Speak Out: Source of legal funds defending Catholic priest sexual assults?

Posted by commonsenz on Sun, Dec 11, 2011, at 10:56 PM:

http://news.yahoo.com/pennsylvania-priest-arrested-accused-possessing-child-porn...

Where do the funds come from to payout these settlements and for the legal defense of these depraved people in power who take advantage of vulnerable, trusting children?

I hope the parishioners aren't footing the bill to defend the priests that abuse their own children.

I'm not intending to focus on the Catholic Church, but statistically, abuse is more prone to happen in this environment, therefore they need to be more vigilant in prevention.

It just seems as if the parishioners are providing the predators the prey and then paying to defend them.

Replies (13)

  • assults = assaults

    -- Posted by commonsenz on Sun, Dec 11, 2011, at 10:56 PM
  • You ask where the funds come from. I'm not Catholic, but I have friends in the Church including priests. From what I understand, some of the priests have personal wealth that they have turned over to the Church, as well as the Church being well invested in various corporations including big pharm. The Catholic Church is probably not hurting for money.

    Abuse has been recognized in many facets of life but used to be hushed up under the guise of protecting the victims. These days we are a society which seems to glow in the fame of victimization so we hear more about it....including some imagined offenses, especially those of the "me, too; me, too" variety.

    -- Posted by InReply on Mon, Dec 12, 2011, at 12:31 AM
  • I've said before that, if you go to the Church to report the problem, then you are looking for a religious solution, not a legal one. If you want a legal solution, you to the law. I would guess that, in the cases in which the offenses were reported to the Church, neither the Church nor the victim wanted an issue made of it.

    The Church (which deals in Penance as a matter of business) would likely have admonished the offender, heard his confession and relocated him away from the victim. The idea that these were 'serial' offenders was probably little known, and there was no database or other registry of offenders within or without the Church.

    The sanctity of the confessional made it such that priests to whom those sins were confessed could not report them further. It is akin to the concept of 'client confidentiality' and 'protection of sources', only much older.

    In answer to the original question, I would imagine that the Church has established a legal defense fund, the same as any entity that is subjected to frequent lawsuits, and that there was similarly established a 'settlement' fund to pay any and all settlements that arise not only from this but from other lawsuits. The Church, if I recall correctly, is largely self-insured, so that any liabilities incurred are paid by themselves. That would include claims against molestation, as well as more routine matters such as people who fall on Church grounds or are struck by a Church-owned vehicle.

    In the case cited, however, it appears to be a 'victimless crime', in that no charges of molestation have been identified against the priest. Unless some victim comes forward, this will be a criminal matter which will incur legal expenses, but not a 'settlement'.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Dec 12, 2011, at 7:44 AM
  • I hope the parishioners aren't footing the bill to defend the priests that abuse their own children."

    I bet Grandmaw would spin in her grave if she knew that when she gave the farm and all her money to the church they would use it for that. Start spinning granny.

    There was one local man that left money to have a (I think) recreational building built and the money went to the Vatican and they said no building would be built. I believe there was even a lawsuit.

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Dec 12, 2011, at 9:52 AM
  • More than one Diocese has filed for bankruptcy due to lawsuits.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Dec 12, 2011, at 11:49 AM
  • When speaking from the Chair, the Pope speaks for God. The decision rests with God, not with the man.

    Are you suggesting that married men do not molest boys? I believe Mr. Sandusky was married. Are you saying batchelors are more likely to molest boys than married men? I'm not sure that is born out by the evidence.

    The evidence seems to suggest that those who are likely to molest boys seek callings that give them access to them: Coaching and the Priesthood being two of the most prominent of late. Boy Scout leaders were the focus a few years back, and teachers have also been under the microscope.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 14, 2011, at 10:50 AM
  • "I am sayin the pope needs to make a decision as to whether a priest should be able to marry."

    They have, and they have said 'no'.

    "Where does it say that being in a Catholic faith or religion and studying to be a preisst that God said that one should not marry."

    It is derived from the writings of St. Paul.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 14, 2011, at 11:21 AM
  • Cadillacman wrote:

    "Stop making a excuse for the pope to hide behind that wall the catholic thurch as built over the years."

    I can see that you do not agree with the role of the Pope. That's understandable, and that is one of the foundations of the protestant movement. We Catholics, however, have a traditional view on the role of the Pope. It's one of the reasons we're not protestants.

    "...or whomever is head of the catholic church make a decion regarding catholic foundations and beliefs."

    God is the head of the Catholic Church. He speaks on these matters through the Pope. He has made a decision, which is why the Church holds the position it holds.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 14, 2011, at 11:25 AM
  • 1 Corinthians:

    "32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs--how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world--how he can please his wife-- 34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world--how she can please her husband. 35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord."

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 14, 2011, at 11:30 AM
  • Cadillacman wrote:

    "We both have valid points."

    Indeed. That is why Martin Luther nailed his thesis to the Cathedral door centuries ago.

    As I told Spaniard in the other thread, I think we all, Catholics, Protestants, Jewish, Muslims, Buddhist, Hindus, et. al., understand the basic truths, we just disagree on the details.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 14, 2011, at 12:04 PM
  • Theorist,

    To us Catholics, the Pope is more than 'just a man', particularly when he speaks ex Cathedra.

    God may speak to any of us, but individual interpretations of his Word by each member is not a sound basis for establishing Dogma. That is why we have a hierarchy.

    The entire seventh chapter of 1 Corinthians concerns St. Paul's explanation on marriage, divorce, celibacy, etc. The verse cited is the one most frequently quoted in explaining the Church's position on priestly celibacy, which is that married men must concern themselves with the distractions of marriage.

    He does not say that celibate men are not distracted. However, since he calls upon married men (and women) to remain married, the interpretation is that the married priest could not divorce himself from his distractions, and must therefore be held hostage by his duty to his wife in lieu of his pursuit of pleasing the Lord.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 14, 2011, at 12:16 PM
  • http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/Joe-Paterno-told-a-g...

    Another instance where there are definite hints of impropriety & no one takes action.....again, the prey are readily available to the sicko predator.

    Thank goodness he'll(hopefully)not be allowed around other children. Sadusky should be jailed. He better be careful (not that I'd wish the same deeds be done to him), but he'd probably like it...so what's the real punishment (it certainly won't be missing relations w his wife).

    -- Posted by commonsenz on Fri, Dec 16, 2011, at 11:49 PM
  • Thank goodness the jury found him guilty and put him away for life !!

    This will atone for all of the accusators that have amassed in the last month in lieu of the last decade when they should have to prevent others .

    This increasing list of accusers , that begins in the late 1990's but expands like an inert gas , waits in line for a court date with their attorneys .

    Since the media jury has convicted him of all counts , this list of accuser will grow , their attorneys will get their 25% , and some new , hot story will happen and this will go away .

    -- Posted by s☼ce on Sat, Dec 17, 2011, at 12:10 AM

Respond to this thread

Posting a comment requires free registration: