat because they are so numerous.

  9. torch621 says:

    Not surprised. It is Hell’s Bible, after all.

    I am a bit surprised at the mention of Orthodox Jews though. Is the New York Slimes expanding its target list? Sure seems that way.

  10. chironomo says:

    Elly and Torch621:

    Is it REALLY that surprising that the propaganda arm of a socialist/ marxist regime is attacking Catholics and ….. JEWS? Is that really all that surprising? Let’s see this for what it is…. they need a target to focus attention away from the real action.

    BTW…. a “hidden predator” is a Catholic Priest. That’s all…the children he abused just haven’t come forward yet. That’s what they’re implying.

  11. Grabski says:

    Chironomo I think they are now pivoting to ‘hidden predators’, since the number of cases (per John Jay Report) is down by 94% from the early-1980s peaks. That is, the sex abuse crisis is a spirit of VII crisis that has been dealt with by JPII and BXVI.

    So to get around the clear statistical data, they invent a number that is not countable – hence hidden. If it’s hidden, then the plain facts become nothing.

  12. SimonDodd says:

    Bosco, I’m not very familiar with RICO, but aren’t its prohibitions written in terms of “enterprise[s]” which are “engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce,” 18 U.S.C. § 1962? One might think that a suit arising from such language would have to allege not only an enterprise (as which the Church presumably qualifies under the statute’s definition, see 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4)) but activities in the nature of commerce. Cf. United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000). I see a few scraps of online commentary suggesting a RICO case, but no substantive analysis about why it’s viable.

  13. pberginjr says:

    The article on Abp. Dolan that TrueLiturgy mentions opens with Dolan arriving, “in Milwaukee as the new archbishop, succeeding a prelate who had been caught up in scandal.” Is this perhaps the same prelate whom was quoted by Hell’s Bible in the story that started this whole mess. I’m not in the least surprised, but I must say, “Oh the hypocrisy.”

  14. ikseret says:

    Notice also how it’s “Orthodox Jewish OFFICIALS.” The Times does not want to become anti-Semitic, right?
    So, they are only mentioned once while the “Catholic Church” as you point out, is their real target.
    Anti-Catholicism is always legitimate.

  15. EXCHIEF says:

    The main issue, as Rob points out, is not the Hell’s bible but the whole issue of extending or eliminating the statute of limitations. Up to the present those states which have taken that action have focused it almost exclusively on the Catholic Church. I fully agree that what is fair (or unfair) for one is fair for all. Some studies have shown that sexual abuse in public institutions (schools, youth detention centers, orphanages, etc) is almost as extensive as we have seen in the Church. Of course government would not want to expose itself to liability. That, coupled with government employee labor union opposition and the underlying attempt to destroy the Catholic Church explains the narrowness of the statute of limitations waiver.

    As for RICO, there has been one attempt to apply it to the Catholic Church sexual abuse of minors situation. That was not successful but it did open the door. You can bet that the (in)justice department of the current regime is working overtime to figure out a way to apply it as they are working fevorishly to indict the Pope and haul the Catholic Church as a whole into court.

    There is no excuse for the abuses nor is there an excuse for the poor way some (but not all) Bishops have dealt with the issue. But make no mistake the real agenda by anti-religious administrations (which clearly includes the Obama administration) is to destroy the Catholic Church which is the biggest potential opponent of the secular agenda.

  16. markomalley says:

    If you needed a demonstration of their ability to hate, here it is, draped in the guise of self-righteousness.

    Actually, no demonstration is really needed. They are liberal elitists who have deigned themselves members of the nomenklatura. They, therefore, have the inherent right to pass judgment on anybody and everybody else…it is axiomatic that they will hate.

  17. RichardT says:

    Didn’t I read that the state School Boards, the county governments and local Mayors were all also lobbying against waiving or increasing the Statute of Limitations?

    Did they get a mention in the NYT article, or is it just the evil Catholics?

  18. cl00bie says:

    We had this debate last year. I got involved in it by writing letters to my legislator and state senator. My concern was the violation of equal protection under the law as protected by the 14th amendment to the constitution. Legislators wanted to be able to have different rules apply to a minority (private organizations, eg. Catholic Church, Boy Scouts, etc.) than public entities like Public Schools (which abuse at a rate 400 times greater than the Catholic Church).

    I told them either all or nothing. If they are so conderned with victim’s rights, why are they not concerned with the victims of public school employees, public orphanage workers, etc.?

    So now they’re at it again.

    I’m not worried. With the anti-government, anti-Democrat sentiment all through the state, Shelly Silver is not going to touch this one with a 10 foot pole.

Comments are closed.