Sponsor of Priest-Abuse Bill Wants Church to Let It Pass

By Jim Siegel
Columbus Dispatch
November 10, 2005

Eight months after the Ohio Senate unanimously passed a bill praised by those who were sexually abused by priests, heavy lobbying by the Roman Catholic Church continues to bottle it up in the House.

The delays have frustrated bill sponsor Sen. Robert F. Spada, a Catholic who is disappointed in the actions of his church's leaders.

"Their Web site says they're protecting God's children, but I think that only goes so far with them," the North Royalton Republican said.

The emotional debate surrounds a bill that could mean more embarrassment and financial hardship for the Catholic Church, which has paid millions of dollars to settle lawsuits stemming from sex-abuse claims involving priests since 2002.

Catholic bishops in Ohio have sent letters and held rare meetings with lawmakers, including House Speaker Jon A. Husted and House Judiciary Committee Chairman John R. Willamowski, to voice concerns about the bill.

House leaders have given it just one committee hearing since it passed the Senate in March. A second is scheduled for this morning.

The Catholic Conference of Ohio has no objection to much of Senate Bill 17, such as the provision that adds clergy members to the list of people legally required to report suspected cases of child abuse.

The bill also extends the statute of limitations for filing a suit in new sex-abuse cases to 20 years past the victim's 18th birthday, compared with one year under current law.

The big controversy involves the retroactive portion of the bill -- during a one-year window after the bill is enacted, any victim could sue for sex abuse that occurred up to 35 years earlier.

Opponents say it's unconstitutional. Supporters disagree, arguing that the provision is vital not only to give victims their day in court, but also to root out pedophiles still involved with children because the statute of limitations ran out.

Suing them, supporters argue, would make their names public.

"Believe me, that will go a long, long way in making sure children are not molested by people of the cloth," said Sen. Patricia Clancy, R-Cincinnati.

"I don't think the Catholic Church, for one, has done everything they possibly can to ensure that type of activity will never happen again."

Timothy Luckhaupt, executive director of the Catholic Conference of Ohio, disagrees.

"I don't think you're going to find these situations ever occurring again within our church, because of the proactive stance that we've taken now," he said.

The Catholic Church is making three main arguments against the one-year window:

• It's unfair. Going back 35 years means applying what we know today about pedophiles to a time when more people believed they could be treated and returned to the ministry.

• It's unconstitutional. And even if some people disagree, lawmakers should wait to see what the Ohio Supreme Court does with two pending cases involving people who sued the Catholic Church after the statute of limitations ran out.

• It's unnecessary. The Catholic Church has taken a number of steps to prevent future sex abuse, including sex-abuse awareness training, and many dioceses have published the names of priests found to have committed sex abuse.

About 60 members of SNAP -- the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests -- rallied Downtown yesterday in support of the one-year window for cases up to 35 years old. Leaders say it's the only part of the bill that will help victims abused years ago and unmask predators.

"The dioceses have been covering up sex crimes committed against our children for decades," said Claudia Vercellotti, a SNAP leader from Toledo. "We need a permanent record."

Victims are upset that they've been unable to tell their stories to the House Judiciary Committee. Willamowski said he wants to settle the constitutionality debate before bringing in victims.

Today, the committee will hear from a three-member panel of legal experts.

"If you abuse a kid, I'm not inclined to let you off the hook," Willamowski said. "So if there's truly not a constitutional impediment, then let 'em sue."

SNAP representative Marci Hamilton of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York will argue today in favor of the one-year window. This year, she helped convince senators that it's constitutional.

Two other panelists, including Christopher Fairman, an associate law professor at Ohio State University, will argue that the window is unconstitutional.

The Ohio Supreme Court has not yet addressed the issue, Fairman said, but the state Constitution generally prohibits the legislature from passing retroactive laws.

"If the claim is already dead because it's too late, it's as if the legislature were creating some new offense of which you would have not had notice," he said.

By raising constitutional questions, Spada said, church leaders are trying to avoid additional lawsuit payouts and media attention.

"It will probably be a kangaroo court," Spada said of today's hearing.

He said the legislature has passed plenty of bills carrying some question about constitutionality.

"If it's unconstitutional, they should take it to court and prove it that way," Spada said. "I think they're lobbying to prevent these names from being made public."

jsiegel@dispatch.com