Posted on 02/11/2013 9:07:51 PM PST by Alex Murphy
TSgt is muddying the waters.
The settlement that was agreed to involved redaction.
The complainants had one interpretation of the settlement's redaction provisions, and the diocese had another.
The complainants sued to enforce their redaction interpretation and the diocese has appealed.
That legal process is ongoing.
TSgt apparently believes that the diocese of LA, alone among all entities in the US, should not have the right to appeal judgments.
Sometimes on FR it’s “Punishment first, then trial.”
I thank God for Pope Benedict and for Archbishop Gomez.
WRONG!
The files the church released are incomplete and many are unaccounted for. In addition, on many documents the names of church supervisors informed of abuse allegations were redacted by the archdiocese, in violation of a judge’s order.
This isn’t due process, this is bait and switch and coverup.
I have never known a practicing Catholic who left the Church for "nondenominational" (there is no such thing) services.
I have known quite a few nominal, non-practicing Catholics who have left the Church for "nondenominational" services - and it has been for one reason: they starting dating or got married to men or women who were devout, churchgoing members of those congregations.
The abuse scandal is a convenient excuse for those who haven't darkened a parish door in decades to suddenly wax self-righteous about their neglect of the Third Commandment.
The court ordered that the documents be released without redactions.
The Archdiocese of Los Angeles fought for six years all the way to the State Supreme Court to block the release of the documents. Early in January, Judge Emilie H. Elias overturned a previous decision, and ordered the archdiocese to lift the redactions of the names of certain kinds of officials: archbishops and bishops, vicars for clergy members and directors of treatment facilities, as well as pastors, “church agents” or employees who had supervisory responsibility over an accused priest and were made aware of complaints or suspicions about him.
The names of supervisors, like pastors in parishes or the supervisors of religious orders, are missing from the released documents.
Rule One: "Rome" is the locus of all evil in the Universe.
Rule Two: In case of doubt, see Rule One.
Conclusion: "Rome" must be destroyed. All else is irrelevant.
I am not a mind reader; I do not and cannot know what other folks are thinking, or how they are motivated, unless they explicitly tell me.
I find, however, that I can predict the actions and statements of some folks accurately if I assume that they are motivated by and act according to "The Rules" above.
Again, I make no claims as to their actual beliefs or state of mind. I merely point out a useful tool for predicting behaviour.
Do you really not understand how class actions work?
Class action suits are first, last and always about money.
They are assembled by lawyers whose job is track down, recruit and coordinate litigation - and the way they are able to do this is by offering plaintiffs the prospect of a handsome cash payout.
Don't tell me you actually think all this is about justice.
That is the plaintiffs' claim.
On January 31st the court so ordered. The deadline is February 22nd.
It’s obvious you don’t care about the victims and neither does the church.
I lived in California more than 20 years ago, and even then, I had no use for Mahony.
He would appear before TV cameras and urge people to vote for democrats, and was at the forefront of every liberal issue of the day, including hostility towards the Second Amendment.
I remember him flying arround L.A. in his private helicopter.
He should have been given the boot a long time ago.
I care about people who were actually victimized, not people who are in it for the money.
Your lack of knowledge of the class action industry is not a black mark against me personally, nor against the Church.
Either you fail to grasp the legal concept of punitive damages or you unreasonably want the victims to accept a hollow apology and walk away.
Oh, I understand punitive damages.
The way things normally work when one is the victim of a violent crime is that you press charges in criminal court.
Then you go to trial.
Then, whether you win or lose, you use the evidence presented in that trial in civil court to go after compensatory and punitive damages.
Then you bring that case to trial and you win that case, and the court awards you your damages.
And then there are the cases that were confected from the very beginning as settlement packages.
So if this is simply about money why did the LA Diocese settle?
Unless...
No shame on Mahoney’s part, that’s for sure.
For two reasons:
(1) There are many people who were actually and truly brutalized and they deserve some compensation, even if inadequate and mixed with those of grifters.
(2) For every actual offender rightfully exposed and shamed, there would be ten or more innocent priests who would be falsely accused and unjustly marked for life through public trials.
I know lots who have left the church over theological differences which had nothing to do with marriage and dating.
Those people saw the difference between what the Catholic church claims and what Scripture teaches and threw their lot in with God and Scripture.
Not to mention, since Catholic divorce, aka annulment is so readily available, there's no incentive to leave for that reason.
All a practicing Catholic has to do is get the church to annul the marriage and they are free to remarry without (allegedly) the strain of sin. So claiming that Catholics leave for reasons of morality falls flat.
The abuse scandal is a convenient excuse for those who haven't darkened a parish door in decades to suddenly wax self-righteous about their neglect of the Third Commandment.
Better to leave for that reason than stay and defend by excusing said sex abuse and cover-ups.
And since Catholics are all concerned about breaking the Ten Commandments, what about the not bowing down to graven images? They sure don't have any problem disobeying THAT commandment.
Well, here's another "rule" useful for predicting behavior:
Rule One: Everything else BUT "Rome" is the locus of all evil in the Universe.
Rule Two: In case of doubt, see Rule One.
Conclusion: "Rome" must NEVER be destroyed. All else is irrelevant.
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.