Los Angeles archdiocese to settle clergy abuse suits for $600 million

Posted Sat, Jul 14, 2007 at 11:03 am

The Los Angeles archdiocese of the Catholic Church - led my Cardinal Roger Mahony, aka "the pedophile protector" - is going to settle its outstanding lawsuits in regards to sexual abuse by priests for $600 million. Unfortunately, this means that Mahoney won't be forced to take the stand, something that would have undermined his authority even further. Part of the tab will be paid for by the archdiocese, part by other orders, and part through insurance. However, they apparently plan to sell of some of their "non-essential" properties.

Considering that Mahony lied to his parishioners about this matter, that he's covered up for priests and perhaps more, and that he strongly supports massive illegal activity (illegal immigration) out of false compassion, and that he admitted stretching the truth about the impacts of HR4437, it's a wonder that anyone takes him seriously.

Comments

Fred Dawes (not verified)

Sat, 07/14/2007 - 22:03

so how did the little boy likers of that evil little so called church get $600 million out of someones ass?

eh (not verified)

Sun, 07/15/2007 - 04:37

Good question Fred. That is really an UNBELIEVABLE AMOUNT OF MONEY. Where does the Church get all of that? I can't imagine they get it from the collection basket. And Catholics generally don't tithe.

D Flinchum (not verified)

Sun, 07/15/2007 - 08:28

Where would a church get money? Well, first of all remember that churches are tax-free: No income tax, no property tax, no sales tax,etc. You can accumulate quite a bit of money - and buy quite a lot of property - over the years by using government services but not having to pay taxes. Also the CC gets quite a bit of government money. For one thing, it's in on the refugee resettlement scam. Remember? The government pays them to resettle refugees in your neighborhood, dumps them there, and you and your neighbors get to pick up the on-going costs since the CC isn't responsible for them.

D Flinchum (not verified)

Sun, 07/15/2007 - 10:26

I checked this story out at Limits to Growth and it looks as if a big source of this money will be - insurance! It's amazing to me that any insurance company on the face of the earth will still insure the CC for criminal child abuse.

Gary (not verified)

Sun, 07/15/2007 - 19:19

Don't forget also that there are a lot of very wealthy old-line Los Angeles families that are Catholic, and I am sure quite a bit of property, money, securities, etc. etc. have been willed to the L.A. archdiocese over the years. It's the only thing that's keeping them solvent, since most of the parishioners these days are poor and illegal. The mother-in-law of a close friend of mine died recently after a long bout with cancer. Apparently, she was visited no fewer than 3 times by Mahony during her hospitalization. Since she's not a young boy (obviously) or an illegal Mexican alien, my guess is that the cardinal was there to put in his pitch for money.

Fred Dawes (not verified)

Mon, 07/16/2007 - 01:51

By the way read the story most of the money will go to Lawyers/IRS about 590 million, its a win-win for all the Lawyers/IRS.

Jaded (not verified)

Mon, 07/16/2007 - 16:15

I hope it breaks their backs (wishful thinking) so that they can stop harboring illegals. The Catholic church has been an afront to God for quite some time and it would be great to watch it tumble.

llamajockey (not verified)

Mon, 07/16/2007 - 18:00

Lonewacko, First of all has everybody here seen the 2006 academy award nominated documentary Deliver Us from Evil on the Church sex scandal? Cardinal Mahony is a major figure and is basically caught perjuring himself. If everybody in America saw the movie the Cardinal would be ran out of town in a heartbeat. Am I wrong but was not one of the conditions of the Church's settlements of these molestation cases that children be barred from any and all non-public areas of Church property? Therefore is it possible that the sanctuary movement in direct violation of these court orders? At the very least I am sure I have seen where Church reform and anti-molestation groups have demanded these measures.