N
NewAgeCatholic
Guest
The MSNBC news story on this is here. Any comment or thoughts?
msnbc.msn.com/id/33033999/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
msnbc.msn.com/id/33033999/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
- Status
R
recidite_plbs
Guest
It is my opinion that it would be dissapointing to see comments about the families mentioned being pilloried for their settlements. The cause of the continued suffering isn’t the money received, but rather the root cause is the abuse they suffered at the hands of sexually disfinctional clergy and the attempts by the RCC to cover up the abuse that was suffered. Had that abuse not occurred, had not bishops covered up the actions of these priests, often moving them to abuse others in different parishes, had not the bishops threatened law suits on families that attempted to reveal to parishoners of priest-abusers what had happened in previous parishes, then the settlements would never have been neccessary in the first place, and the money would not have been an issue that has caused further division and suffering.
The RCC has largely cleaned up its act (though only because of mounting pressure and exposure in the media, it would never have done it of its own accord or because it sided with the victims over the desire to avoid “scandal”) so the chances of this happening on such a grand scale again are reduced. That doesn’t undo what has been done to those who suffered in the past, and the RCC forgets that at its peril.
The RCC has largely cleaned up its act (though only because of mounting pressure and exposure in the media, it would never have done it of its own accord or because it sided with the victims over the desire to avoid “scandal”) so the chances of this happening on such a grand scale again are reduced. That doesn’t undo what has been done to those who suffered in the past, and the RCC forgets that at its peril.
N
NewAgeCatholic
Guest
You’re right on track with your reply. It’s sad as to the way some will look at priests today. There are some young ones that get the calling and some read about this stuff and say, wow. I’m not that way, and have not experienced that kind of horror growing up. The average age of a priest today is what, about 55 or so? They are dying out and there are very few youngsters so inclined and this probably goes double for the teaching nuns. We not only have no nuns in the school I was taught for years, it was just sold by the Diocese this past Summer to alternative learning. I was taught by nuns in that school and they were Irish, Polish, German, Italian and so was the ethnic background of our class size of about 83 in first grade in which one nun taught all of us, 7 nuns taught 7 grades 1 lay teacher taught one grade, and one principal as in a Mother Superior. We graduated 52 from 8th. grade in the mid 60’s from those original 83. They were dedicated teachers I must say. I have no problems about the priests, but I lived far away from the Church that I could not be an alter boy. I don’t think any of ours met with abuse but they would not talk about it anyways. It’s some big bucks to them today to bring it up I suppose. The Catholic educational system and clergy are dying a natural death.
R
recidite_plbs
Guest
I was taught in a Jnr Seminary in NW England that had on its staff Christain Bros (who were mired by the scandals in Ireland), Jesuits, Dominicans, and secular clergy as well as lay teaching staff. I suffered no abuse at the hands of any of them. Many were good and decent people, with a couple that I’m sure took a sadistic delight in making the lives of the young men in their charge a misery - but you get that right accross the teaching profession and it isn’t something reserved to the clerical state. I served in my local parishes, and as a student was involved in the Newman Society and the cathedral in the city in which my university was found. Again, I never once came accross a priest who was abusive, though I did come accross a few who if they had to identify their sexuality it would be ambiguous or most definately homoexual (and in saying this I encountered notihng to suggest they were anything other than as celibate as their priestly state demanded). England could easily have been dragged into the quagmire that affected the US and Ireland. I don’t know why it wasn’t. That being said, there were some isolated cases.
I’ve read some nonesense online in the past couple of years that seems to place the blame for the financial crisis on the shoulders of the victims. This has really concerned me, especially when it has been expressed by catholic bloggers such as “Fr Z” (I find the fact that he is an American incardinated priest of a Suburbicarican diocese of Rome, yet spends his time in his own farm in the mid-west US criticising with seeming impunity those ecclesiastical administrations as don’t meet with his approval while building a cult of personality around himself based on his own narrow interpretation of events quite worrying) and others. Where the bloggers themselves don’t directly say it the contributors to the comments boxes often do, and they receive no censure or correction from the bloggers who it must therefore be reasonable to presume are sympathetic with that view. It suggests that there is a certain mentality in some quarters that is still tolerated by the church authorities that the fault lies with the victim not the perpetrator.
The people are no longer ignoratnt, the media is everywhere, and fear of the clergy isn’t as pervasive as it used to be (my mother would never for example have challenged “Father” even if he was talking barking mad nonesense, doing something he shouldn’t have been, or behaving in a way that anyone else couldn’t have got away with. I have had to stand up to a parish priest who would make canon law up as he went along, and even a bishop before now and fewer and fewer people are likely to be pushed around and told by any clergy what to do, say, or think these days unless there are threats of litigation, which seems to be the bishop’s new response to threats to their authority in place of threats you will go straight to Hell without passing Purgatory for not doing as they say). The net result is that it will be harder and harder for abusive priests to be tolerated within the system and for the law to be flouted, which is only a good thing. That should lead to the selection and training of priests who know where the boundaries are. I am aware that there are seminaries where candidates and seminarians are openly homosexual, and where celibacy is viewed only in terms of male/female intimacy and so are tolerated, at least this has been the case in the recent past (one priest I know who graduated from the Beda College about 10 years ago said the worst thing you could do was speak out against it at the time). There is still a lot of progress to be made. At least it is better than it was 20 years ago. Each passing generation will find it harder to tolerate a view that places the onus of responsibility on the victim, or who will see the church as the victim and not the purpetrator.
I’ve read some nonesense online in the past couple of years that seems to place the blame for the financial crisis on the shoulders of the victims. This has really concerned me, especially when it has been expressed by catholic bloggers such as “Fr Z” (I find the fact that he is an American incardinated priest of a Suburbicarican diocese of Rome, yet spends his time in his own farm in the mid-west US criticising with seeming impunity those ecclesiastical administrations as don’t meet with his approval while building a cult of personality around himself based on his own narrow interpretation of events quite worrying) and others. Where the bloggers themselves don’t directly say it the contributors to the comments boxes often do, and they receive no censure or correction from the bloggers who it must therefore be reasonable to presume are sympathetic with that view. It suggests that there is a certain mentality in some quarters that is still tolerated by the church authorities that the fault lies with the victim not the perpetrator.
The people are no longer ignoratnt, the media is everywhere, and fear of the clergy isn’t as pervasive as it used to be (my mother would never for example have challenged “Father” even if he was talking barking mad nonesense, doing something he shouldn’t have been, or behaving in a way that anyone else couldn’t have got away with. I have had to stand up to a parish priest who would make canon law up as he went along, and even a bishop before now and fewer and fewer people are likely to be pushed around and told by any clergy what to do, say, or think these days unless there are threats of litigation, which seems to be the bishop’s new response to threats to their authority in place of threats you will go straight to Hell without passing Purgatory for not doing as they say). The net result is that it will be harder and harder for abusive priests to be tolerated within the system and for the law to be flouted, which is only a good thing. That should lead to the selection and training of priests who know where the boundaries are. I am aware that there are seminaries where candidates and seminarians are openly homosexual, and where celibacy is viewed only in terms of male/female intimacy and so are tolerated, at least this has been the case in the recent past (one priest I know who graduated from the Beda College about 10 years ago said the worst thing you could do was speak out against it at the time). There is still a lot of progress to be made. At least it is better than it was 20 years ago. Each passing generation will find it harder to tolerate a view that places the onus of responsibility on the victim, or who will see the church as the victim and not the purpetrator.
G
gelsbern
Guest
I feel bad for all of the victims. Not just the altar boys (it is spelled altar not alter) but the catholic church as a whole When I tell people I am a deacon in training for the priesthood, I get funny looks and people seem taken aback until I add…“an anglican rite priest, not a catholic priest” and then they warm right back up. It is sad that there is such an impediment for the holy priests to have to overcome in order to be a witness of Christ. I also know that it is difficult for the laity of the church as well. There were a lot of victims from this scandal and I will pray for all of you.
N
NewAgeCatholic
Guest
Yes, thanks for corrected the spelling. Sometimes we think about altered boys as to their mental anguish and strife to those abused. This article is one very interesting which I’ll repeat the link to those who would like to read. Some of these suits should be fought, but a lot of these accused clergy are deceased and the Church does not want adverse publicity. It’s a shame, they pay out the big bucks so easily. I don’t think they have much in the way of liabilty insurance but lawyers will grab what they can. They know there will be no fight as for a jury verdict in most cases. tsk…tsk…
msnbc.msn.com/id/33033999/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
msnbc.msn.com/id/33033999/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
N
Newbie2
Guest
This story is a good example of the need of tort reform. I’m guessing that this is an unpopular opinion, but settlements for such cases really should have a mandatory earmark on an appropriate amount for mandatory psychological counseling. After all, the victims (and I’m not disputing that those abused were not true victims) were psycologically and emotionally messed up and the idea is that the Church is responsible for repairing the damage that she is responsible for.
The ones that are really benefiting are the plaintiff’s lawyers…
My opinion.
The ones that are really benefiting are the plaintiff’s lawyers…
My opinion.
N
NewEnglandPriest
Guest
Yes and no. Part of the logic of large judgments is that it hits the instiution where it hurts. Remember the case of the Pinto? Ford decided it was more financally advantageous to just pay out per death than to pay to fix all the cars. But then it got hit with a huge judgment (though it was later reduced) and every company will forever think twice before employing such a strategy.This story is a good example of the need of tort reform. I’m guessing that this is an unpopular opinion, but settlements for such cases really should have a mandatory earmark on an appropriate amount for mandatory psychological counseling. After all, the victims (and I’m not disputing that those abused were not true victims) were psycologically and emotionally messed up and the idea is that the Church is responsible for repairing the damage that she is responsible for.
The ones that are really benefiting are the plaintiff’s lawyers…
My opinion.
In the same way, in the early 90’s several cases hit the news about priests who had molested children and the nation’s bishops had every chance then to fix the policies but very few did. Fast foward to the early 2000’s when juries around the country were hitting dioceses with huge judgments and suddenly we have the Dallas Charter.
P
pnewton
Guest
That was my thought exactly. We have the idea in this country that money is the almighty answer to everything, a big injury needs a big payoff. Money solves nothing. The sooner we realize it, the better.
As far as punitive damages, I have always disagreed with those, but especially in this case. The punishment due is obvious. The one who committed the crime needs to do his full time in prison.
- Status