Equal protections for public and private?

In a recent New York Times article, “Religious Leaders Battle Abuse in New York,” author Paul Vitello describes the backlash from Roman Catholic and Orthodox Jewish officials over the Child Victims Act, a bill that would give people who were sexually abused as children a one year exemption from the statute of limitations during which they could take their case to civil court, regardless of how long ago the alleged incident of abuse occurred. At the close of the year, the statute of limitations, currently five years, would be extended to ten years after the victim has turned eighteen. While this is not the first time the bill has been brought before the State Legislature, the previous Republican majority consistently voted against the bill, despite longstanding support from New York Governor David Paterson. However, with a new Democratic majority in the State Senate and a solid possibility that the bill will go through, a coalition of Catholic and Orthodox Jewish leaders have come out in strong opposition to the bill’s passage, arguing that it is a direct attempt to bankrupt the Catholic Church and other religious institutions that have been similarly marred with charges of sexual abuse. Opponents contend that the bill “unfairly singles out religious and private institutions,” as public institutions operate under established state law that requires all claims made against a public employee or agency to be filed within 90 days, or, in the case of abuse against a minor, until 90 days after the victim has turned 18. Proponents argue that just because the bill does not redress sexual abuse against all victims, it does not mean the bill should be abandoned entirely.

While I think the discrepancy between the treatment of public and private institutions is problematic, and that the bill should apply universally, the claim that representatives of the Catholic Church are making, namely that the State government is trying to bankrupt the Church by giving sexual abuse victims the opportunity to take legal action against their alleged abusers seems to border on outlandish. While the State does seem to be protecting public workers at the expense of abuse victims, the State, in applying the law to all private institutions, does not seem to be targeting any church or private, secular organization. Moreover, that these religious organizations are coming out so strongly against this bill seems to contradict the social justice initiative and moral fiber that ground religious teaching. While the State does appear to be unfairly protecting agencies and workers, the argument that not only does this law explicitly discriminate against the Catholic Church and other religious institutions but is moreover an intentional attempt to financially dismantle the Catholic Church in the state of New York, and consequently, should not be passed by State legislatures, comes across as the Church protecting its employees at the expense of its members who have suffered abuses. I think it’s enormously unfortunate that the State’s protection of its employees has given these religious lobbies the leverage to potentially block a bill that would extend the rights of sexual abuse victims.