Skip to comments.US Diocese: Pedophile Priests Should Receive Retirement Benifits
Posted on 11/21/2009 1:29:17 PM PST by Gamecock
WILMINGTON, Del.-- The Catholic Diocese of Wilmington is obligated to pay retirement benefits to six priests who are confirmed pedophiles, church officials argued in a bankruptcy court filing Thursday seeking permission to keep making the payments.
After filing for bankruptcy last month, the diocese agreed not to make payments to priests accused of sexual abuse without court approval. That agreement was made after objections were raised by attorneys for alleged abuse victims who now sit on a creditors committee.
Attorneys for the diocese now seek authorization to provide pensions, housing costs and medical coverage to six confirmed child abusers. They cited an obligation to care for retired clergy, including priests dismissed from public ministry and facing laicization, or defrocking.
"Only the Vatican has the power to laicize clergy," the diocese said. "Thus, while several priests have been dismissed from the public ministry and have laicization proceedings pending against them, for the time being they remain clergy whom the debtor supports, and must continue to support."
The motion also seeks permission to keep paying benefits to another priest who has been accused of sex abuse, though the claims have not been substantiated. He still has authority to serve as a priest.
The diocese argues that pension payments would not be taken from funds that might be used to pay creditors, including abuse victims waiting for settlement payments.
James Stang, an attorney for the creditors committee, described the filing as "outrageous."
Officials with the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests, or SNAP, could not recall a similar motion in the six other bankruptcies involving Catholic dioceses in the U. S. The group also noted that the Wilmington diocese is paying a public relations firm a minimum of $100,000 for bankruptcy-related work.
"It's morally wrong for a church official to cry poverty and then pay six figures to a PR firm. And it's morally wrong for a church official to put helping child predators ahead of helping child victims," said Barbara Dorris, national outreach director for SNAP.
The diocese wants to continue paying medical coverage for former priest Francis DeLuca, 80, who was removed from public ministry in 1993 and defrocked last year after serving a jail term in New York for repeatedly abusing his grandnephew.
The diocese said it has provided DeLuca "charity" since he was defrocked in the form of a $1,000 monthly allowance and medical coverage. The allowance has been terminated, but the diocese still wants to provide medical coverage
That’s like the Menendez brothers pleading for mercy because they are orphans.
Do teachers who have committed sexual abuse with students collect their SEIU benefits?
Why does everyone only pick on the priests?
How about the money it costs to pay their victims subtracted from their pensions. They get what’s left.
“Why does everyone only pick on the priests?”
Haven’t you heard? We are no longer a Christian nation.
Feel free to find an article on such and post it. The topic though is pedophile Roman Catholic Priests.
Why does everyone only pick on the priests?
Umm, because this is the RELIGION FORUM. If you want to talk about teachers there are plenty of threads on the secular side of FR to do so.
That’s right. We should cut pedophile priests some slack!
It’s absurd that pediophile priests receive benefits from the church. They willing violated their vows, any understanding ought to be null and void. I don’t think this is an issue of picking on priests. I’m glad to know this, and will keep it in mind next time they ask for money for retired priests.
I wonder if it was Gamecock or the original source that couldn’t correctly spell ‘BENEFITS’.
My money is on Gamecock.
Well, with the bad press brought on by these CONVICTED priests....
Considering what the Diocese of Wilmington is proposing, is my sleep deprived mind misspelling something really that bad?
I’m not a Catholic and don’t know why this particular thing was posted. I don’t know that the motive was to create an orgy of Catholic bashing. I’m not willing to have articles suppressed simply because they appear to diminish religious institutions that I respect.
Child abuse is a really, really bad thing and it appears to be a systemic thing within certain organizations. It appears you want to silence the poster and, in my view, that is not good.
Since we don’t seem to be able to shoot the abusers in the head we probably have to agree to honor whatever contractual or minimal Christian obligations that the Church has towards these men while satisfying to the greatest extent possible the claims filed by those abused.
If the Catholic Church in America has to divest itself of every single asset it owns to make this right then it might be of some spiritual benefit to have nothing, own nothing, and be led by shepherds that depend on the charity of congregations that meet in homes, parks, and public buildings. After all, what do we need in this world?
Hope you don’t think this is Catholic bashing. That’s not my intent.
Mockingbyrd, I agree with you.
Also, I also am inclined to believe that the posting of this thread has a ring of schaudenfreude to it.
” is my sleep deprived mind misspelling something really that bad?”
Sleep deprived? Guilty conscience?
Careful, the spelling police will be around and attempt to discredit your post because of a typo.
In any bankruptcy the petitioner is legally obligated to truthfully list his assets and liabilities. That is all there is to it, plus the usual anti-Catholic hysteria.
“Careful, the spelling police will be around and attempt to discredit your post because of a typo.”
I didn’t attempt to discredit the article. I, in fact, pointed out that it was safe to bet you made the mistake. If you feel discredited, then that’s your issue to deal with.
I didn't molest small boys
I don't support a organization by tithing to it even though it shuffles child molesters from on diocese to another.
Nope, I'm guilty of a lot, but not this.
I’m not worried about the spelling. Anyway, I’m Irish.
I’ll stand by what I posted.
Riiight, the Roman Catholic Church is free of any wrong doing in this matter. < /sarc>
The Church in America was grossly negligent in allowing the abuse by priests, should compensate the victims richly and punish the guilty according to the law of the land.
But the article is meaningless.
There probably isn’t much else the diocese can do, because otherwise they will be sued by these priests and end up having to pay even more.
I like the fact that your article included somebody who had been accused but nothing had been proven. Sweet. Maybe somebody will accuse you of something someday and you’ll see how great this is.
Exactly! What these priest,and teachers have done is grossly wrong. However, if they have earned their pensions, they should be able to keep them. I am sure the priests pensions are quite low, except for health care.
Some of the victims groups want to make these priests homeless and have them starve to death. I can really understand their anger and hate. However, that does not mean others including Dioceses, should give in and concur with the hate. I think some even want to destroy the church.
Would you prefer they be homeless or even starve to death?
“Nope, I’m guilty of a lot, but not this.”
I never said you were. What you’re guilty of is not what is in the article.
The price of flights to Thailand has increased.
“Riiight, the Roman Catholic Church is free of any wrong doing in this matter. < /sarc>”
The Catholic Church absolutely is free of wrong doing in this matter. Individual bishops and priests, not the Church, were the problem.
We all know appearances can be deceptive. I would hesitate to reach a moral conclusion on the basis of appearances alone.
For the umpteenth time, I have good reason to know that child abuse was swept under the rug in secular organizations as well as in denominations like the Episcopal Church -- as was other kinds of sexual misbehavior.
Owing partly to that knowledge and partly to what I think is an evident (or, ahem, apparent) eagerness to put forward any evidence suggesting any group which doesn't advocate unrestricted sex between consenting adults in the privacy of their own Times Square MUST be all about weird sexual urges yearning to breathe free and likely to erupt at any moment ... pause to gather second wind ... I would view with great skepticism any conclusion based on appearances about us feelthy papists.
Let's think about this: The feelthy papist Church is a big and populous outfit in the world, and pretty big in the US. If we assumed that child abusers were randomly represents among all clergy of whatever kind, we'd still come up with a BUNCH of Catholic clergy engaged in pedophilia. And while camp counsellors, even Episcopalian Camp counsellors, may not make the evening news when their abuse is discovered (and certainly won't when the denomination sweeps it under the rug) do we REALLY think that our friends in the lamestream media don't find it (and present it as) especially juicy when feelthy papists are involved?
I think the data are extremely difficult to judge.
I don't know what is owed the extremely and feloniously sinful elderly. I really just don't know. I suppose, in one sense, we owe even the virtuous little. But how Christians should respond to those among them who have really grossly and horribly failed ... the judgment comes too close to me for me to be clear about allowing them to die homeless and starving. Maybe that's what should happen to those who escape or survive prison. I just don't know.
What do we know (if anything) about the Catholic Church and about other Christian bodies elsewhere in the world?
We know that, perhaps, homosexuals made a special effort to penetrate the Latin Church where their disinterest in the opposite sex might go unnoticed, and that pedophiles tend to penetrate any institution that deals with children. We know that pedophilia infects public schools in greater numbers than the churches and private schools, and that the non-Catholic religious institutions are just as prone to abuse as the Catholic Church. I don’t know of specifics in other geographies.
As an American Catholic I care for the Catholic Church in America in a special way, this is why I singled out the American Church in my post.
I don't really “get” all of it, but I have been told that each Diocese (as US law understands it) is a corporation with one member, the bishop. It would really interesting if a Catholic bishop and lots of people in his diocese all decided to become Hare Krishnas. There would clearly be “remedies” in canon law, like the bishop would be excommunicated or somesuch. But when it gets down to real estate.... I don't know how it would come out.
My point, if any, is that viewed positively, the bonds and obligations of the Church are voluntary and charitable, and are not (these days at least) likely to be backed up by nobles with armies who see the possibility of territorial gain if they play their cards right in cooperating with the Holy See.
Also, and this is more in the explanation than excuse department, some bishops really do have a paternal affect toward their priests. As I say this does not excuse. But if it were shown to me that a child of mine had been engaged in dreadful misbehavior, while I hope I'd do what was right, I know I'd be sore tempted to protect the child.
And if people with Ph.D.s or M.D. assured me that all that my child needed was some counselling and a change of scene and the problem would probably go way — well, I HOPE I'd do better than some bishops did. But I can't guarantee it.
I was wondering if it was an especially US problem.
Well, they are guilty of one of the sins that cries out to Heaven for vengence. So part of me really doesn’t care. They made their choices are destroyed others.
But I would be willing for them to spend the rest of their lives in a monastery, making spiritual reparations for their sins. They could certianly doing jobs around the place to earn their board and keep.
They should receive prison sentences. The Vatican knows what is going on ... they are obfuscating.
What if these pileofit preists also took part in the global warming scam, still get a pension? Throw in bank robbery and NOT wearing a seat belt?
The reason the RCC wants to give these pederast priests a cushy retirment is because they believe these felons are truly "another Christ."
Therefore as "another Christ," they are entitled to whatever comforts they desire.
LOL. Yeah, even the innocent ones get the "comfort" of living alone in a old rectory, being on call 24x7 ("you're sick ... that's too bad, Father ... please come right away ... I realize it's 3am"), and having to deal with every sort of trouble sinful men and women can dig themselves into.
Not to mention having to say funeral masses for children.
And for that, they get paid well under $20,000 year, out of which they have to pay for -- among other things -- their own car, which they use for work.
And out of the pittance that's left, they can pay for "whatever comforts they desire".
Here's the comfort and ease to which "another Christ" is entitled, according to Scripture. (Executive summary: same as the first one).
Looks like fun, doesn't it? Just a barrel of laughs.
I've known too many holy priests who poured out their lives for their people until there was nothing left, to put up with any more of your vicious, unChristian slander of the Catholic priesthood as a whole.
My former pastor ministered to us until he was 84, and toward the end, he was so frail it was a bit scary to shake his hand ... you thought something might break. He's one of the holiest men I've ever met.
Part of the "comfort and ease" with which he was rewarded to have the crazies from Westboro Baptist outside his church one Sunday with a big sign that read
I'm curious. Were you there with them?
And with the horrific number of pedophile priests in the RCC, the fire alarms have been sounding for decades.
Any man who calls himself "another Christ" is not of Christ, but somewhere else. Somewhere far from the truth.
For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many." -- Matthew 24:4-5
"And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many." -- Matthew 24:4-5
It doesn't seem too difficult to understand. Anyone who believes the Bible to be the inspired word of God should be equipped to rebuke those pretenders who seek the glory of God for themselves...at their peril.
And those who foolishly follow such false prophets cannot say they weren't told.
Meh...who cares? If a cult wants to give criminals a retirement plan, that’s their business.
Pick on them? They should be shot.
You are aware of the multitude of pedophiles and where they come from, aren’t you.
and further down the list — I don’t remember which number are the priests.
OK< let’s say that you are a father who teaches American History or biology, coaches a mid-high or Little League team and on the weekends you are a youth minister at your protestant church.
That’s four strikes against you, and according to the source I saw — you are to be watched.
And here's the link -- once again -- to the Murphy Report. It's kind of long, but well worth reading. What I got from it is that the key problem was antinomianism amongst those in charge in the Archdiocese of Dublin. Canon law and protocols that had been in place for several decades to stop sexual abuse were routinely, and consciously, ignored.
However, I don't see how any Protestant or Reformed church can claim immunity from the same evils which beset(s) the RC Church in Dublin and elsewhere. Look at the recent history of the Anglican Church. To ignore the perennial problems of moral depravity, antinomianism, and nihilism, and to say "Look! They have fallen and we have not!" is to court the worst sort of foolishness.
What does He who died for sinners want for them? How do I show it?
My GUESS is I do not protect them from civil penalties. If I am bishop I tell them they must hand themselves over to the government.
But when they are discharged from prison, to whom else should they expect to go if not to the father they adopted before sin and sickness overthrew them?
Those folks who continually defend GUILTY (again, GUILTY is the operative word) priests and the enabling bishops would literally drink cyanide-laced kool-aid if the bishops told you to do so.