Posted on 01/21/2011 6:12:29 PM PST by Gamecock
The Catholic church on Friday said it would pay nearly a million dollars to a man allegedly sexually abused at age 16 by a priest...., who then tried to cover it up and hire a hit man to kill the victim.
"This is a very sad thing and very painful for me, for the church, for the family," said Garcia-Siller, who was just appointed San Antonio Archbishop in November.
Former priest John Fiala is charged with plying the unidentified boy in his parish in rural southwest Texas with booze and giving him a car in an attempt to 'groom' the boy for sexual abuse in 2007 and 2008, according to court documents.
He allegedly sexually abused the boy on several occasions on church property, frequently threatening to kill the youngster if he told anybody about the abuse, and once pointing a gun at the teen, the documents say.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
I thought they had insurance for stuff like that.
http://blogs.denverpost.com/hark/2010/05/25/scandal-creates-contempt-for-catholic-clergy/39/
Iowa-based Guide One Center for Risk Management, which insures more than 40,000 congregations, also said Catholic churches are not considered a greater risk or charged higher premiums.
“Our claims experience shows this happens evenly across denominations,” said spokeswoman Melanie Stonewall.
However, the largest insurer of the Catholic Church was silent on the subject.
Midwestern Catholic dioceses formed their own Nebraska-based nonprofit insurance group in 1896, now called the Catholic Mutual Group, which is the provider to 111 out of 195 U.S. Catholic dioceses. Catholic Mutual’s counsel, Tim Augustine, declined comment on sexual-abuse claims.
settle abuse lawsuit, Gamecock wrote:
Catholic church to pay $1 million of Parishioner’s tithes to settle abuse lawsuit
There, fixed it.
you are so right....16 years old is a young man not a child.This was simply a homosexual encounter between twn mWILLING participants. I was 16....in high school, played football and was not a homosexual. That having been said, had a priest, or anyone else, made a forceful type advance to me, there would have been more than a minor altercation followed by a trip to the local police department (we didn’t have 911 then).....sorry but if I’m on the jury the so called victim gets NOTHING
If a public school teacher had done the same thing, there would be a chorus of “I’d hit it!” and complaints about puritans who don’t understand a teenage boy’s sexual needs.
So you would have no problem with a male teacher having sex with your 16 year old daughter?
Same thing.
Last year the Ed Dept predicted an increase to approx. 10%.
Approximately 10% of students being sexually abused by ... no, I’m sorry ... in consensual intimate relationships with their teachers?
Why aren’t liability judgments shutting school districts down?
So you would have no problem with a male teacher having sex with your 16 year old daughter?
not analagous at all, nor could she later sue him for $1,000,000.00. In many states the teacher would get serious jail time for statuatory rape. If, as the 16 year old male claimed, there was force involved....probably 40 years for the perp against the female.....just doesn’t happen against the male. I justify neither creep in both cases, but the male is far more likely to be able to defend himself than the female and a lawsuit should not be part of a criminal case before the perp is convicted
pretty easy to explain....sue the state, no luck, sue an individual protestant clergyman, not a lot of money, sue the archdiocese of Chicago...BIG BUCKS....no more perps but many more dollars....pathetic
I’ve had some bad things happen in my life, and money didn’t make them un-happen. I think it trivializes the real damage of sexual abuse to pretend that throwing money around will make it go away.
Shooting pedophiles ... the real pedophiles, who forcibly rape little kids ... you know, “Mommy’s new boyfriend,” would be good. Throwing some old queens in jail wouldn’t hurt, since it appears teenage boys lose their judgment when offered booze and cars and drugs. But if they’re really harmed, money isn’t going to help.
Is Paris Hilton an exemplar of psychological health? Lindsay Lohan? The Kardashian sisters? How can anyone imagine, at this point in history, that money helps anyone but the starving, of whom there are vanishingly few in the United States.
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.