Church Pain

[Hazir]

So we have a church, a catholic church with parishes, dioceses and a world wide hierarchy. Parts of this church have a problem; a number of its religious workers have problems keeping their fingers and other body parts to themselves. The church tries to cover the problems up, but it doesn't work. Bit by bit everything comes out, and the general picture seems to be that where the catholic church was strongest the abuse was the worst.

Now we're moving into the next phase; the victims are demanding retribution for their suffering and in many cases they actually get sums awarded, either by courts or in settlements. But, that also means that the catholic church, in the hardest hit areas got into financial problems. One of those areas is the diocese of bisshop Dennis Brennan. So far €8 million was paid in settlements in 48 cases, 13 other cases are still pending but they also will mean that the church will have to pay up (probably). Besides money paid in settlements there is a €2 million bill in legal fees. The bisshop has mortgaged his residence but at the moment is €1.2 million short. Now he's looking for a new source of income and he has turned to the people in his diocese, asking them to financially help their church to pay for the costs of the abuse.

Some people think this is an outrage. I personally find it a bit strange that these people don't understand that the church as an organisation may have had real deep pockets but is now reaching the point where emptying out those pockets even further simply means that the church goes into liquidation and ceases to exist. Somehow I think that's not something most of its members want to see happen.

So, what you think, is it reasonable that the bisshop expects his flock to pay up?

[Ominous Gamer]

no

[Hazir]

If it can't pay any longer the diocese should cease to exist? Are you a catholic?

[Ominous Gamer]

If it can't pay any longer the diocese should cease to exist? Are you a catholic?

There are few cases where I would warrant a claim of needing to be "sued into bankruptcy". This is one of them. The church could have saved itself by refusing to stand behind these horrible people. The church decided that was a bad business decision. Now they are paying for it.
Its not going to destory the community as you're trying to suggest. If the world was lucky enough these poor blinded followers will discover they would get just as much out of life by joining their local bridge club. But considering the world has far to many churches, followings, and cults as we stand right now... thats a pipe dream.

[Hazir]

So you just see this as an opportunity to destroy a church?

[Ominous Gamer]

So you just see this as an opportunity to destroy a church?

No, I see this as letting the church destroy itself without dragging down the people its trying to brainwash into brushing off its horrible history.

[Hazir]

So that's a yes then.

[LittleFuzzy]

So, what you think, is it reasonable that the bisshop expects his flock to pay up?

Yes. As you indicate, there's a choice. See the Church bankrupt and unable to do what they want it to do, or support it financially, even if that means helping it pay settlements and court costs.

[Dreadnaught]

If there is some kind of leadership switch, it's totally reasonable for the church to ask for money in the name of not being liquidated. But it doesn't mean people should feel compelled to give.

Which brings me to a larger point that I have never been able to find any info just from searching around online: what exactly are the finances of the Roman Catholic Church like? They obviously don't have the income they used to (I mean, do people really tithe these days). Is it just some kind of endowment that could evaporate?

[Illusions]

No, I don't think its reasonable that he expects them to pay. The parishioners weren't the ones to committing a crime, so they should not be the ones who have to shoulder the burden of punishment thats been handed down because of it...

[Ziggy Stardust]

Yes. As you indicate, there's a choice. See the Church bankrupt and unable to do what they want it to do, or support it financially, even if that means helping it pay settlements and court costs.

Would this bankrupt the Church though? Or would it simply lose a couple of big ass properties in the process?


By the way, link to story.
http://www.independent.ie/national-n...h-2088025.html

(Try to ignore skinhead.)

Bishop Brennan has ruled out a request to the Vatican for financial help for the abuse victims' compensation fund. "I am not familiar with the finances of the Vatican," he said. "I do not want to burden others," he added. "This is our responsibility and we would like to discharge our responsibilities ourselves."

[Hazir]

No, I don't think its reasonable that he expects them to pay. The parishioners weren't the ones to committing a crime, so they should not be the ones who have to shoulder the burden of punishment thats been handed down because of it...

Then who should pay? The diocese doesn't have any property left. AFAIK church provinces all are financially independent. And why should (for example) the catholics of Utrecht (NL) indirectly pay for the wrong doings in the Irish church.

[Ziggy Stardust]

So far €8 million was paid in settlements in 48 cases, 13 other cases are still pending but they also will mean that the church will have to pay up (probably). Besides money paid in settlements there is a €2 million bill in legal fees. The bisshop has mortgaged his residence but at the moment is €1.2 million short. Now he's looking for a new source of income and he has turned to the people in his diocese, asking them to financially help their church to pay for the costs of the abuse.

Do you have an online source for this, or is it from a paper? Since it would be appreciated extra info in another thread also talking about this.

edit: also, "The church tries to cover the problems up, but it doesn't work" is it only the church of this particular region trying to cover it up, or is it more widespread.

[Hazir]

It's from articles in the Irish Times. I'm not a specialist on catholic hierarchy but the way I understand the reporting over the years is that the cover-up actions typically were the work of the provinces where it took place.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I asked because it also happened that a offender was simply moved to another province where he was unknown.

[Ziggy Stardust]

My opinion on the matter is that it's complicated. It almost seems like the parishoners are held at ransom. Pay for the consequences of our actions, otherwise you won't have a church to go to any more. The situation has come down to that to keep fulfilling their spiritual need, they have to pay for a despicable act. feel very sorry for those people, who are also the victims in this situation.

And since they are just as innocent of the crime as parishoners of other provinces, I don't see why the churches in other provinces, or indeed even the Vatican itself have any less obligation to make sure of the continuation of the church in the province where these crimes happened.

[Hazir]

I may be totally wrong, but I think a lot of the 'wealth' of the catholic church world wide is tied down in religious buildings and arts and other real estate that services the community (schools and hospitals). I really don't know if liquidating all of that makes either sense or would really cover all the damages awarded. The few times you hear anything at all about the financial state of the Vatican is that it's running a deficit and dependent on contributions by rich provinces.

I think indeed that the believers of the catholic church are being held ransom. The deeds were despicable, but the people who went after the money of the church are forgetting that in the end that money didn't belong to the culprits, but to the community of believers.

[GGT]

I thought when this kind of thing happened in the US, damages were paid out from insurance policies held by the diocese. Not sure what type (property liability or some injury umbrella?)

[Hazir]

From the article it seems that this particular diocese hadn't an insurance or at least had one that wasn't sufficient. But, that doesn't really change the core of the question because the (I have no doubt steep) premiums will have to be paid too by somebody.

[Illusions]

Then who should pay? The diocese doesn't have any property left. AFAIK church provinces all are financially independent. And why should (for example) the catholics of Utrecht (NL) indirectly pay for the wrong doings in the Irish church.

They should file for bankruptcy, there is nothing in the Bible that says that mass has to be held in a fancy church, or even any church. There is also nothing in the Bible that says the ceremony itself has to be fancy or elaborate.

I'm also sure that whomever in the parish who actually is the reason for them needing to pay has to have some property or money of his own.

[GGT]

Or they can appeal to the Vatican.

[Hazir]

You're assuming an out of employment priest should be paying the damages? In dutch we'd say 'it's no good trying to pluck a frog'.

As for the church going bankrupt as an organisation. How should I see that? If the people decide to establish a new catholic church they'd by definition would be the same catholic church that was liable for the sexual abuse?

[GGT]

If the sexual abuse happened while the priest was "working" for the Catholic Church, then the Vatican should have to eat some of the monetary damages.

In the US we have an offshoot reform of Roman Catholics, called American Catholic, not recognized by the Papacy or Vatican.

[Hazir]

But what if you believe that being part of the one church of Jesus Christ is an essential part of your salvation?

P.S. seems like some people in the Vatican are already looking for an alternative source of income.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I may be totally wrong, but I think a lot of the 'wealth' of the catholic church world wide is tied down in religious buildings and arts and other real estate that services the community (schools and hospitals). I really don't know if liquidating all of that makes either sense or would really cover all the damages awarded.The few times you hear anything at all about the financial state of the Vatican is that it's running a deficit and dependent on contributions by rich provinces.

I never looked into it, so I asked the google oracle.

First link from 1965. I didn't know they had internet back then

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...833509,00.html

Bankers' best guesses about the Vatican's wealth put it at $10 billion to $15 billion. Of this wealth, Italian stockholdings alone run to $1.6 billion, 15% of the value of listed shares on the Italian market. The Vatican has big investments in banking, insurance, chemicals, steel, construction, real estate. Dividends help pay for Vatican expenses and charities such as assisting 1,500,000 children and providing some measure of food and clothing to 7,000,000 needy Italians. Unlike ordinary stockholders, the Vatican pays no taxes on this income, which led the leftist Rome weekly L'Espresso last week to call it "the biggest tax evader in Italy."

But unfortunately Dan Brown seems to have cornered the market on google inquiries regarding the Vatican, struggling to find something decent.

[Hazir]

Yeah, I had come accross that Time article too, but I really don't think a piece from 1965 about the investments of the Vatican at a time before wholesale secularisation of its richest provinces still had to get going tells us very much about how rich they really are today.

[Ziggy Stardust]

No, me neither.

I still posted it just to ... post it

[Illusions]

You're assuming an out of employment priest should be paying the damages? In dutch we'd say 'it's no good trying to pluck a frog'.

As much as he can.

As for the church going bankrupt as an organisation. How should I see that? If the people decide to establish a new catholic church they'd by definition would be the same catholic church that was liable for the sexual abuse?

Not really. The parishioners are not liable for the sexual abuse. Consider the physical property the actual church owns. The building, is it still theirs? Sell it. Ceremonial robes? Those can go too. All the lavish items they use during a mass? Sell those off as well. They can hold a mass elsewhere, with mundane items. There are likely rules and regulations for how a mass can be run written up by the Catholic Church, but it is not based on anything in the Bible. That and the priests are not tied to that particular parish/church, so its not like selling off everything would leave them penniless and homeless, they'd just be re-assigned elsewhere.

[littlelolligagged]

In the US we have an offshoot reform of Roman Catholics, called American Catholic, not recognized by the Papacy or Vatican.

Then they aren't Catholics at all.

[LittleFuzzy]

Would this bankrupt the Church though? Or would it simply lose a couple of big ass properties in the process?

I have no idea. But either way, it would end up making cuts its parishioners are probably opposed to. Now refusing to go to the Vatican. . . THAT's inexcusable.