A thought

Share Button

A thought…

There is much scuttle on the net about the pending release of the Vatican’s new norms of clerical sexual abuse.  Current reports say the statute of limitations will be extended to 10 years from the victim’s 18th birthday, others claim it will be extended to 20.   Neither is satisfactory.  Those familiar with the sex abuse scandal in the Church know well that large numbers of victims do not summon the courage to come forward for 30 or more years. 

Why should the mere fact that a priest hasn’t been exposed as a molester within a statutory time frame allow him to continue to masquerade ad infinitum as a holy man of God? 

I don’t understand the desire for a statute of limitations at all.  I would think that Church officials should be thankful for any opportunity to weed out the wheat from the chaff, whether the allegations date back 20, 25, 30 or 40 years. 

Really!  Why would “the Church” NOT want to investigate ALL allegations of clerical sexual abuse?

Is it a financial thing?  I can think of no other ‘good’ reason.’  Not one.

Enough for now,



This entry was posted in Accused or charged, Clerical sexual predators and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to A thought

  1. AbsentObserver says:

    This is puzzling and concerning. I’m pretty sure there is no statute of limitations in the Criminal Code of Canada when it comes to sexual crimes. I don’t think it matters if a person comes forward 50 years after the assault occurred … as long as there’s an individual or a corporation or some entity to potentially be held responsible, the police can lay charges and the Crown can put them before a judge.
    Is this simply another way the church can get around the situation? It’s pretty normal for a victim to wait years and years before coming forward. The church knows this. Why put these limits in place? It’s got to be about self-preservation. It’s certainly not being done in the best interests of the victims.

  2. Sylvia says:

    No, there is no statute of limitations in Canada. Some judges would like to see one – I recall the matter being raised by judges at at least two of the Project Truth sex abuse trials in Conrwall, Ontario – I can’t recall off hand which judges, but it stuck with me enough that I half-expected to hear it as a recommenation from Justice Normand Glaude. Thankfully I think that by the time the inquiry wrapped up recommending a statute of limitations would have gone over like a lead balloon, plus it’s a federal matter and would have been beyond the scope of his mandate.

    I can’t see that a statue of limitations on crimes of sexual abuse truly serves any best interests aside those of sexual predators.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *