While I certainly wouldn't oppose removing the statute of limitations, on the other hand, I don't see current statute to be anything worth getting upset over. They have until age 48 to report they were sexually molested. How much more time did they need? I'm waiting for the accusations against their childhood priests emerging from the nursing homes.

I'm with Patrick; the existing limit seems more than adequate. The longer after-the-fact that you let people file suits of this type, the more garbage suits you get; witnesses die, memories fade and evidence decays or is lost or destroyed. If the limitation is removed, beware the unintended consequences.

Gasp! I agree with you guys on this one. I need to make a note of this date.

Thirty years is already adequate time for anyone to figure it out.

Welcome to the vast multinational business that is the church. Really not much different from other capitalist enterprises, except that they don't have to pay any taxes in the U.S.

This double standard must be eliminated immediately. Stop taxing business! USA out of our boardrooms!

Thirty years is way to long as it is. How one person prove that a claim from 40 years ago is BS. The standard is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The reason there is a statute of limitation is to protect the innocent from abuse from the court system. Recovered memories therapy has been proven to be garbage. 10 years after the age of 18 is long enough for the criminal system.
They should go after the some of these churches on RICO charges.

I have to agree, the current statute of limitations is plenty of time to make a claim of abuse.

As far as taxes go, I think all churches should pay up, just like everyone else.

30 + years is way too long as it is.
Part of the reason for statute of limitations it being able to defend yourself because, you still have records witnesses can still remember things, or when you are talking 30+ yrs, the people involved are actually still alive.

Where were you on the afternoon of June 30th 1974?
What!?! How should I remember it was 36 yrs ago?

Ah no alibi, so you are guilty.

My client clearly remembers every detail of that day.
Really? I doubt it.

Sorry but some of these claims are just get rich quick schemes, people saw victims were getting paid out with the boinus to some of giving a black eye to the church and are playing it up.

Hmm, let me see, 30 yrs ago I was in HS, I should be easily able to find a teacher I had back then that has died since then and threaten to claim sexual misconduct. No one can prove otherwise. So it's either their family or school district or teachers union pay up or I splash it across the front page.

"Sorry but some of these claims are just get rich quick schemes, people saw victims were getting paid out with the boinus to some of giving a black eye to the church and are playing it up."

Could you name them for us? Thanks.

David H - You're correct to an extent; the standard for proving guilt in a CRIMINAL case is "beyond a reasonable doubt." In a civil suit, it's "by a preponderance of the evidence." Suits for money damages aganst the church would be in the civil arena.

As far as taxes go, I think all churches should pay up, just like everyone else.

Not everyone else does pay. There are several kinds of nonprofit corporation, and the percentage of individuals who don't pay any income tax may surprise you.

I'm most interested here in the church's notion that this would be hurtful to the church.

Does anybody disagree with their assertion? It seems fairly obvious to me.

Their remorse for the victims is way too little, way too late.

What should the Catholic Church do?

I totally with Joe on this. It's big business. Of course, there are exceptions, but there are also limits as to how far back justice can reach.

My Dad ran away from home in World War Two at age 14 and joined the British Merchant Marines. I know he went through more than a few gropes and fondles and worse, because he had mentioned them as my brother, sister and I grew up. He mentioned these incidents not as a victim, but as a "you had better learn to watch your ass if you want to participate in this world".

I have no sympathy for the Catholic Church, or the molesters it has employed, but a fat check at the end of a trial 30 years later is not justice. I think (and I may be waaaaaaay off base here) that having participated in creepy sex is not an automatic game-changer for a person's life, but the courts, shrinks and eager attorneys would have you think it is.

I have no problem with invalidating the statute of limitations if someone starts the the suit on the the early side side of the 30 years (i.e. the person files at 26 years, but the suit takes longer 30 until the appeals finishes).

But if you only start at 29 years, 41 weeks -- that looks to me like you are money grubbing.

Jim,
Just so you know, statutes of limitations are based on the time that you file the suit, not the time that it actually ends. For example, in this case, the person has every right to file 29 years and 364 days after the 18th birthday and not violate the statute of limitations (in fact, in most cases, they even have another several months on top of that to serve the complaint). Most civil cases wind up concluding long after the statute of limitations would have been up.

Also, I agree with the other posters that have said that 30 years is plenty of time. It's longer than any other S.O.L. that I'm familiar with (I'm an attorney and work for the court), and certainly enough time to understand that something bad has happened to you. I think that the church's statement that it would hurt the church meant that they would get suits that were not necessarily based on facts and they had no reasonable way of defending, not that they disregarded the harm to the victims. If you can't figure out that something bad happened to you as a child by the time you're 48 years old, it's not unreasonable to conclude that you don't need restitution that badly.

Amy, on the guy who fought for 37 years - generally, the statute of limitations is how long you have to file the suit, not how long you have to fight it out.

As long as you filed the suit before that 48th birthday, you could fight back and forth over it until your 150th birthday, if that's what it takes.

Now, if you (on your own or through the actions of a bad attorney) let the suit get dismissed, you can't refile after that 30th year. But given the much shorter statute of limitations in most cases (2, 4, 7 years, etc.), 30 years is already huge.

Removing the statute of limitations makes sex abuse like murder... I remember when I was a kid out in Arizona, they decided to get tough on sex abuse by tightening up the penalties - except, ooops, they created a perverse incentive where you were better off killing the kid than getting caught having raped one. I don't think that really ought to be the idea.

Amy, I think that because the idea of giving people more than 30 years past their 18th birthday and thinking that that will somehow help the victims or cause justice to be served is completely silly. Thirty years is already pretty silly.