State reps feel church’s heat for abuse bill vote
Nick Miccarelli knows a little bit about combat and the art of war. After all, he’s an Iraq War vet – and he serves in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives.
He just didn’t expect to encounter it in his parish church.
Miccarelli, a Republican from Ridley Park, barely had time to take the oath of office after winning election back in 2008 when he found himself shipping off to Iraq with his National Guard unit. The youngish looking pol flew choppers in Operation Desert Storm.
Today he finds himself at the center of another storm, one that he never would have imagined.
Miccarelli is one of the majority of representatives – from both parties – who voted in favor of House Bill 1947. The measure would expand the window for victims of child sexual abuse to file civil actions against their abusers and the institutions that employed or supervised them.
As you might expect, it is not a particularly popular piece of legislation with the Catholic church, which is mounting a vigorous campaign against the legislation. The bill passed the House by a 180-15 and is about to be taken up by the state Senate.
Leading the charge is Philadelphia Archbishop Charles J. Chaput. Last week a letter from the archbishop was either read or distributed at all Masses in the region urging the faithful to contact their legislators and vote against House Bill 1947. Chaput was successful in beating back a similar legislative effort as leader of the archdiocese in Denver before arriving in Philadelphia as controversy surrounding the priest child sexual abuse scandal roiled the pews.
Miccarelli knew he would take some heat his vote.
But he didn’t expect to see his name casually dropped into the church bulletin in his home parish of St. Rose of Lima in Eddystone, with a reminder to parishioners that he voted for the bill, and including what he insists is a misrepresentation of what the legislation does.
Miccarelli was livid. In part because he believes the message was just wrong, but also because no one at the church bothered to reach out to him before going name-dropper on him.
Here’s what the paragraph in the parish bulletin said:
“JUST SO YOU ARE AWARE,” read the headline. “State Representative Miccarelli voted in favor of House Bill 1947, which states that private institutions can be sued as far as 40 years ago for millions of dollars, while public institutions may not be sued for any crimes committed in the past.” for
The soldier was going back to war, this time with his own church.
First he reached out to me. I wrote a couple of blog items on the controversy, including Miccarelli’s angry reaction.
I also did something else. I urged him to write a guest column, and told him while I can’t put it in the church bulletin, I could put it on our op-ed page. That’s where it appeared on Thursday.
The state rep did not pull any punches, noting he was “shocked” when he learned of the item in the bulletin, and labeled the contention that it gives public institutions a pass as “patently untrue.”
Miccarelli said his vote was based on seeking justice for the victims of abuse. The church’s opposition is zeroing in on the matter of public institutions and whether the law views them differently than private institutions, such as the church.
It turns out Miccarelli is not the only pol who backed the bill feeling some heat.
New state Rep. Jamie Santora, another Republican, from the 163rd District in Upper Darby, goes so far as to question if the church has stepped over the line into what he calls “electioneering,” looking to influence process.
The democratic notion of the separation of church and state was meant to stop the state from meddling in religious affairs. It says nothing of the opposite, when the church looks to influence political matters.
Santora is particularly upset that he now finds a target on his back after he bent over backward to seek funding to help with the visit of Pope Francis last September. He’s also been one of the leaders in pushing educational grants for students at parochial schools.
Separation of church and state? Apparently that is determined by which side of these tough issues you reside.
Chaput’s letter also did not exactly shy away from the matter, branding the the political legislation as “a clear attack on the church, her parishes and her people.”
The fear is that huge awards stemming from a new wave of civil actions would damage the work of the church, including its programs for the poor, and possibly even resulting in the closure of more schools and parishes. He suggests the burden eventually will be borne by Catholic parishes and families.
Miccarelli down.
“Does the hierarchy believe that 180 members of the House are out to get the Catholic church?” Miccarelli wrote. “Maybe they think that our goal is to attack the church and to let government entities get off scot-free? It is incomprehensible that they could believe either of these thoughts to be our true intentions.
“Frankly, I would much rather be chastised from the altar, than to be damned for not allowing justice to be done.”
In the battle of House Bill 1947, Nick Miccarelli is starting to feel like collateral damage. is not backing