I am LIVID! (not a candidate diary)

Early this morning, as I was driving to the doctor's office for a blood pressure follow-up visit, my local NPR station aired a bit about the settlement that the local diocese has made with victims of sexual abuse.  I have not followed it as much as I perhaps should have but it does pique my interest so I actually listen for a change.

Make the jump - or not...

Our diocese has been immersed in lawsuits over this issue for what seems like forever.  There are several "camps" of interested parties: the lawyers, the victims, the clergy, and the parishioners.  In each group there are also sub-groups with particular interests and biases.  As a lay person, I have heard the most from this group of people.

One example:  There is a small, but vocal, contingent that is angry because the diocese might be paying out to people who really weren't abused.  It's hard to argue that people who were not really victims should be paid but I'm of the opinion that this needs to be settled without anymore messing around.  The diocese has dragged its feet for years and it's simply impossible to maintain a faith community with all of this hanging over our heads.  If someone gets $$ they don't deserve, we'll just have to let God take care of it.

The recent announcement of a bankruptcy agreement should, if allowed by the judge, begin to put this whole sordid mess to rest.  What caught my attention in the broadcast was a little statement about four parishes where the worst abuse occurred.  From what I can understand, these parishes will be "asked" to contribute a lot of $$ to the fund for the victims.  I am still trying to assimilate this.  The parishes had absolutely no say in what priests were assigned to them. In many cases, parishioners complained to the diocese for decades about abusive individuals and they were told all the standard things:  don't say anything, we'll take care of it, can't bring scandal to the church, etc.  Now these same communities who were terrorized by criminal priests must pay because the abuse took place there?!?  This makes absolutely NO SENSE to me!  

The diocese’s insurance company, Travelers, will pay $19.5 million. The diocese will pay $17.5 million. That money will come from a variety of sources: four parishes with the most severe abuse, the sale of the diocesan headquarters, the St. Vincent Home Corp., the sale of diocesan property and yet undetermined sources, possibly loans.

 (emphasis mine)  QC-Times full article

I realize that whatever the diocese has to pay comes from the parishes because that's where we contribute our $$, but I can't for the life of me understand a penalty against a parish because it was a worse victim than another one.  Maybe I don't understand it correctly but I keep rereading it and that's what it sounds like to me.

Thanks for the space to rant.  If there is anyone out there who can make sense of this, please let me know.  What has happened in other dioceses that have declared bankruptcy?  Have they asked the victims to chip in?  Listening to/reading this reminds me of our government where nothing is as it seems or ought to be.  Grrrr.

•  Tips for the real victims

  Tag help is welcomed!

  by luckylizard on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 01:02:22 PM PDT

  •  Forgive me for asking

    but are you suggesting that the parishioners are the real victims, not the children who were abused by the priests?

    by DMiller on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 01:06:15 PM PDT

    •  Was going to ask that

      myself...

      by malibu1964 on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 01:06:38 PM PDT

    •  These parishioners are

      additional victims.  Many of them are children of the victims.  These folks had nothing to do with the abuse, except for trying to stop it.  If we have to pay, then we should all pay, not just the ones who suffered the most.

      by luckylizard on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 01:08:45 PM PDT

      •  Why do you have to pay?

        To steal an old phrase, "Just say no."

        Refuse to pay and change churches.

        It's become clear, as more of these "settlements" come to light that the Vatican has decided to sell off its parishes rather than part with its treasures.

        I'm stunned that congregation of the catholic church tolerates being treated this way.

        by DMiller on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 01:19:03 PM PDT

        •  They haven't announced

          which parishes but I don't think mine will be one of them.  I haven't been around any people from other parishes since this announcement, but I'm betting there is going to be a LOT of noise about this.  The bishop is new but there are still old priests in powerful positions who will stir this pot till hell freezes over.

          by luckylizard on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 01:43:53 PM PDT

      •  Actually

        I think the Vatican should fork over some of its excessive funds and gold ornaments to pay for this, not the parishioners.  The Catholic hierarchy, both here and in Rome is ultimately responsible for this abuse.  I remember some 25 years ago when a Monsignor who was working with Catholic Charities in Washington, D.C. got transferred rather than put in prison -- the Catholic Charities workers had complained bitterly about this guy and his behavior young Vietnamese refugees, but the Church simply shifted him to a Northern Virginia parish.  I only learned about this 3rd hand so don't know if anyone tried to go to the police.  But the Church showed utter immorality and  irresponsibility by shifting this child molester into another position in which he could abuse children.

        by Tamar on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 01:20:12 PM PDT

        •  sorry -- behavior with young...

          by Tamar on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 01:21:11 PM PDT

        •  This is S.O.P in the Church

          No matter what, protect the Church.  At the time when a lot of this happened they could have made it go away by being honest.  There would have been a little flap but the media were not as sensationalized as they are now.  If they had just removed these guys and punished them, it would have stopped.  By ignoring it, they almost begged for more of the same.  Why wouldn't a pedophile join an organization which gave him total access to kids with no accountability want to join up?  It's such a nasty mess....

          by luckylizard on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 01:49:14 PM PDT

•  I don't have much sympathy

  For people that stood by and continued to support the churches that let this happen.
  There was a way for those parishoners to make their unahappiness unkown.
  STOP going to those parishes and STOP giving the church money!

  by malibu1964 on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 01:06:20 PM PDT

  •  But how many parishioners actually knew...

    ...about this abuse? A handful at best.

    by Meteor Blades on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 01:11:17 PM PDT

  •  Many did leave

    but many more had no idea what was going on.  In the heyday of this sh*t it was still fashionable to blame the victim whether the perpetrator was a priest or the victim was a woman who "must have encouraged" her rapist.  People might leave but they were embarrassed to come forward publicly.   It's a lot more complicated than I can explain here.  Many of us who are older lived through it and understand the atmosphere at the time.

    by luckylizard on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 01:17:49 PM PDT

  •  Many didin't know.

    It was covered up at the highest levels on orders from t he VAtican. ANd I can tellya lots of Catholcis have voted witht heir wallets--my pal inBoston has stopepd giving money to the diocese compeltely, and merely supports her parish (where nothing wrong occurred).  But thsi isn't confined to Catholcisim. MANY denominations and fiaths--including the Buddhsit and SBC--have had simialr issues.

    by irishwitch on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 02:11:48 PM PDT

    •  Without trying to sound

      like a whiner, it is fun to bash Catholics.  Our faith is a mystery to many and all the things that caused the Reformation are still crystal clear in many minds.  The fact that the Reformation didn't really reform the Church is sad because it could have avoided many problems if it stopped closing in on itself.  Too bad...

      by luckylizard on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 02:24:46 PM PDT

•  As a lapsed Catholic ...

  ...(long-lapsed), I sympathize with the parishes who are caught in this squeeze, and I have thought since these scandals first became known that the Vatican ought to be selling some of its various collections to cover the damage. Instead, as you point out, the victims are being victimized again.

  by Meteor Blades on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 01:07:49 PM PDT

•  This is Why I Left the Catholic Church

  The Vatican has literally a horde of literally priceless swag that was essentially stolen during the Crusades and sweated off the backs of European peasantry.

  The Vatican not only fights off allegations of abuse rather than doing something about it, but then refuses to give money to save these diocese.

  Further, despite the unspoken agreement that the Church will police their own, when they discover an abuser they don't give him a choice between a "monastery in the mountains or the civil authorities," they just move them around. Like through my Indiana diocese, which apparently became a pervert parking lot.

  My conclusion: the Catholic Church would rather let their diocese die, rather let abusers run loose in their organization, than to admit it or sell off any of their ill-gotten gains.  

  Tragic.

  by SteamPunkX on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 01:07:50 PM PDT

  •  AMEN!

    You nailed it, SPX!

    by malibu1964 on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 01:11:10 PM PDT

  •  Are you suggesting...

    that this enormous global business is being run by corrupt, hypocritical, self-interested fatcats?

    by robroser on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 01:12:53 PM PDT

    •  Nah!

      Men of God.  Doesn't it sound just like Bushco and a hundred other things?  This is a failing of men (as in people and also, well, as in MEN).  God has nothing to do with this, although I do hope there is some eternal payback in the future...

      by luckylizard on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 01:29:20 PM PDT

      •  It sounds remarkably like

        what led to the Reformation,a ctully.  The Borgia Pope at least dismissed his msitress (to whome he'd been faithful, mostly) because while it was acceptable for a CARDINAL to have a mistress, the Pope shouldn't.   Ratzi cares more about hte good name of the chutch than the well-ebing and safety of its members.

        by irishwitch on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 02:09:51 PM PDT

        •  Menbers? What Members?

          Just keep those cards and letters (filled with $$) coming and never mind your paltry needs....  I can understand intellectually how someone can become so disconnected from people and reality but the emotional side of me wonders how they (priests) survive it.  I know lots of priests who go out of their way to keep anchored in real life.  They are the good ones.  The rest are not only personally unhappy but are making the rest of us miserable, too!

          by luckylizard on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 02:20:32 PM PDT

  •  The Vatican

    would be just as happy if the U.S. church dropped off the face of the earth.  They blame us for this mess, when it's simply that our scandal broke and most of the rest of the world is still denying its stuff. I have been looking for a statement made by Benedict, either just before or just after he was made pope.  The gist of it was that he really didn't care if the church in the U.S. got smaller, really smaller, because he'd just go get more members in Latin America and Africa.  I've never been able to find it, though.  Wonder how much $$ he thinks those continents will cough up to fund his museums...

    by luckylizard on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 01:13:16 PM PDT

    •  Definitely.

      American Catholics tend to be educated and actually KNOW some theology, which means they question church policy. Ratzi much prefers Third World countries where the Catholic population is illiterate and unquestioning and obedient.

      Actually there were scandals reported all over the place--the Bishop of Galway has a mistress and a coupel of illegitimate kids; there was a priest or bsihop in AFrica who used convents as personal brothels and even arranged an abortion for a nun and ORDERED her to comply under threat of excommunication--that got reported, but in Thrid WOrld coutnries, there's not much victims can do.

      by irishwitch on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 02:08:13 PM PDT

      •  After 17 years

        of Catholic education, I do know some theology.  This is beyond theology, though.  This is about human decency.  One doesn't have to be so highly educated to know a wrong when it's committed.  Americans just won't stand for the bullsh*t, period.

        by luckylizard on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 02:27:42 PM PDT

        •  I merely meant that an educated

          laity is Ratzi's worst nightmare. We think, and we vote with out wallets.  Ratzi prefers unquestioning, illiterate followers who don't even know they can question, let alone the theological basis for the questions.

          I had 16 years of Catholic education including a minor in theo.  But some poor soul in Argentina who makes 100 dollars a year and n=cn't even read lacks the ability and training to fight back--that is wht Ratzi lvoes "the simple" laity so much,.

          by irishwitch on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 02:46:56 PM PDT

          •  I didn't mean to

            ignore your argument.  I know that the Church has a powerful hold on people from the Third World.  There are two issues, though, that Ratz seems not to understand.  Those people have no money to send him and the evangelicals are making huge inroads in many of those areas.  He lives in a fantasy world.

            by luckylizard on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 02:54:53 PM PDT

            •  They're making huge inroads HERE.

              In GA, the local fundy churches all have English classes and often hold services in Spanish.

              by irishwitch on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 08:41:47 AM PDT

  •  See quote below-

    "It has served us well, this myth of Christ."
    Pope Leo X

    When walking through the Vatican in 2006 I thought to myself "If Christ returned here, he would be so horrified at how his simple message could be twisted into something so wrong"

    by maggiemae on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 01:15:31 PM PDT

    •  I'll never forget reading in Name of the Rose

      about the various catholic sects fighting over whether Jesus should be shown on the cross with a moneypurse so the poor wouldn't think he was one of them.

      by SteamPunkX on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 01:20:09 PM PDT

      •  Umberto Eco......a great book! n/t

        by maggiemae on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 01:30:07 PM PDT

        •  But not an easy read...

          I managed to get through it but I had to bribe myself a little.  There is also a book by Morris West called "Lazarus" (a mush easier one) and I jotted down this from it: "It is not the Church that draws people to God.  It is God who draws people to himself, sometimes through the visible witness of the Church - and sometimes in spite of it!"  (p.283)  I have kept that on the Stickies on my Mac for a long time....

          by luckylizard on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 01:39:53 PM PDT

          •  I highly recommend The History of God by

            Karen Armstrong.

            Her clear explanation of the difference between Sunni and Shii, has allowed me to explain the difference to others.  Also, clearly explains why Muslims do not allow God to be pictured.

            I prefer to find my own path to enlightenment/creator, rather than abdicate or allow others to assume the responsibility.  

            by maggiemae on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 02:06:51 PM PDT

            •  I saw her on C-SPAN

              I love to hear her talk.  She can make anything interesting.  I'll be looking for that book now.  Thanks!

              by luckylizard on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 02:16:26 PM PDT

    •  Yes!

      I have chosen to stay connected to the church, not because of its actions, but in spite of them.  My church is the people with whom I gather on Sundays, who support and love each other as Jesus taught.  I am no Jesus freak but I think his message can make people and the world better, that is if anyone would actually live it.  (Preaching the message is NOT enough!)  I could say similar things about Gandhi, MLK, etc.  We are given a few examples of how to live and love each other and mostly we choose to ignore them unless it's convenient.

      by luckylizard on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 01:23:17 PM PDT

      •  I wrote about why I left

        yesterday--and why I can't go back here after last Saturday's Mass.  I found the announcement that only Catholcis in good standing could receive COmmunion; all others should crosstheir arms over their chests (everyone was ordered to exit the pews to facilitate communion) and receive a blessing. AT that point I exited the pew and turned left isntead of right and waited int he vestibule. Next time I bring Dad (MiL had volunteered for Mas DUty tomorrow), I think I'll wear earplugs so I won't heat this crap.

        The shortest lien in the bible appleis: Jesus Wept.

        WHen He fed the multitiudes there was no exclusion fo thsoe whow eren't committed to Him.

        by irishwitch on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 02:04:42 PM PDT

        •  Ordered to vacate the pews?

          Ouch!  I don't blame you for getting out of there.  We just lost a pastor who was a bit like that.  Even he never said anything that bad.  We are lucky now.  We have a GREAT older guy who fits right in with us poor folks!

          by luckylizard on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 02:15:20 PM PDT

          •  We were told we all had to get in lien and file

            tot he altars/. Thsoe of us who were Unworthy were to cross our arms as sign of tht unworthiness and they woudl deign to give us SInners and Unwashed  a Blessing.  I found that blessing insulting as hell. SInce I was trained to be a Gpood Catholic Girl, and the politeness msotly stayed with me, I didn't flip off the prist or moon him, but merely left in protest withotu approachign the altar.

            by irishwitch on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 02:49:31 PM PDT

            •  My, you're self-restrained...

              I am not sure I could have been so quiet.  At the very least, I may had to hurl in the aisle....  ;-)

              by luckylizard on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 02:51:54 PM PDT

              •  I wanted to. Bur Dad is

                87. I didn't want him to stroke out. He's a Catholic convert and take it all seriously. It took a LOT of restrain to walk past the other pew and out the door.

                by irishwitch on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 02:55:28 PM PDT

                •  Converts are...

                  ...intense.  I still admire you even though you had your dad's health and well-being uppermost in your mind.  Every once in awhile, someone inside of me starts screaming and I wonder who turned her loose :-)  I did it once at the cathedral (yes, in church but no at church) at a meeting about catholic schools.  Just shot up out of my seat and shrieked, all the while wondering whose voice it was I was hearing....  When I tried to go to the mike later on, all the people in charge kind of shrank back like I was going to do it again.    That part made me smile...

                  by luckylizard on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 03:11:33 PM PDT

•  Davenport

  has one of the uglier priest-abuse scandals in the country.  It's been horrible for a long time.  There have been a few priests falsely accused, including someone I know, but the majority of those accused are guilty as hell.  They are lucky to be settling for 37 million, IMO.

  It may be wrong that the parishoners are the ones who have to pay for this, but the only way to change that is for the parishoners to demand some accountability.    

  by mcfly on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 01:21:07 PM PDT

  •  I was asked to do some insurance

    coverage work on one of the Boston cases some time ago.  It was so ugly I declined the work and it was assigned to one of my partners.

    by DMiller on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 01:25:24 PM PDT

    •  Smart move, I'm guessing! n/t

      by luckylizard on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 01:26:16 PM PDT

      •  Who says

        lawyers will work for anybody who can pay?  ;-)

        by DMiller on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 01:27:18 PM PDT

        •  I have no doubt

          that there are many fine lawyers whose ethical standards (a gag reflexes) would prevent them from taking on dubious cases.  Sounds like you're one of them!

          by luckylizard on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 01:32:51 PM PDT

          •  I'm amazed Travelers is paying

            anything at all. (They're usually pretty hard core and don't pay anything at all.)  Usually sexual molestation is specifically excluded as are intentional acts.  I'd love to take a look at the policies involved as well as the coverage opinions, just to see why they're paying.  (Can't help it, once a coverage geek, always a coverage geek.)

            by DMiller on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 01:34:57 PM PDT

            •  There was a lot of hassle

              because the diocese has changed insurers through the years.  I don't think they even knew who their carrier was for some of this!  It's just been a nightmare...

              by luckylizard on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 01:41:15 PM PDT

    •  in this particular diocese

      there's one dirtbag who raped his nephew and has settled many more claims against him, overall there are hundreds of claims against several priests, some of whom are thankfully defrocked now.  Worst by far for the victims of course, but it really shakes the whole community. What various plaintffs have been able to get so far is just not adequate to deal with the magnitude of the problem, IMO.

      by mcfly on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 01:42:51 PM PDT

      •  It's awful

        I look around at some of the older folks (not me, of course...).  They did everything by the rules.  They trusted their church to do the same.  We all grew up with "practice what you preach" and then we find out that only applies to us peons.  Now they want to pee-on us again!

        by luckylizard on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 01:53:38 PM PDT

  •  Accountability

    is likely to be in short supply here.  i don't know the new bishop well enough to know if he will really come clean and let people know the depth of the abuse, but I think you are right:  we need to know.  It's a bit like we need to know about the torture done in our names.  We can't undo it but we can't prevent it if we are in the dark!

    by luckylizard on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 01:25:42 PM PDT

•  Welcome to VaticanCo™.

  The Catholic Church in America is a walking corpse. The clerical ranks are shrinking at the speed of light, forcing the closure and merger of countless parishes. Those who remain are increasingly burned out and literally dispirited. Collections are nose-diving, leaving most dioceses desperately short of cash, even as those huge clerical sexual abuse settlements come due. Meanwhile the Pope remains bizarrely obsessed with purging the Church of dissenting voices, returning it to an authoritarian 19th century institution.

  I am a recovered Catholic; I left the Church years ago when I woke up to atheism. But I am still greatly saddened by the slow death of this once magnificent institution, of its betrayal by its own leadership, by its abandonment of the fiercely progressive and truly Christian path of Dorothy Day in favor of a Medievalism that mirrors that of bin-Laden.  

  by Ralphdog on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 01:57:25 PM PDT

  •  I am engaged with

    the people of my parish but not the hierarchical Church.  I refer to myself as a cafeteria Catholic, though I've taken some hits here for that. I just pick and choose.  Maybe I'm more of a salad bar Catholic...  My parish will likely be closed and I will probably not seek out another one.  The others nearby are too much party line for me.  That's why I chose this one.

    by luckylizard on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 02:07:38 PM PDT

    •  I hear you.

      About 12 years ago our tiny rural parish was wracked by a (non-pedophile!) scandal, and the diocese responded by sending out their best guy. For three years our priest was a brilliant, literate, engaging fellow who knew everyone by name, demonstrated his joyful faith in his everyday actions, and built a remarkable spirit of community and fellowship.

      But then he left, eventually to become diocesan vicar. In his place we suffered through a succession of bored place-holders, petty tyrants and senile re-treads. I finally realized that what had kept me in the fold despite grave doubts about Church dogma was this priest's immense charisma! The "faith" he preached couldn't stand on its own, and reason finally won out.

      Pope Benedict is doing his best to force everyone like you out of the Church. He wants to purify the flock until the only folks left...are the sheep.

      by Ralphdog on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 02:56:38 PM PDT

•  Too bad they can't sue the Vatican--

  especially Cardinal Ratzinger aka Benny 16, who ordered bishops to stonewall and send all complaints to the Vatican FIRST for secret investigations (sounss like secret tribunals to me).

  by irishwitch on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 01:59:09 PM PDT

  •  It's been this way

    for centuries.  Deny, delay, deceive.  Sound familiar?

    by luckylizard on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 02:03:40 PM PDT

    •  It's why I LEFT.

      by irishwitch on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 02:12:53 PM PDT

•  My philosophy is that once a human sets foot

  in the door, it's no longer a church.

  by java4every1 on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 02:00:16 PM PDT

  •  You may be right

    I do have a really good bunch of folks in my parish, though.  These are real people with no pretensions at all.  They work hard, play hard, and pray like crazy.

    by luckylizard on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 02:09:12 PM PDT

•  What they did in San Diego

  They opened up covert bank accounts to shuttle funds away from prying eyes, then acted all wide-eyed and innocent when it was revealed in the paper.

  They asked priests to shell out part of their income to help defray costs.

  They did some creative real estate shenanigans.

  They blamed the greedy lawyers for putting the victims up to it.

  They did everything but humble themselves and ask forgiveness. When they finally did apologize, it was not perceived as terribly sincere.

  Apparently, "mea culpa" is not in their vocabulary.
  I am not impressed with the way the San Diego RCC handled itself.

  by xenubarb on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 02:06:33 PM PDT

  •  Sounds a lot like here...

    including the feigned apologies, over and over and over.  We all wanted to shout, "Stop apologizing and do something!"  Unfortunately, those of us on the bottom of the heap were not privy to any audiences with the hierarchy.  We are the teeming masses, always to be ignored and avoided.

    by luckylizard on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 02:12:27 PM PDT

•  Speaking as one who was raised a Catholic

  I find it shameful what the way the Church has conducted itself in these matters.  No matter what you believe I can't see how anyone would not believe that the Church's first responsibility was to protect it's minor parishoners.  The Church should be forced to pay every penny and then some.

  by lordcopper on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 02:13:09 PM PDT

  •  The Church

    should pay, but should some in the pews pay more than others?  We all knew this was coming down eventually.  I am sure that many, or even most, people will not contribute to this.  I can see another mass exodus from the church.  We were told we wouldn't have to pay for it.  They said they would sell everything and settle for that.  Now they are saying we do have to pay for it.  It's gonna be bloody...

    by luckylizard on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 02:31:29 PM PDT