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.