If one doesn’t live in this diocese and has not beem aware of all the aspects of this case from the very beginning, it’s not so advisable to make assumptions about it.
BTW, the author has a very accurate grasp of the highly biased and editorialized style of “reporting” all of this by the so-called “journalists” of the San Diego Union Tribune.
What assumptions do you think I'm making? I have a problem with the state of California suspending the statute of limitations for these cases & don't think payoffs are any kind of cure when these things have happened. I think one of the perps involved in the SD cases also offended in my local archdiocese. His employer moved him elsewhere after allegations were made against him, so claims of total innocence of the church isn't a valid argument.
All that said, the article isn't about the sexual abuse. It's about money. The church agreed to a settlement & it seems to be misrepresenting its assets to its parishioners in order to hold on to properties that have nothing to do with its mission. You or anyone else wanna continue supporting an institution that does that, pony up. It's no different than when one spouse blows marital assets. Is the vow for better or worse or is it for better, but the in the bad they're on their own?
BTW, the author has a very accurate grasp of the highly biased and editorialized style of “reporting” all of this by the so-called “journalists” of the San Diego Union Tribune.
I'm sure that's true.