— Archdiocese of Los Angeles, 2007, agrees to pay $660 million to about 500 people.
— Diocese of San Diego, 2007, agrees to pay $198 million to 144 people.
— Diocese of Orange, Calif., 2004, $100 million for 90 abuse claims.
— Diocese of Covington, Ky., 2006, up to $84 million for more than 350 people.
— Archdiocese of Boston, 2003, $84 million for 552 claims.
— Diocese of Oakland, Calif., 2005, $56 million to 56 people.
— Archdiocese of Portland, Ore., 2007, agrees to pay about $52 million to 175 victims to emerge from bankruptcy protection; sets aside another $20 million for any future claims.
— Diocese of Spokane, Wash., 2007, agrees to pay $48 million for about 150 claims to emerge from bankruptcy protection.
— Diocese of Sacramento, Calif., 2005, pays $35 million to 33 people.
— Archdiocese of Louisville, Ky., 2003, $25.7 million to 243 victims.
— Diocese of Tucson, Ariz., 2005, agrees to fund a settlement trust worth about $22 million for more than 5
2007-09-09 04:52:40 · 12 answers · asked by Brendan G 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
No. Looks like more than just a few to me.
2007-09-09 04:56:54 · answer #1 · answered by Acorn 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I recently read an article that suggested that isn't the apples, but the barrel that causes the problems. Experiments have indicated that people placed in power over others have a tendency to abuse that power.
This is not only the case in the Catholic Church, but in the case of Abu Graibh, Guantanamo, etc
Lord Acton was right.
2007-09-09 05:21:11 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well, how many priests were involved ? About 1% ? What about the other 99%.
Are you counting the bad apples by the money in millions the lawyers made from say 200 victims of 1 or 2 priests in each diocese ? THAT WOULD BE REALLY DUMB.
2007-09-09 05:01:00 · answer #3 · answered by defOf 4 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Do you think paying out all that money will cause them to re-evaluate the validity of their stand on unmarried (we can hardly say "celibate") priests? I certainly hope so. Episcopalians and Eastern Orthodox both have married clergy, and it works for them. Nearly all Protestant clergy, same thing. There families become involved in their work, and the church gets several people for one (usually pretty meager) salary.
In my opinion, the idea of unmarried clergy was to prevent hereditary positions, and so the wealth they had from family would go to the church.
2007-09-09 05:00:05 · answer #4 · answered by auntb93 7 · 6⤊ 0⤋
Honestly, what do you expect of a church that demands celibacy from its clergy, and considers masturbation (an otherwise normal form of sexual release) to be a sin? I'm not by any means trying to excuse these priests, but you can't discount the circumstances of their religion as a contributing factor to their actions.
2007-09-09 04:58:33 · answer #5 · answered by nobody important 5 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Kevin Garnett, $105 million contract extension, Boston Celtics.
2007-09-09 04:56:24 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
once while having trouble with depression i met a man
whom had been repeatedily raped by a priest. was he
there for depression? no he was homocidal. i felt so
sorry for him. he was still there even after i was sent
home. why? because the stupid priest Was afraid for
his a@@ for a change.
things done in the church make YESHUA sick too!!
it was Not what HE was About.
2007-09-09 05:05:08 · answer #7 · answered by Judy E. T 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
All paid by the same folks who accept by faith what those same Priests teach.
2007-09-09 05:01:55 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Isn't it interesting that the main church has financially protected itself, legally, from this fray... while they helped in reassigning priests and covering it up...
2007-09-09 04:57:15 · answer #9 · answered by Ũniνέгsäl Рдnтsthέisт™ 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
A few bad apples? In that organization? Think again.
2007-09-09 04:58:00 · answer #10 · answered by judysbookshop 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋