Posted on 05/04/2002 7:40:00 AM PDT by history_matters
Payments to victims of sexual abuse by priests in the United States could reach $1bn.
The estimate is quoted by the leading Catholic magazine America, which says many people are so angry about the scandal that they want to punish the church.
In addition to multi-million dollar law suits, it is thought that some Roman Catholics may now withhold donations to the church.
And many insurance companies, who used to offer the Church cover for claims of sexual abuse, are said to be no longer prepared to take the risk.
The reason is the size of the payments being made to victims, either in jury awards or out-of-court settlements.
The Archdiocese of Boston alone is facing costs estimated at $100m, and new cases are emerging across the country.
Last week two American men who say they were abused as teenagers began legal action against the Vatican.
The magazine says estimates of the total payments made since 1985 ranged from $350m to $1bn.
"But no-one really knows, because in many cases the court records are sealed," it says in an editorial.
The amounts were often kept secret at the insistence of the insurance companies, who preferred to settle out of court because legal fees could amount to $500,000 per case.
The magazine says that following a large jury award in 1985, practically all insurance companies had excluded cover for sexual abuse from their liability policies.
It warns that if church assets have to be liquidated to settle claims, it could mean less money for scholarships, parish schools, soup kitchens and shelters for the homeless.
The editorial says the payments made to victims were not so much "hush money" as attempts to help them meet the cost of therapy and rebuild their lives.
"Even so, many Catholics have expressed outrage that their donations are being used to pay millions of dollars to victims of abuse for out of court settlements or jury awards," says America.
The magazine says anger over the crimes was not only being directed at the perpetrators, but also at church officials who had failed to take action to protect children.
Many dioceses were now turning over to the authorities the names of priests accused of sexual abuse.
But many people also wanted to punish the church, specifically the bishops who moved priests to new parishes where they had abused again and again.
"Some Catholics are so angry with their bishop that they are calling for a boycott of donations to the diocese," it says.
"Many intend to give to their local parish, but not the bishop."
The magazine also questions to size of awards being made by juries.
"Multi-million dollar awards, like the boycotting of diocesan collections, punish the wrong people," it argues in its editorial.
"Big jury awards make sense as a way to punish profit-making businesses, but they are a very blunt instrument for dealing with non-profit organizations, which have no stockholders.
"The church is not just the bishops, it is the people in the pews. There are no deep pockets with unlimited funds. Churches depend on the small weekly contributions from their congregations.
"Punishing the church means punishing the people of God and those they serve. Justice demands that we find another way."
If you can post some evidence that there is even an inkling of lesbian abuse committed by Catholic nuns, you might have some credibility. Otherwise, you are making inferences from a book that has nothing to do with Catholic nuns.
IOW, you are MAKING STUFF UP!
PROVE what you are saying or you are nothing but a common liar!
Well said! The article called America "the leading Catholic magazine." Goofy!
My friend slammed the door in her face and, until she left the order a couple of years later, heard the ladies scampering up and down the hall and enjoying themselves.
This woman eventually decided that she was a lesbian, but that was (I think) simply a reaction, because she had grown up among women, and had then suddenly seen all of these innocent friendships suddenly turn sexual.
Remember that before Vatican II, men and women religious were severely chastised for having "particular friendships." This phrase may not mean anything to you, but what it meant in the real world was the building of individual and group (cliquish) friendships that excluded the rest of the community.
Having lived in lay communities, I can tell you that cliques are enormously dangerous. And two-person cliques that suddenly become sexual are the most dangerous of all.
Generally, it seems to me that women do not form the sort of Lavender Mafia that men do; women seem to leave their orders if they plan to pursue a non-Christian "life-style." A point in favor of women, who may be more honest than men, such as the great guys and practicing clergy who gave us the "Sebastian's Angels"website...
Now that we have abandoned the saints (when was the last time you saw the feast of a saint in your "missalette"?) and almost 2,000 years of experience, I guess it's not to wonder that everyone, male and female, has gone way off the tracks and crashed and burned in the underbrush.
Your anecdotal story notwithstanding, it IS ridiculous to posit an abuse problem among nuns without any evidence or testimony to the fact.
It IS bizarre; kinda like sex-crazed Girl Scout leaders. Ever heard of those?
[laughs] My posts in this thread started with a very simple speculation drawn from the popularity of the book "Lesbian Nuns: Breaking Silence," Rosemary Curb (Editor) Nancy Manahan (Editor) I'm sorry to rock your world, but that book does have something to do with Catholic nuns. The authors try (and possibly fail) "...to describe to the uninitiated the ambience either of lay Catholic society or of the convents."
>IOW, you are MAKING STUFF UP! PROVE what you are saying or you are nothing but a common liar!
I am "nothing but a common liar" if I don't "prove" a speculation I based on two fairly heavy bits of evidence that I did provide links to? My exact words were:
"'Lesbian Nuns: Breaking Silence,' Rosemary Curb (Editor) Nancy Manahan (Editor) -- is a pretty good indication that there is a whole population of young girls who have also been abused but either haven't come forward or simply aren't getting the press." [from post #8 which somehow got pulled for a reason not having to do with its content]
I followed up that post with a link to the book "Woman-To-Woman Sexual Violence : Does She Call It Rape? (The Northeastern Series on Gender, Crime, and the Law)," by Lori B. Girshick to make it clear that this is a real problem which even specialists are having trouble dealing with.
sinkspur, I'm feeling polite today. And Bonaparte did request that I be nice. So I'll just say this about you: You are a piece of work.
Say, you know, following your reasoning, perhaps there is no abuse going on by priests, either. After all, I haven't seen any proof of the priestly abuse. I've seen the church settle lawsuits and I've seen priests arrested, but I haven't actually seen "proof" of priests abusing young boys. Perhaps you can comfort yourself with the argument that if nobody comes to your house and shows you what you consider to be "proof" then it isn't really happening. Yeah. That's it. It's just not happening...
Okay, sinkspur, I'm done with you. From now on, don't try to play sports you don't have the skills for.
Mark W.
Does the book actually speak to abuse of girls by nuns? If so, please cite the passages.
If not, please cite ONE instance of an abuse of a young girl by a nun from any source.
I really want to see the evidence on which you base your contention that there is some major sexual scandal brewing that involves nuns abusing girls.
If it is your OPINION that there is, that's fine.
But, if there's no evidence to support that opinion, I'd like to know on what you base it, other than "some nuns are lesbians, some lesbians abuse each other and girls, therefore nuns abuse each other and girls."
Surely you're not using that sloppy logic, are you?
Why yes, I am.
The only modification I'd make is that I'd change number #3 to read:
Thank you for spelling it out for me. I thought that sequence was implicit in what I said, but if you're happier with it numbered, I'm glad that makes my point clear for you.
As you play your jackass word games, also bear in mind that I never said "some major sexual scandal brewing that involves nuns abusing girls." Those were your words. My words were: "...there is a whole population of young girls who have also been abused but either haven't come forward or simply aren't getting the press." (They may never get the press male abuse gets and it may never turn into a public scandal.)
And I stand by that assertion based on the 1,2,3 logic you spelled out, subject to adding the word "some" in #3. The number of boys abused is, of course, very small compared to the total number of boys who take part in the "Catholic system." My conjecture is that the population of girls abused will be equally small in comparision to the overall number of girls in the system, but I believe it will be a percentage similar to the abused boys. (Although in a more extreme bit of speculation I'd actually guess the number of abused girls to be higher because my impression is that there are more nuns in the world than priests -- I might be wrong -- and the nuns are often in support positions, out of the limelight though still empowered with the "majesty" of the Church, where they have greater opportunity to abuse girls than priests do to abuse boys.)
Thanks for bumping these ideas and keeping them active. Me and my sloppy logic thank you.
Mark W.
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.