Bishops should worry first about protecting children

Bishops should worry first about protecting children
EDITOR:
Senate Bill 17 is proposed legislation to protect children from sexual abuse. The Vindicator reported that Bishop Frederick Campbell, representing all Ohio bishops, fielded tough questions. They were so tough he couldn't give an answer to most of them. He apologized, pointing out he is new to Ohio, being bishop here only 11 months.
Why would anyone be against proposed law that would protect innocent children? Why are the Catholic bishops the only ones against this bill? Advocates of the bill were clearly after justice and they made their case again and again when they testified. Bishop Campbell was at a loss to explain the bishops' opposition to the legislation, hence, many, many unanswered questions.
The look-back window of one year allowing past victims to file suit for crimes as far back as the '70s is the most difficult part of the legislation for the bishops to accept. Bishop Campbell asked the House Judiciary Committee: "Are we talking about identifying perpetrators or are we talking about protecting children?" Obviously the bishop is concerned about priest perpetrators being exposed. But Rep. Sandra Harwood, D-Niles, stated: "It's one and the same. By identifying them, that's how you protect children." There are predators out there and the bishops have shifted them from one parish to another, diocese to diocese, state to state, even country to country. What kind of insanity is it to expose more and more children to abuse? How does keeping a sex criminal's identity secret protect children? Is the image of the institutional church that important?
Another objection to the bill was that it would cost the church millions of dollars. Maybe that's the price of justice. But I think of a woman who weeps often, thinking about all the children victimized years after her son was raped. But she was paid a small sum to get counseling on condition she keep quiet. The church has spent far more money on attorney fees than on assisting victims.
According to Bishop Campbell the new legislation would somehow prevent the accused priest from getting a fair defense. But when Rep. Matthew Dolan, R-Novelty, queried the bishop about the practice of moving priests from place to place to hide them and flat out lying to people, he declined to speak for the other bishops.
Rep Dale Miler, D-Cleveland, came up with a list of concerns of the bishops: fear of negative publicity, large financial settlements, and exposing of confidential records. I would suggest the exposure of confidential record is the bishops' greatest fear. This would offer proof for all to see that the bishops had prior knowledge of the crimes against children and did nothing about it. This information was the demise of Cardinal Law in Boston. The bishops fear the exposure of their criminal acts in aiding and abetting criminals. The statute of limitations currently protects them from prosecution.
JOHN F. WIRTZ
North Jackson
Fight against Godless society
EDITOR:
There is a movement to remove any reference to God in the public square. Imagine, people of the Jewish faith are coming forward to defend the right to keep Christ in Christmas. So even though the Democratic Party is "out of tune," people of faith defend the importance of religion.
It isn't the economy that brings unity. It isn't the war that brings unity. But it's our faith in God that unites, because our lives are of little value without "the one" who gives purpose to all. So people of faith remain in tune with their creator, who isn't a "something," but who is a someone. So people of faith, fight the "good fight" to keep God at the center of our lives.
Christians should join their Jewish brothers and sisters in defending Christianity ... and visa versa.
SYLVIA KOCZWARA
Boardman