Fake Dudgeon and Real Animosity

Frankly, everyone behind this egregious bill should be dragged into the street and shot in full view of the public. The bill alleges to be a child sex abuse protection bill--but it is in reality just a sue the Church bill. Were members of the Church clergy guilty of child sex abuse? Yes, and those people have done uncountable damage to their victims, to the Church, and to the community as a whole. They have also been sued repeatedly, or, at least, the Church has been sued repeatedly, over this, with the result being that attempts at reparations have been made to those who came forward. There was even a previous bill in California which would allow people to sue past the statute of limitations, though the time on this bill has now expired:

Like the previous law, Senate Bill 131 would permit many victims who would otherwise be unable to file a civil suit due to time and age restrictions — like the Quarry brothers — to sue their abuser's employer in civil court.... 

The Catholic Church did not fight the 2002 bill that opened the flood gates for hundreds of victims and led to $1.2 billion in settlements from dioceses statewide, including $660 million in Los Angeles alone. This time, however, the church is fighting hard against the proposed legislation — from the pews to lobbyists.

I might be more sympathetic to this bill, if not for the fact that it is patently targeting the Church, specifically the Church. The bill exempts the public school system (a worse offender than the Church), and any other public system. So while it plays up the dudgeon against the Church for her clergy's decades-old child-abuse problems (literally, since this bill would only affects people who were abused as children decades ago, since anyone under the age of 26 or who was abused fewer than 3 years ago can already sue without this bill), it sweeps under the rug any of the valid complaints against (for example) the public school system.

It may be argued that it is worse to have a priest abuse a child than a teacher, since priests ought to be held to a higher level of authority and accountability, but this would also require that they be held to that higher level of authority in society as a whole. A priest does (or should) have greater moral authority than a school teacher, and thus when he does something wrong it matters more to society (or should), morally, that is. But in California and elsewhere, they aren't accorded greater moral authority than teachers, at least not by society as a whole, nor greater legal authority. Therefore, they should also not be treated as legally different.

This law in effect says that child abuse by a priest is legally different from child abuse by a teacher. That is not justice, but rather it is fake dudgeon placed in the service of real acrimony. And I get the impression that, while the child abuse scandal gives reason for animosity against the Church, it is not actually the real source of that animosity, at least not for the multitude who are using it as a club against the Church (and especially against its moral teachings) while ignoring it in all other settings.