Skip to comments.Suit: Chicago archdiocese discriminated in sex abuse cases (give me a break alert)
Posted on 12/14/2009 2:24:59 AM PST by markomalleyEdited on 12/14/2009 2:37:19 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
A federal lawsuit has been filed against the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago alleging that church officials discriminated against African-American victims of sexual abuse by trying to silence their claims and proposing smaller settlements than those offered to white victims.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagobreakingnews.com ...
Give me a break.
Sorry - but this is an outrage - the Catholic Church SHOULD pay through the nose... Evil men took over much of the Church in the 70's - and the only thing they preached was acceptance of sinners. Acceptance of evil - under the guise of "tolerance". They should have been jailed.
No argument (about evil men in the 70s and preaching acceptance of sinners in that period)
But what does that possibly have to do with the subject of this lawsuit (racial discrimination)?
Is there any situation anyone can possibly imagine where blacks are not discriminated against?
It’s a constant whine day in and day out , it’s sickening.
Of all the races in the world no matter what country it takes place in the blacks are whining that they are getting discriminated against.
If the matter had been handled from the beginning with as much openness as protection of the victims would allow, this wouldn't have happened.
The suit, filed today in the Northern District of Illinois by Seattle attorney Phillip Aaron on behalf of 41 men and 8 women, seeks $98 million...
Woo-hoo! Sweet Jesus I hit the Jackpot!
And the 'injured' 49 Blacks will get a lousy $1,334,000 before Taxes. And when they get their money, Barry's Tax Rates for the 'rich', like these blacks, will be 48%. So they'll clear $640,320 - until the State of IL taxes THEIR share!
Show me the money!
(33% is $32,634,000)
Oh well, there goes the Bentley, the 22" Rims and the Spinners.
A couple of questions:
As a lawyer, my job is to get the best settlement I can for my client. In the adversarial legal system, if one group of plaintiffs has crummy lawyers and is willing to take less money, that’s not my problem. If the African-American plaintiffs received less money, they should be suing their own lawyers for malpractice, not the Church.
There have been many times when I wished I could tell a plaintiff that he/she is being represented by a terrible lawyer. However, I could lose my license if I ever communicated with another party directly.
* morally bankrupt people. The vast majority of abuse cases in Chicago, as well as every place else, happened in the 60s through the early 80s. The bishops that were in place then are dead (in the case of Cody & Bernadin) or long-since retired (in the case of Goedert). So how will this punish those who were responsible? The abuse was part of a culture within the Church - and it was known. Abuse of children was treated as an excuse to show great compassion for a fallen fellow priest. It was not treated as a crime. Every priest who knew what was going on - and didn't STOP it - was/is responsible. To think otherwise is to buy into the "I was just following orders" of the Nuremberg trials. These men were NOT shoe salesmen - they were trained spiritual advisers - a calling that requires an understanding of good and evil. ALL the people who knew what was going on - AND DID NOTHING - are NOT dead. They are still with us. And possible still out preaching "forgiveness" while while some are still engaging in unethical behavior.
* If that's the only way to "wake up" the power structure in the Church. Refer to the point above. Do you have substantiation that Cardinal George is directly involved? I'm no fan of his, but I haven't heard that he has done any of these things. In fact, I understand he is the author of the "zero tolerance" policy that now exists. * Suing - loss of funds - anger from parishioners who donate money to pay off sexually abused children IS swift and sure. That is true. But what happens? Do you think that they will close the chancery? Do you think that the Cardinal will be forced to become homeless? No. They will have to sell of parishes, close schools, stop shelters, close hospitals, and so on. Is that the goal? Had a cousin years ago who studied for a couple of years to be a priest - couldn't do the celibacy part - so he dropped out. That's an ethical choice. What about the men who see the Catholic church as a subsidized homosexual bath house? Celibacy has to do with sex - not just with women. Not raping children is good - but there's more involved in the commitment. And as to what should happen? If the church has become a spiritual wasteland, it should go under. Your comment reminds me of the "Chicago Way" - when things get tough for politicians who want to raise taxes - they tell citizens they have to cut fireman and policemen - but not junkets for the mayor and his staff to Hawaii. Oldest trick in the book. Cut what people value - keep the goodies. This is a serious issue - it deserves better than that type of argument...
* And it works better than winks and nods disguised as "forgiveness". Remember the key rule: corporations don't pay taxes. That works for nonprofits and churches the same as it does for profit-making ventures. What? Corporations pay taxes.
Well, unfortunately, that's the way it is. Priests and bishops don't make a significant amount of money...unless they either sell a lot of books or had money from family.
If a diocese is sued out of existence, it is sued out of existence. What is lost are the parishes, the hospitals, the schools, the homeless shelters, and so on. It will cut services and sell off assets that aren't paying their own way first. Then it will start to sell other assets. And eventually, it will be gone. The Boston Archdiocese had to sell off a bunch of assets (read that churches and schools) to pay off the lawyers. Portland Oregon had to file bankruptcy to prevent having to have lawyers divide up its assets.
So are you really happy when people lose their churches?
What? Corporations pay taxes.
You don't know much about corporations, do you?
If there is a tax increase on a corporation, one of two things happens. It will increase prices to consumers (therefore the consumers pay the taxes) or, if the market includes foreign players who aren't hit by the taxes, it will decrease dividends to investors (therefore, the shareholders pay the taxes). One way or the other...it never affects the corporation's assets, though. Somebody else ends up paying for them one way or the other.
If something happens to reduce a diocese's operating capital, the diocese will have less with which to do good things. Before the chancery is sold, before self-sustaining suburban parishes are sold, before any of that, they will cut services to the bone. Then they will sell off inner-city parishes and close inner-city schools (both of which are usually subsidized by contributions from the diocesan operating capital).
If you sue a diocese for something that happened 30 years ago where the perpetrator is dead or long retired, you're not going to personally hurt the bishop, the cost will eventually be borne by those who need what the bishop provides. Just like a tax on corporations (the tax doesn't hurt the CEO, it hurts either the consumers or the stockholders).
But go ahead and keep on cheering the ambulance chasers. By all means.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.