The Diocese settled that case by paying money to the priest’s multiple victims.
The reason why I placed quotation marks around the word “pimping” the first time I used it is because it is a little bit different.
In our case, the bishop who issued the letter spoken of issued the letter spoken of while our Diocese was being sued in several other cases involving several other priests for whom letters were issued.
In regular pimping, the pimp abets sex to make money for himself. So, they abet sex involving an exchange of money.
In the case of the priests, the bishops did what they did not to make money for themselves, but to protect sexual predators while THEY, the predators, paid out church money to their victims, and then the BISHOP pays out money AGAIN to the same people as victims in the lawsuits.
If the bishops continued writing letters, knowing that, nationwide, the sexual predator priests were continuing to prey upon post-pubescent young men in new parishes, and knowing that nationwide the Church was being SUED for the writing of those letters and the continuation of the sexual preying by the sexual predator priests, and if many of the letters were written WHILE the letter-writing bishop himself was being sued for writing the letters in other cases (!!!), how unjust is the word “pimping” in quotations?
It’s not.
I’ll bet you that even today, after the American Church has paid out about $1 billion to victims, there are some bishops writing letters.
Why do I say this?
Because there have been no mass firings of homosexual priests, and male homosexuals tend to be innately promiscuous – they can’t control themselves.
That University of Chicago study found that the average homosexual male interviewed had had about 100 “correspondents” – sex partners. (Remember: The promiscuity problem was so bad among homosexuals that the study had to assign 15 sex contacts or fewer to the word “celibate” or a word like “celibate” … “chaste,” maybe? ( – it’s been about 5 years since I read the study).
You asked up above if the priests paid money to their victims. Yup. That was the practice. They would reach into the collection basket, and buy expensive “toys” – bikes, TVs, vacations, and so on – or just give them cash.
It wasn’t just bad boy priests sneaking off into the closet with kids at the family gatherings. Those were rare. Those were the ones the press wrote about, because they were sympathetic. The press didn’t write about the UNsympathetic cases very much – where the little thugs having sex with the priests were even telling their juvenile delinquent friends, “Hey, let me tell you where to make some easy money…!!!”
I was asked to investigate three cases. In all three cases the victims were post-pubescent boys with juvenile records who walked TO their parish’s rectory repeatedly, dropped their pants for the priest repeatedly, and were paid money or given “toys” repeatedly. They were sex-for-money relationships. All three boys were paid money in our Diocese’s lawsuit. They may in fact be vikctims, but frequently – most of the time, I believe, based on what I have seen and read – it’s not pretty.
Re my hint that the bishops were moving predator priests around SO THAT the priests could have greater sexual opportunities…
What is the difference between
(1) sending a priest with a very thick file recording multiple complaints of sexual offenses as well as multiple broken “I’ll - be - a - good - boy - from - now - on” promises to a new unwary flock with a written recommendation, WHILE you are being sued for priests you RECEIVED from other Dioceses with letters of recommendation, and
(2) knowingly abetting sexual activity by sexual predator priests?
Not much. That’s the basis of the lawsuits.
Do you think that the letter writing bishops are perfectly innocent victims???
Sorry. The files of the offending priests, containing the bishops’ own signatures numerous times, were sometimes VERY thick.
Those memos in the priests’ files bearing the bishops’ signatures are the “star of the show” in the court cases. Usually the bishops had minions write and sign administrative memos in the priest’s files.
A certain percentage of the time, however, the bishops “got lazy” and signed memos themselves.
There is something else everyone overlooks in considering how much the bishops and the priests in their staff knew, when they wrote the letters.
The confessional.
Without breaking the seal by naming names, they undoubtedly got a handle on the scale of the problem, and talked about it generally without betraying specifics, after priests hear each other’s confessions.
Do you know why entire Dioceses are declaring bankruptcy in response to the lawsuits?
Because our bishops knew enough to be held guilty of negligence.
They’re paying money because they are guilty as charged – not innocent.
A common characteristic of the lawsuits is the required promise by the victim to keep his mouth shut after he gets his money.
Who do you think that promise is intended to hide facts from?
