Catholic church planning to have churchgoers help pay off sex abuse settlements?

[begin_within]

That's what I get out of this statement. Bishop Robert H. Brom of the San Diego diocese had a "pastoral statement" included with all the Sunday bulletins passed out at all the catholic churches in the diocsese this past Sunday. Here are some excerpts:

"Today the Diocese of San Diego, along with the Diocese of San Bernardino, reached a settlement with some 144 people who have filed lawsuits regarding sexual abuse. For 111 cases the Diocese of San Diego will be paying $77,071,350 and our insurance carrier, Catholic Mutual, will be paying $75,650,000, for a total of $152,721,350. In addition, we will be paying $30,269,098 for 22 cases involving members of religious orders, part of which we hope to recover from the communities.

The Dicoses of San Bernardino, with help from Catholic Mutual, will be paying $15,134,552 for 11 cases. The total settlement for the Dioceses of San Diego and San Bernardino and seven religious communities amounts to $198,125,000. It covers all 144 cases ranging from 1938 to 1993, with the majority occurring in the 1960s and 1970s. ... Since (the bankruptcy filing) failed, we have accepted a plan for compensation of the victims, even though the total settlement amount actually takes us beyond available resources and will result in some damaging consequences for the mission of the Church in this diocese for a number of years. In resolving the financial ramifications of this settlement parish assets and contributions designated for specific diocesan ministries and programs or projects will be respected."

So it sounds to me that their long-term plan is to have the current parishoners bear the brunt of the cost of this settlement, and not the church itself or the actual perpetrators of the crimes.

[MethuenProgressive]

1. "planning"? It's been happening for years,

Closed and sold churches and properties, bankrupt Dioceses, parochial schools if they stay open at all having tuitions doubling, tripling. The Prince-like Cardinals being replaced by the simple and frugal. It's the end of the Catholic Church as we knew it. And that's perhaps not a bad thing.

[AngryAmish]

2. How could "the church itself" pay this?

The only way the church gets money is from the parishoners.

[begin_within]

14. In the middle of all this, the diocese spent $80 million on a new high school...

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20070903-9999-1m3materdei.html

[RB TexLa]

15. Most dioceses have separate funds and entities for education

Comes in handy for Protestants who send their children to parochial schools and want to donate to the school but not to the church.

[begin_within]

16. I'll just mark my donation to go towards the "Pedophile Coddling Fund"

[JerseygirlCT]

29. Assets. Buildings, equipment, etc. nt

[RB TexLa]

3. The church itself? Where do you think the Church's money comes from?

It comes from me and others who give money to the church. Our dollars paid for the insurance that paid out these settlements and whatever cash payments have to be paid come from the money we donate. I'm not in San Diego, but the Dallas diocese has paid out money for this, I don't know if the diocese of Shreveport or New Orleans has or not (the other two I attend in regularly).

As far as the perpetrators of the crime, they don't have the money to pay the judgments that is why the church was sued. The church has the responsibility for allowing such to go on and are libel for it. This is a sin (and IMO a crime) of the church and as with all sin when there are others affected there isn't any relief from penalty for actions.

[supernova]

4. Why doesn't the Vatican

pony up the lions' share of the money owed? Why make current parishoners liabel? All the Vatican has to do is sell off a couple of trinkets from their vast storehouse of artwork.

[begin_within]

6. Thank you very much. That would be my reply to #2 and #3.

[RB TexLa]

7. How is the Vatican responsible for the actions of Bishops and the staff of the diocese of San Diego?

[frylock]

8. do you really need to have that explained to you?!

[RB TexLa]

12. No, because they are not responsible for what San Diego did

or if they are it's never been proved. It's like any lawsuit, if the plaintiffs thought they could prove it they would have, or they felt they could get the judgment from San Diego and didn't need to include the Vatican in it.

[frylock]

24. if you don't think the vatican condoned the shuffling of these sick fucks..

to other Parishes in order to cover up their criminal acts, then I don't know what to tell you.

[supernova]

9. Because the Bishops and staff are

ultimately responsible to the Vatican. Lots of this policy, and make no mistake, it was a policy (if not an official published one) shifting around of predatory priets began in the Vatican. The Vatican needs to take responsiblity for their errant employees and make amends to the individuals who have been harmed. The US Catholic church is not a different denom of Catholic from Rome, it's the same organization.

If Rome wants to meddle in our RtL/Pro Choice debate then they equally better take responsiblity for this human catastrophe. You can't decide to participate on one level, then suddenly say "hands off" when the rent comes due.

I'm not anti Catholic. 1/2 of my maternal family is catholic and I love them dearly and have been gratified that they have had a spriritual home in the RCC all these years. However, I have to call bullshit when I see it. And it's not just here in the USA. They pulled the same shit in Ireland. IRELAND. Left individual churches to twist in the wind. Arguably the most Catholic country on the planet outside of Rome.

[moc]

19. To continue your theme...

Not only is the diocese responsible to Rome, you can bet your bottom dollar that the Vatican was involved directly in how to handle these scandals. Indeed, from what I understand, our beloved Pope Benedict (a man I can't stand frankly) knew about the problems in the U.S. over a decade ago yet sat on it and was instrumental in the lack of response by the church. And how is he rewarded? :mad:

[supernova]

22. Yes, wasn't that interesting

Not like he didn't have a vested interest in hushing everything up.

So is the next level for victims from all four corners of the globe to take the Vatican to court in The Hague?

[JerseygirlCT]

31. How are bishops assigned to dioceses? nt

[Beelzebud]

11. They could melt down a statue made from Aztec gold, and pay for it 100 times over.

[supernova]

13. If they have that, then

it rightly belongs to the Aztec people and should be repatriated.

[Beelzebud]

23. LOL Where do you think all that Vatican gold came from?

It came from plundered kingdoms of people who had a different god.

[happyslug]

17. Dioceses are viewed as independent of the Vatican and each other.

This goes back to the last days of the Roman empire. The later Empire used the term Diocese for the various sub-divisions of the Empire (replacing the older terms provinces etc since these implied territories without to many Roman Citizens, after about 212 AD, ALL people within the Empire were Roman Citizens).

As the Empire collapsed, the Dioceses survived, but as Religious units only (but also as the only multi-state organization). In many ways the Collapse of the Western Roman Empire was only the collapse of its military might, its courts, Language and the Catholic Church Survived. During the Dark Ages the remaining Roman institutions (outside the Church) merged with the Germanic Invaders, while the Latin language evolved into the Modern Romance Languages of Western Europe. The Catholic Church even went through a transition, as the Dioceses became more and more independent of each other (and of Rome). By the Renaissance this was well-understood. The Dioceses were independent of each other. The Vatican retained the right to appoint the Bishops of such Dioceses (and this lead to fights with the Dioceses and the Government that co-existed with that Dioceses).

This has been the system since the Middle ages, the pope picks the Bishops (Through sometime the pope only confirms the selection of the Bishops by others, for example the Catholic Church in Iraq, the Arch-bishops is picked by his fellow bishops and is only confirmed by the pope and in turn that Arch Bishops appoints the other bishops in that Country).

In the US, the Bishops, as a group, make recommendations as who is to be the next bishop of any dioceses that does not have a bishops (Either Through Resignation or death). The Pope then picks one of the Nominees. Thus, while the Pope retains the right to make an appointment, it is restricted (This appears to be the rule in Most Countries). How that Diocese is to be run is set by the Bishops and the Vatican will rarely object to whatever a Bishops does (And then list the subject as a concern more then a veto, for example when the US bishops adopted very strict rules regarding Pedophile priests in the late 1990s, the Vatican expressed a concern about the right of the Priests to a Fair Trial but did not veto the new rules of the Bishops).

The underlaying problem with the Bishops and Pedophilia priest is how do you prove or disprove that it occurred? It is hard to prove or disprove. In fact most of the cases involved NOT one victim but several victims (One victim confirms the story of the others and visca-versa). By the time you have proof on the priest the list of victims can be quite high. Thus while less then 1% of Priests have had this problem, the victims can number in the double digits before the Bishops learn of the problem (in fact the cases the Church has had to fight is NOT the early victims of the Church but what the Church did AFTER they knew or should have known that a priest was bad). This problem as complicated by the Desire of most Bishops to believe people can change if they received the right type of treatment AND have a desire to stop. The desire to forgive is great, but given the nature of this problem the Bishops should have made sure the Priests accused would NEVER have contact with children and in this they failed.

This has been the problem for many years, Bishops to ready to forgive people for their sins (including Abortion I may add) AND do to that Forgiveness putting the priest in a situation where the harm could occur again. The Vatican can NOT stop this for it is the Bishop's decision and as such the Diocese liability. People need to know to make sure the bishops know something is wrong and keep after them and if they do not they will pay for it in the form of their donations (and to a degree given the Nature of the Church, having such people in the Church is the cost of running the Church, for the errors of the Church must be paid for as while as the good things it does).

[moc]

20. Umm...no they're not...

Did you just make this up out of whole cloth?

If the diocese are so independent, why was one of our local priests stripped of his teaching responsibilities by (then) Cardinal Ratzinger?

[happyslug]

27. I was dealing with decision within the Diocese.

As to teaching the Vatican can BAN anyone from teaching if it whats to. Such a ban ONLY affects the Clergy, for example Martin Luther was banned from teaching but since he no longer consider himself under the Vatican it had no affect. If the Bishops does NOT want to follow the Vatican's ruling he does Not have to, but will be treated as a hieratic. Thus Bishops have a dilemma, either submit to Rome, or go on their own. Given the tendency in the Church to lose power if they break with Rome, the Bishops almost always follow whatever the Vatican dictates. They have been exception to this rule, the last one involves several Priests who oppose Vatican II (and a few Bishops). This has been minimized over time, but at least one bishop disregarded Vatican II and was discipled but retained his Bishops and subsequently anointed some Priest (Which the Vatican refuse to accept for the Bishop was forbidden to anoint Priests). These were from the Right Wing of the Church and the Vatican has been trying ot convince them to accept Vatican II or at least minimized the conflict.

The last big split was after Vatican I (1869), they many left-wing leaning Bishops broke with Rome. These allied themselves with another old split, the "Old Catholics" of the Netherlands. for more on them see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Catholic_Church

More on the Union of Utrecht:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utrecht_Union
http://www.utrechter-union.org/english/start.htm

A conservative group that broke from the Catholic Church:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_National_Catholic_Church

I point the above out to show Bishops have broken with Rome and took their Dioceses with them. On the other hand when Rome makes a ruling it is rare for most Bishops NOT to do whatever Romes Requires. Rome depends on this compliance when it makes its ruling, but the Bishops can refuse to accept the ruling, but that refusals is a break with Rome that most Bishops will not do.

Thus when the Vatican bans a Priest, it is his bishops that enforces the ban. The Bishop can refuse, but that means a break with Rome which most bishops will NOT do.

A list of Schism (prior to about 1900, this is from the 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia, now out of Copyright):
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13529a.htm

Here is a site I found that says Pope Benedict is TO LIBERAL to be Catholic:
http://www.crc-internet.org/

Various French (and other Conservative) bishops have rejected Vatican II, and have broke with Rome. Both Rome and the Bishops have tried to avoid the Break, but nether side will give in on the reason for the break. The latest Schism, basically rejected the Catholic Church's acceptance during Vatican II of "Religious Liberty" instead of Religious tolerance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_St._Pius_X
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Lefebvre
http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/ab_lefebvre_preparing_the_council.htm

Now, this split was done by a Bishop who had resign his Bishopacy and been given a Titular Bishops (Named Bishop of a Diocese that no longer exists for various reasons, but is still a "Diocese" that a Bishop can be named, most are for long forgotten dioceses from the last years of the Roman Empire or on Dioceses that were abolished during the Protestant Reformation). The Bishop was later BANNED from consecrating Priests and other bishops, he subsequently consecrated four bishops and was ex-communicated, but his group, the Society of Pius X, kept their wealth for Rome could NOT touch it. That is the key to a Diocese, if it submits to Rome, it gets bless by Rome and is considered part of the Catholic Faith. If a Bishops does NOT follow what Rome tells them to do, Rome can excommunicate them, but that is all. Any property their control is still the Bishops.

[JerseygirlCT]

30. The financial set up is, as you'd expect, cleverly designed

to separate the Vatican financially from individual dioceses.

I agree with you -- as the entity ultimately responsible for these priests, I'd like to see some of the pain shared by Rome.

[valerief]

5. Catholic Church consists of predators of all kinds. nt

[Beelzebud]

10. A Ponzi scheme to go along with the child rape. Lovely.

[AngryOldDem]

18. They always have

A cut of every Sunday collection goes to the archdiocese.

Catholics have been paying for the scandal in one way or another for years.

[Johonny]

21. good luck on that

I stopped going

[Ghost in the Machine]

25. They should open a few brothels in Nevada to send all their pervs to.

I can see it now. they'll have the girls dressed up in Catholic Schoolgirl outfits or nun habits.

Our Lady of Heavenly Whores, come on in and grudge fuck a nun! Light Bondage & Discipline (the nuns handcuff you and spank your knuckles with a ruler)...

[Netbeavis]

26. Wow, talk about telling the congregation to bend over.... n/t

[JerseygirlCT]

28. Didn't they start shutting down churches and selling property in

Boston? Or was that just talk about doing it? I can't remember.

I'd agree that there's some wiggle room left in there when they talk about contributions "designated for *specific* diocesan ministries and programs or projects" (Emphasis mine) That seems to leave unrestricted gifts free for them to apply against the settlement.

If I were in the diocese, I'd be restricting to particular uses any monies I donated from now on, you can bet that!