ShareThis Page
Pennsylvania AG Josh Shapiro says clergy abuse shadows Catholics’ Notre Dame response | TribLIVE.com
Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania AG Josh Shapiro says clergy abuse shadows Catholics’ Notre Dame response

Deb Erdley
1071365_web1_web-priest-02

Pennsylvania Attorney General Joshua Shapiro was impressed with the response of the Catholic Church and Catholics around the world when Notre Dame went up in flames last week in Paris.

But he’s disappointed in what he sees as the church’s lackluster response to protecting clergy abuse victims. In an op-ed in the Washington Post, Shapiro took the church to task for spending millions to influence lawmakers to block his recommendation that they open a window of opportunity for abuse survivors with old claims to sue the church.

Under the headline “Repairing Notre Dame is important. Protecting clergy abuse victims is more important,” Shapiro wrote of the church’s response to a Pennsylvania grand jury report that detailed allegations of child sexual abuse against 301 priests.

“While the supporters of rebuilding Notre Dame pledged $900 million within days, the most significant spending in Pennsylvania has been the millions of dollars spent by the church’s lobbying arms and the insurance industry to block the reforms from becoming law,” Shapiro wrote.

Deb Erdley is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Deb at 724-850-1209, [email protected] or via Twitter .

Categories: News | Pennsylvania
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.