Giving during sex abuse scandal

  • Thread starter Thread starter 40cal
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
IMO, you are wrong. And if you are going to base such a grave decision on the Philadelphia Grand Jury support, you should read the report. You will find the vast majority of the cases are prior to 2003. They have a section on the report about post 2003, I would read it if I were you.
 
You still need to seek out a method of addressing your emotions, whether that’s in counsel with a priest or lay person.
 
If I thought something was stupid, I’d say so, too. My bishop has cancer and it is spreading in his body.

Nevertheless, I think it is arrogant and condescending that the bishop lives in one the more expensive homes in the diocese, rather than taking up residence in one of the empty rectories. For that reason alone, I want to cease giving money to the diocese.

I read an article in Crisis Magazine online which talks about designated giving, where supposedly if you designate your money for operations and maintenance, that’s where it goes. That doesn’t seem to guarantee, to me, that is how the money will be spent.

SOMETHING has to be done to get the bishops to take action. Canon Law has not prevented the sexual abuse, it has not prevented the abuse of diocesan funds to pay off and silence victims of abuse, it has not prevented the development of a large gay mafia of priests and bishops in the church, it has not prevented the development of a culture of clericalism, which Pope Francis has labeled as evil several times since becoming Pope. Canon Law hasn’t protected the Church. It hasn’t prevented bishops from becoming accessories to crimes after the fact, by moving around abusive priests. The bishops who are not guilty of any of the explicit abuses are themselves complicit by silence and indolence.

Bishops are appointed by the Pope but are accountable to God. So, they should ACT like they are, not sniveling and holding back due to strictures of Canon Law. To hell with canon law and fix the problem in the US Church. We still have homosexual priests and bishops hiding in plain sight, clerics who have a larger degree of freedom since sodomy laws have been struck down by the Supreme Court. Homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered, and clerics who engage in such are unfit for the clerical state.

The bishops’ meeting is in November, as if this burning building will wait until they decide to do something about it. They are moving so slowly like they have to travel to Baltimore by horseback or steamship. Why can’t they convene on church property someplace that is more austere?

As many public figures in the Church have said, “money” is the only thing bishops understand. And, if money has to be weaponized, then so be it. It’s not ME that is causing people to lose their job and not be paid or causing ministries in the Church to be suspended, it is the docility to the clericalism of priests, bishops, etc and even the Pope. Money is ALL that they understand. So, money has to be used to get their attention.

That is the way conclaves to elect the pope were held. the electors were locked in on bread and water until they did their job. Some prisons in Michigan have been closed and probably could be temporarily reactivated to house the bishops until they finished the job ONLY THEY can do.

Blockquote
 
Last edited:
otrrl said:
My bishop has cancer and it is spreading in his body.

Nevertheless, I think it is arrogant and condescending that the bishop lives in one the more expensive homes in the diocese, rather than taking up residence in one of the empty rectories.
Click to expand...
Because putting a critically ill man in a home that has not been maintained, may be decrepit, is so much the spirit of Christian charity? Just look at what you are saying.

The empty rectory still has to have electricity and gas and water and sewer and trash pick up, it has to be cleaned and maintained.

Unless someone is in the real estate business, how does one know the price of all of the homes in the Diocese?
 
The rectories are maintained. There are many rectories with just one priest where the bishop could convalesce. That is not a problem. The price of the current residence of the bishop was publicized years ago and is in a very affluent neighborhood. That’s how we know. None of the rectories are “decrepit” and I was not suggesting anything of the kind.
 
Sharing your home with a critically ill person is not like just having a roommate. Maybe volunteer at a Cancer ward at the hospital to understand the special care that treatments like chemo and radiation require.

Prayers for your Bishop and for your Diocese.
 
Thank you. I have worked in hospitals and a nursing home and I am fully aware. I took care of my mother for over 12 years at home until she needed a nursing home. But, we’re off topic, aren’t we?

(But, before we leave this “aside,” who would be taking care of the bishop in his expensive digs anyway? Are you suggesting that my bishop is living with someone already? Is that a separate scandal? We’re talking about money here – you mean the bishops should have his own costly hospice care in his home? Sure, more clericalism, why not?)
 
Last edited:
Have there been allegations against your bishop in Phoenix? If not, you are really just spinning your wheels.

I live no where near Phoenix. I can’t tell you anything about what is going on in your diocese.

With the exception of a handful of priests and deacons, the members of this forum are lay people. We have no more ability to investigate than you do.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
Your attitude alone is not giving out of a sense of love and stewardship, so maybe it would be better if you kept your money until your attitude changed.
Click to expand...
I am reminded of the story of the widow and her mites…
 
Consider the Golden Rule. Let us say the business you work for was caught up in scandal and was taken over in some sort of corporate action. How would you feel, as an innocent employee, if your salary was cut in half because the new owners don’t care if the current employees, even the innocent ones, starve?
If you people can attest that moving predators around is no longer occurring and any new allegations are always reported to police then I will change my mind.
Click to expand...
Then you will never give, as perfection will never be obtained. Also, Jesus will judge us all by the standard we judge others, so requiring perfection is sketchy. But the Church has made tremendous strides, cutting problems in an unprecedented way.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

The law requires all known cases of sexual abuse to be reported, but this is not just for bishops, but parents and neighbors. I think it will be very rare for a known case to go without being reported at this point, if ever. Of course, I try not to overestimate the intelligence of people in genera.
 
Last edited:
40cal said:
It just seems like unless we physically starve priests that leaders will keep moving predators around and not reporting them to authorities.
Click to expand...
As an actual priest who actually likes to eat once in a while so I’ll have the energy to go out there and try to be a good priest, I take exception to this plan.

-Fr ACEGC
 
These are figures which I will not and cannot refute. Why was the trend downward since 1980? Why did it level off in the 1990’s? But, we Catholics have to look beyond our national borders, as well, to the scandals which have occurred in one country after another. The McCarrick scandal was still unfolding after 1995, wasn’t it? The USCCB is still out of control. (There is no data after 2002, I notice, and we just had a priest arrested in our diocese six months or so ago and a second one was also recently released from his faculties in the same time frame.)

The scandals involve the current and recent popes. As Vigano said in his second letter the other day, the silence of the Vatican speaks to the veracity of his previous claims, otherwise the documents he cited could have been released. He’s not letting up his pressure on the Vatican and I don’t think we should either.

Given the length of time it takes for victims to come forward, the recent data shown in the graph is not necessarily so reliable. The “heat” must be kept high to DETER any clerics from even thinking of doing something they will later regret and which will only further harm the Church. Such deterrence must be institutionalized vigilantly. We’re not even THERE yet. The Vatican and the USCCB have really done NOTHING yet., nationally or on a global scale.

In Germany, Der Speigel (“The Mirror”) has been investigating claims in Argentina about cases of abuse victims who have not even been counted.

All of this is FAR from over, and the “code of conduct” for bishops and handling of negligence hasn’t even been more than suggested for consideration by the USCCB.

Far from discouraging candidates for the priesthood, everything must be done to reassure men stepping forward of their personal safety and give them the opportunity to focus on RESTORING the holiness of the priesthood.

AND, with respect to this general topic of “giving during the sex abuse scandal,” does it NEED to be said that IT DOESN’T TAKE MONEY TO SOLVE ANY OF THESE PROBLEMS?
 
Last edited:
So, are you going to wait 30 years to see if the data is “reliable” before you give anything? I don’t know about you, but I might well be dead by then. I’d like to make sure I will still have some open churches with Masses to attend and some priests to give me sacraments including last rites. The Church depends on my and others’ donations to make that happen.

It’s very hard for me not to see all the picking at the Church as just a way for people to justify and rationalize to themselves not donating. If you take the same amount you would give to the Church and donate it to the missions or the foodbank, then fine, but you will have no idea if there are child predators or other bad actors involved with the missions or the foodbank either. Somebody could report in 30 years.

Seriously, life, including our Masses and reception of the sacraments, has to go on.
 
I didn’t say to wait 30 years. My background is science and I am merely trying to point out the limitations of the data in the graph, which is already 16 years old.

I’m almost certain that I will not be alive in 30 years and that is why I have expressed a sense of urgency of what should be done now. I am virtually certain that my comments under this topic are critical to ensuring that 30 years from now there will be even less to talk about than there is now.

I reiterate a preceding comment that as of yet, nothing has been done to ensure that it won’t be worse in 30 year AND IT DOESN’T COST ANYTHING TO FIX THESE PROBLEMS.
 
Last edited:
You are not the first I have heard of withdrawing money from the Church as a punishment, in a hope She will changed… But still continued the sacraments. I have heard far worst, and least you, you worry of thoses implications. It is a good point for you.

Giving money to our diocese does not been seen as an act of charity. It is an act of responsability, because it sustains and permits the existence of the structures we used.

I understand the desire of Catholics that their money is used for the civil trials to compensate the victims…yet…

If you are not a parishionner of one of thoses dioceses you mentionned, I don’t see how a boycott can change something.
Maybe I am wrong, but if we remerbered the situation of the late 60’s and many quit the Church to protest or because they disagree over morality aspects, it does not change the doctrine. I don’t want to compared this to the actual sex scandal, which is gravely sinful. I hope nobody will make me the reproach.
 
Last edited:
otrrl said:
The Vatican and the USCCB have really done NOTHING yet., nationally or on a global scale.
Click to expand...
This is the most outlandish and patently false statement I have seen in all the posts re. the scandal on this forum. I posted earlier that there have been only 6 reported cases of abuse in the U.S. since the USCCB imposed the measures for reporting and handling abuse allegations at the 2002 Dallas Conference. Otrrl, I’m sorry but emotionalism does not trump the facts in any conversation.
 
My background is science too. I have a minor in economics also, which is how I realize that no donations means bills aren’t going to be paid.

I don’t think the Church was really waiting for you to weigh in before doing something about this abuse scandal, which from an economic point of view, has not only been inflicting harm on children and the faithful, but has been costing the Church a great deal of money in lawyers and settlements for decades.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top