A federal bankruptcy judge this week threatened attorneys for the Diocese of San Diego with contempt of court charges for attempting to hide the diocese’s assets during settlement negotiations with sex-abuse victims, but instead ordered an external audit of the diocese’s finances and property.
The diocese had filed for federal bankruptcy protection in February, the third Catholic diocese to do so in the US, just as civil trials on sex-abuse claims were to begin.
But on March 29, the judge called the attorneys on the carpet in her office when she found a memo sent to pastors that looked to her like they were trying to hide diocesan assets.
Adler cited a March 29 letter sent by a diocese parish organization to pastors urging them to get new taxpayer identification numbers and transfer funds to new accounts. The threat Monday came six weeks after the diocese sought bankruptcy protection amid lawsuits by more than 140 people who accuse priests of sexual abuse.
The judge said any post-bankruptcy transfers between the diocese and parishes outside of normal cash operations violate her ruling against shifting the diocese’s assets while the bankruptcy case is pending. She said any transfers require court approval.
In a sternly worded order, Adler said attorneys Susan Boswell, Jeffry Davis and Victor Vilaplana appear to have ”conspired with parishes” to create new bank accounts separate from the diocese.
Boswell wrote in court documents Tuesday that no intentional misrepresentations or misstatements had been made. She said the diocese has ”no access or control” over money in more than 770 bank accounts opened by parishes and parochial schools under the diocese’s taxpayer identification number.
Meanwhile one name remains mysteriously absent from this story and we’re left wondering who’s leading the Diocese of San Diego: the lawyers or Bishop Robert Brom?
Technorati Tags: Catholic | Bishop | San Diego | lawsuits | sex abuse | clergy | priest |
”[W]e’re left wondering who’s leading the Diocese of San Diego: the lawyers or Bishop Robert Brom?”
I’m not. It’s anybody but Brom. Judging from what I saw at the first day of the bishops’ conference last November, the man appears to be lacking any fortitude, testicular or otherwise. That’s probably not a nice thing to say, but to observe this level of devious shenanigans, in an attempt to hide from any consequences for past actions, one is hard pressed to be kind in one’s assessment.
When the Titanic was going down, some men were found disguised as women to save their own skins. It is a similar thing to watch obstensibly responsible leaders doing the same, in an effort at self-preservation that is unlikely to succeed.
They’re running out of places to hide, but it doesn’t stop them from trying. God help us all.
Bishops are bishops, they are not lawyers.
One has to rely upon good legal advice.
The facts are not known to me, but I do know this:
the Bishop does not have the authority to direct a pastor to turn over funds. Canon law severely limits what are “diocesan” and what “parish.”
Those who have been abused should receive a just amount, but it will never give back the one thing taken from them: their innocence.
As for the above comments about a bishops particular parts and referring to him by his last name. It reflects more about the poster than it does the bishop.
“As for the above comments about a bishops particular parts and referring to him by his last name. It reflects more about the poster than it does the bishop.”
Inasmuch as I may be outraged by His Excellency’s conduct. Other than that, I have no power over it. I freely admitted that “one is hard pressed to be kind.”
So, you’re probably right.
Actions speak much louder than words. I am compelled to think that when the bishop, through his attorneys, has been found to apparently deceive the judge in these legal bankruptcy proceedings, then how can one be certain that he has been historically forthright with his parishioners in dealing with criminal clergy sex abuse. Even if the bishop is/was innocent, he has seemingly surrounded himself with deceivers. This does not make a good picture.
Because these bishops chose to handle this ‘crisis’ in a manner that was less than satisfactory, they themselves created the problems they now face. They are responsible.
Because they are now choosing to protect themselves and their Church of the Almighty Dollar, their duplicity is obvious to most persons.
They will pay a dear price for their hoaxology because they have, in fact, abused ALL of their members.