A new state probe unveiled Wednesday finds that nearly 1,000 children were abused by Catholic leaders in Springfield, Worcester and Fall River over several decades.
Nestled in the more than 200-page report are legislative recommendations for what the state can do to help survivors get justice.
“As we engaged with survivors who had the courage to come forward, we knew that they could not get criminal liability — for example — because the laws are not on their side. We cannot apply laws retroactively, or the statute of limitations have expired,” said Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell in a press conference Wednesday. “But when it comes to civil liability and other accountability, there is an opportunity to ensure that.”
The attorney general elevated three specific changes her office wants to see. One would eliminate what’s known as the charitable immunity cap, which limits payouts in these cases to $20,000 for nonprofit entities, including the church. Another would eliminate the statute of limitations for civil liability in cases of childhood sexual abuse so that survivors can sue for compensation at any time. And a third would create an indefinite “lookback” window, allowing survivors of abuse whose statute of limitations has expired to retroactively sue.
All the reforms Campbell highlighted are currently pending in the state Legislature, although the proposed lookback period would be two years instead of indefinite. A small committee of lawmakers is hashing out the compromise version of a health care affordability bill behind closed doors, which includes the amendment that would make these changes to laws around childhood sexual abuse in Massachusetts. Lawmakers who support the measures are waiting to see the final bill but said they’re “hopeful” they will become law.
“As we’ve known more and more about how this trauma, you know, affects young children, we just got to make sure that we give them the time to come forward on their own timeline,” said state Rep. John Lawn of Watertown, who proposed the amendment now pending with the bill.
Lawmakers told GBH News the Archdiocese of Boston has opposed making these changes.
“The Archdiocese of Boston has fought against any changes to statute of limitations since— for decades,” Lawn said. “They’ve always opposed it in every state, and especially in this state. And I think that [Archbishop Richard] Henning should answer those questions of why they oppose protecting children and survivors, who — especially — have been harmed by the church.”
A spokesperson for the Archdiocese declined to comment on what Lawn told GBH News.
Massachusetts currently allows survivors of childhood sexual abuse to sue their abusers up to 35 years after they turn 18.
State Sen. Joan Lovely of Salem pushed more than a decade ago to raise that civil liability limitation up from three years. Now she’s trying to lift it further.
“I’ve been working hard since then to be able to remove that statute of limitations,” the senator said.
Rosanne Sliney, who says she was abused by a family member as a child, initially came up against that three-year limit when she tried to sue her alleged abuser in 2012. It had been more than 30 years since the last instance of abuse took place.
“By the time I was ready to speak, it was too late,” she recalled to GBH News Thursday.
But then the law changed. The statute of limitations was bumped up to 35 years. And so she appealed up to the Supreme Judicial Court and won, with justices finding that the change to the civil statute of limitations could be retroactively applied to her case.
Sliney went through a two-week trial with her uncle, the man she said abused her, and a jury found he assaulted her and owed her more than $1 million.
Sliney said she still hasn’t received any compensation, but that’s not what mattered to her. What she cared about was accountability and having someone recognize what she says she experienced.
“I know what it means to be told it was too late,” she said. “I also know what it means when the courthouse door opens — finally opens. And justice should definitely not expire. We need to make these perpetrators fear their choices and protect children and give survivors justice.
“My life is so much richer now,” she added. “I was too ashamed. And now that I actually faced that man in court — who I held like a giant. And then I’m looking at him ... and he looks so weak and pitiful. And I was like, ‘That’s who I was afraid of.’”
Elimination of charitable immunity cap
To get accountability for survivors who were abused by members of the Catholic clergy, advocates say it’s essential to eliminate the charitable immunity cap, too.
Right now, anyone who sues the church in Massachusetts for its liability after they were abused by a clergy member can receive a maximum of $20,000. That cap applies to nonprofits to limit their financial liability.
“Frankly, no lawyer is going to pick up the case because they’re only going to make probably a third of that,” said Jetta Bernier, the executive director of the Boston-based nonprofit Enough Abuse. “It’s a huge, huge disincentive for survivors to even go ahead and try to get justice. So the charitable immunity is critical to this whole proposition.”
The third change Campbell called for — the creation of a lookback period — would expand options for survivors who experienced abuse decades ago.
Other states have created similar lookback periods. Rhode Island passed a similar law this summer, establishing a two-year lookback window for civil claims for sexual abuse against institutions.
Lovely, like Campbell, would prefer an “indefinite” lookback period, allowing survivors to come forward at any time. But she said she supports even a two-year window, the measure lawmakers are currently deliberating.
“Let’s at least open that door,” she said. “This is for the survivors who are out there waiting. There will be many survivors who will not come forward. They will not divulge, they will not reveal themselves — and that’s OK. But for those who do, this is why we’re doing this.”
Campbell pointed to the fact that no new indictments were issued with the report’s release, saying there are strict limits on what can be done criminally. As Bernier pointed out, district attorneys have to pick and choose which cases to prosecute.
The attorney general wants the dioceses to take their own steps toward reform and accountability. She called on the Worcester Diocese, in particular, to publish a list of credibly accused clergy members — a step the other dioceses in Massachusetts have all taken.
A spokesperson for the Worcester Diocese defended its decision to not release such a list, referencing its own report that said there is “no other precedent” for publishing such lists in other fields, including medicine and law enforcement.
This week’s report followed another extensive report from the attorney general’s office from 2003. That report focused solely on the Archdiocese of Boston after the Boston Globe’s Spotlight investigation threw the issue of clergy sexual abuse of children into the public’s view.
Lawmakers have a few months to finalize and approve any new laws before the legislative session officially ends in early January.
