And you thought that all the sex abuse victims in Boston had been paid off. The Archdiocese has offered a $7.5 million settlement to pay about 100 more alleged victims. Of course the lawyers say this isn’t nearly enough. They say that each of these victims will get less than the victims got in the big settlement a couple of years ago.
Who says that everyone must get at least the same amount? You can’t get blood from a turnip and now that all the insurance and other money set aside for the original settlement is gone, there’s not as much left. Who do they think this money comes from? It comes from us, the Catholics of the Archdiocese of Boston.
Making them prove their case; not paying everyone’s bill
Technorati Tags: lawsuits, Massachusetts, sex abuse
I can’t say that I’m surprised that the mainstream media (esp. the Globe and the Herald) have uncritically broadcast the plaintiffs’ lawyers’ bargaining strategem.
Garabedian says the big, bad Church is re-victimizing the victims. He says that the evil Archdiocese is even thinking of (gasp!) allowing the accused to confront their accusers and (double gasp!) cross-examine them!
And the media breathlessly reports it all, as if yesterday’s lawyer’s press release is actually their investigative reporting and balanced analysis.
Give me a break.
Lawyers want to wangle as much money as they can out of the Church, and (which will come as no surprise to anyone who has ever dealt with the likes of Garabedian or Jim “are you upset about anything I can sue over” Sokolove) these particular lawyers are not above failing to determine the truth of a claim prior to filing suit or collecting a settlement. Yes, that means that Garabedian and his ilk have – repeatedly – filed lawsuits that didn’t meet the sniff test in the hopes that a publicity-shy plaintiff would settle.
So I have a question: are newspapers that trumpet his smelly press releases and that abet his attempts to extort the Church—are they guilty along with him?
If I understand the article correctly, the Church will pay $7.5 million regardless of how many claimants are fibbing, and the fake claimants will be paid nothing. Therefore, the more claimants are proved false, the more money the real victims get. Why should fakers and liars be able to steal money from sexual abuse victims?
The individuals in the Church in Boston could have done a great deal to avoid this amount of trouble, and did not. Blatantly, joyfully, disobediently, did not. Unsuitable men were ordained. Disobedient and immoral pastors were lauded and treated like celebrities. Perpretators were moved from parish to parish. Nothing was done about any of this. No amount of carping can change what really happened.
So now Boston is the victim of human nature. What did they expect?
I have rather little pity for those who are paying now, I’m afraid. The bill should have come due a long time ago.
Yeah, well….I’m one of the one’s paying, and I wasn’t even a Catholic then!!
Honestly, though, this has become a bog boondoggle.
“big boondoggle” that was s’pose to read!
Maybe so, but it should have been avoided, only if because anyone with half a brain should have been able to tell it would cost mucho dinaro later.
Pay now by straightening up your derelicts, or pay later by being victim to human nature when the public finds out what they did while you are pampering them.
Whadaya yellin’ at us foah, ovah heah at Dawm’s Blawg?
We’re the good guys, trying to clean this mess up!
Sorry Janjan. But next time you see a “jeepers, so-cool hip priest,” do yourself a favor and give him a ration of crap til he straightens up. Avoid going broke in the next decade.
michigan, have you had any actual experience in influencing errant priests to shape up? It would be interesting to read about it, but it probably deserves a post at your site, not just a comment here.
Yes. I have let one in particular know in no uncertain terms that he was giving the impression of heterodoxy, whether he knew it or not and needed to straighten up.
The laity have a right to be ministered to correctly and reverently. They do not have to be abused in these ways.
Canon 212, ß3 They have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church. They have the right also to make their views known to others of Christ’s faithful, but in doing so they must always respect the integrity of faith and morals, show due reverence to the Pastors and take into account both the common good and the dignity of individuals.
Also, Matthew 18:15-17
15”(M)If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.
16″But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that (N)BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED.
17″If he refuses to listen to them, (O)tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, (P)let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
</b> Sorry about the bolding—copy and paste problems. I’m on an iMac and it doesn’t always like this site.
Anyway, RC, you do not have to take just any crap a priest (or anyone else) dishes your way if it is not consonant with the Catholic Church. You don’t have to take it. Period.
For instance, a priest who refuses to use the proper words for a sacrament, such as for instance, confirmation. You can yell and scream and call the bishop. And what’s more, you SHOULD! The same goes for a priest you find around town being about 3 shades too “cool.” The bishop needs to know if one of his men is a risk to the finances and stability of the diocese.
It’s amazing that I even have to write this. It’s a no-brainer. Or so I would have thought.
Since you haven’t explained what you mean by “too cool”, I guess this conversation just isn’t communicating what you want to communicate. You seem to think you have some valuable advice to give to us in Boston, but I doubt it.
</b></b>
Look, RC. It’s not that you can’t afford the settlements. It’s precisely that you couldn’t afford the priests you had who were philandering among little kids, dissenting from the teaching of the church and attempting to be modern and “with it.” This went on for years—-years during which Boston ran up a huge bill….called due in 2002.
It’s pay now or pay later. Always. There is no free lunch when it comes to things like these. No one can hide evil forever—it’s only an illusion that it can be that way.
Look,Michigan, it’s not like the average Catholic pew potato in Boston really knew all this was going on. A lot of people here are like American Catholics everywhere, Culturally Irish, Italian or whatever, and the products of very poor catechesis. Also, there is a certain type of Catholic who simply won’t believe the priest could do anything wrong. Heaven knows, I have a friend who’s father was a monseignor in the Boston suburbs, and when he tells people this thay look at him like dumb sheep who can’t understand what they just heard. Needless-to-say, he no longer goes to the Catholic Church….
And not only that, some of these abusive priests looked and acted like “Fr. Ordinary O’shea”, and not some “cooler than thou” youth minister.
So give it a rest, it’s not just Boston’s problem.
Bingo. That certain type of Catholic “who won’t believe that the priest could do anything wrong.” Even Shanley.
People like that are just ignorant—of history, at the very least. It’s hard to believe that most catholics are that ignorant, reputation aside.
BTW, we didn’t have so much of a problem out here. We had, I think, 2 in our diocese and were able to shuck them off to the sound of laity applause pretty much. We don’t need that going on.