LOS ANGELES - The nation's largest Roman Catholic archdiocese said Friday it will pay $60 million to settle 45 sex abuse lawsuits, the largest payout yet by the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and among the biggest resulting from the molestation crisis that's plagued the church.

The cases were among more than 500 abuse claims pending against the Los Angeles Archdiocese.

"It's a day of healing and reconciliation as we move forward with these 45 cases," Cardinal Roger Mahony told The Associated Press. "This is very special for these victims in their moment of healing."

The claims settled Friday involve 22 priests and include allegations from two periods when the archdiocese had limited or no insurance against sexual abuse claims — prior to the mid-1950s and after 1987.

Mahony said $40 million of the payment would come from the archdiocese, while $20 million would be from religious orders plus a small amount of independent insurance coverage.

Negotiations on the deal had been in progress for at least a year but were held up because attorneys for the plaintiffs wanted the church to release the accused priests' private personnel files.

The agreement calls for an independent judge to review those files and decide which documents can be released to the alleged victims. That process is expected to take several months.

Ray Boucher, the lead plaintiffs' attorney, said the settlement was the largest the Los Angeles Archdiocese had reached "by far." Boucher said at least two plaintiffs had died while awaiting the resolution.

"I wasn't certain we would ever get it done, but thankfully 45 very injured people will have a chance to begin to heal, particularly at this time of the year," he said. "The big concern is the 700 or 800 victims who are out there who still have claims pending."

Boucher said that not all of the plaintiffs' attorneys had signed off on the finalized documents, but that process was expected to be completed by Monday.

Don Steier, an attorney who represents many of the accused priests, did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

David Clohessy, national director for the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests, said he was happy for the alleged victims who were part of the settlement but remained angry at Mahony and other church leaders.

"We recognize it for what it is, which is a purely business move designed to keep Mahony out of depositions and off the witness stand. That's what every bishop fears the most and that's why they settled," Clohessy said.

"His claim to care about healing is ludicrous in light of his expensive and hardball effort for years to delay and stall."

Sex abuse by Roman Catholic priests has cost the U.S. church at least $1.5 billion since 1950.

Friday's settlement was the largest in California since 2004, when the Diocese of Orange agreed to spend $100 million to settle 90 abuse claims. It was also the fourth-largest in the nation since the clergy abuse crisis erupted in the Archdiocese of Boston in 2002, according to an AP review of settlements.

Four dioceses — Tucson, Ariz.; Spokane, Wash.; Portland, Ore., and Davenport, Iowa — sought bankruptcy protection from a flood of lawsuits. Tucson has emerged from the process.

Source
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm glad to see the innocent victims get some justice in this at least. If the church never sponsered the child abuse and let it go on, none of these poor children would have been so wronged in life. Nation's around the globe need to take a bit tougher stance against the church and force them to stop these horrible crimes against little children and release full documents to the proper authorities.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...showtopic=77603

A post i started several months ago.

Yeah, I read some what through it. Good info in there.

It is high time that religious organizations were brought in line with other corporations and institutions.

The list of abuses alledged against the church, would have brought about the collapse of any other organization in a similiar position.

Imagine if IBM had a list of sexual complaints against its managers, think they would be allowed to transfer the accused to another district, state, or country?

Nope.

And look at the property that religious organizations own. NOT ONE DIME in taxes is paid by these groups. Why not?

1. Religious organizations educate people, do charitable work, etc.
2. Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

What a colossal waste of money. Those sex deviant priests should have been weeded out 60 plus years ago. Makes one wonder why donate to a church if they'll just use it to pay out a lawsuit.

OK, so how does taxing a religious organization, or collecting tax on property owned by such an organization interfere with the practice of said religion?



So do I and my wife. Should we be exempt from paying taxes too?

^It should be noted that if we tax one religious organization then we should tax them all, which would be unfair for a lot of the smalller organizations who are not able to support themselves. Furthermore, even amongst the larger organizations, individual parishes are often required to sustain themselves, and most of them are also too small to be able to support themselve sor sustain their group. Yes, this creates disparity in larger churches and head offices that can (and most probably do) abuse the priveledge that the tax-free laws provide for them.

But unless someone can suggest a better alternative, then there is no alternative. At least, that's how I see it, at least.

Regards, PA

In the US, every property owning citizen and corporation, AND business (both large & small) pays taxes on their property, their bank accounts, and in some states, yearly tax on their autos, boats, and pleasure vehicles.

WHY THEN, should ANY religious group enjoy special dispensation from taxation?

If I failed to pay my taxes, the town, county, state, and the US governement would have no hesitation to evict me from my home and sell it to "recoup" their "lost" taxes.

And, for the record, I never singled out any one religious outlaw, er, outfit for taxation.

Just like a Mom&Pop grocery, or Wal-mart, they should ALL be taxed, both on their property holdings, and financial assets.

I'm afraid that would severely impact virtually every small-town church (or mosque or temple for that matter also). Most small parishes (and in Australia, at least, even most medium sized parishes also) are barely able to support themselves as is, with some even having to borrow money to stay afloat. Adding taxes to these would cripple the small churches and small temple's and small mosques. The Hare Krishna's would very likely be unable to keep their vegetarian food shelters open for those who need food, as would many Christian soup kitchens......

So what do you suggest, JM......

well pardon me for not shedding a tear for the poor churches.

How about the hard working families, two or three incomes, that still struggle to pay their taxes? And feed & clothe their children?

I once knew a man, he was an ordained minister in some sect of christianity. He owed a three story parking garage with banners and a neon sign that said "Jesus Saves". That garage was his "church". Every Sunday he could be found on the first floor preaching. The other six days of the week, he let people park there. And he didn't have a fee to do so. Nope. You had to "contribute" to the "churchs" coffers with a donation.........

Now obviously, this was a blatent end run around business laws, but it illustrates the point.

If an outfit wants to go into business ( whether that business is 'saving souls" or selling widgets), then there is no reason why they should be exempt from taxation, or due process of law.

Churches are a BUSINESS, just like any other. They occupy space, which is at a premium price. They have employees. They have everything that any other business has, including 'product'.

It doesn't, but it does violate the current interpretation of it to exclude religious organizations from nonprofit status because they are religious organizations. Barring religious organizations from nonprofit status would require getting rid of the entire 501c3 exemption policy, which would be a rather unpopular thing.
Start a 501c3 that you will work for, and donate all of your taxable property to it. I imagine you will still have to pay personal income taxes.
You too can take advantage of the tax system.

There seems to be a huge pattern here. Not only in L.A. but all over the country and the world. It's getting to seem that it's some kind of pre-requiset of becoming a priest. Abuse is accepted and swept under the "altar" so go ahead and do what you do. It's been going on for centuries.
I wonder how many people the church could feed around the world, with the millions of dollars wasted settling all the lawsuits.
Pittiful.

After awhile this isn't news. I think how the church wants to keep it's sheep conservative and in keeping with the churches will. And then I think of the olden times, when people that raped babies were ordered burned at the stake or hanged, for being possessed!
All hail a return to fundamentalist principals! Starting with deviant clergy !

Awesome post. I really couldn't agree more. It's sad that religion gets special treatment.

Update: Ex-nun recalls episodes of clergy abuse

LOS ANGELES - A former nun who says she's haunted by her memory of being molested by a pedophile priest as a young girl hopes a landmark settlement by the Archdiocese of Los Angeles will help her heal.

Mary Dispenza, 67, no longer calls herself a Catholic, no longer attends church and doubts she will be able to reconcile the abuse with her faith.

"Everything that I knew, all my identity, was wrapped up in the church in one way or another. I was just lost," said Dispenza, who lives in Bellevue, Wash. "I felt we both lost: the church lost me and I lost the church. And we both had invested a lot in each other for all those years."

She expects to receive $1.33 million as part of the $60 million the archdiocese said Friday it would pay to settle 45 sexual abuse lawsuits, the largest church sex abuse settlement since 2004. The payments cover cases from periods when the nation's largest archdiocese had little or no sexual abuse insurance — cases before the mid-1950s and after 1987.

The agreement should be completed by early next week, said Ray Boucher, the plaintiffs' lead attorney.

For years, Dispenza said, she repressed the memory of her abuse at the hands of the now-defrocked Rev. George Neville Rucker, also accused of molesting 37 other girls over three decades.

Rucker, now 86, was criminally charged in 2002 with 29 counts of molestation, and pleaded not guilty. The charges were later dropped after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling overturned a California law that erased the statute of limitations for filing criminal molestation cases.

Rucker's attorney, Donald Steier, said Friday he would not discuss the alleged abuse but was glad Dispenza was able to settle the claim "and put it behind her."

Dispenza said she was a 7-year-old girl in 1947 when Rucker reached down her panties and fondled her after she had wandered into the darkened auditorium of her Roman Catholic primary school.

After he abused her, Dispenza says, the young priest held her hand as he walked her to the back of the auditorium. She washed her hands before returning to her mother, and didn't tell anyone what had happened for more than 40 years.

"I went into this little bathroom and I remember washing my hands, washing and washing. As a 7-year-old, I think I thought that would clean me or something," she said in a telephone interview. "That's where I left little Mary for many, many years. I just detached and split."

Dispenza worked for six years at St. Alphonsus School in East Los Angeles, the same school where she says Rucker abused her, and joined a convent for a time.

She was working in the Archdiocese of Seattle in 1989 when she had to take a workshop on clergy abuse and began to remember what happened.

"It was like, 'Oh my God, this happened to me and I need to take care of it,'" she said.

She told her father about the alleged abuse when he was on his deathbed, but her mother never knew.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just horrible.

What a sad story. I don't believe that humans were ment to be celebate. It goes against nature. Perhaps this is why this problem is. The church seems to create these disfuntional people...priests and nuns, but it also crosses into other Christian denominations. The Devil made them do it? Nope. I don't think so, I think that is an excuse, and a poor one.
The paster of the church in Colorado Springs,Ted Haggard, seems to be Bi-sexual, he is married, and preached to thousands of children. "Haggard is the founder and is the former senior pastor at the 14,000-member New Life Church in Colorado Springs and former president of the 30-million Evangelical Association" That's 30million people!
What kind of new life does this guy have now? Haggard said he never had sex with the man, but did admit to buying meth, but said he never used it! Yeah right! Just like Clinton said he didn't inhale! We're supposed to believe this? I don't. I think the teachings of the church are confusing to children and adults, and breeds disfuntion, and tears families apart, because they teach irresponsibility.....just give all to god. Wrong people, deal with your feelings and your problems. Don't pretend they don't exsist, and don't lie to yourself. If you use drugs, admit you might have a problem, and get help. If your Gay or think you might be gay, or Bi-sexual, look for the answers, but be open with yourself, don't let others tell you what's wrong for you. Be proud to be who you are, but don't hide it because you feel ashamed. There's nothing to be ashamed of except trying to hide who you are from others and yourself. Don't hurt anyone else, and be careful for yourself and others, but don't let some preacher tell you right from wrong, because they may be worse off than you are!
And for your sake, don't let anyone put their hands down your pants unless you want them too. Punch, kick, fight, yell, run....whatever it takes, defend yourself, and if it does happen go straight to the police.

With the exception of not having to file for 501c3 status, churches and other houses of worship are treated the exact same as every other 501c3 out there.

What really is 501c3?

A section in the federal tax code that deals with nonprofits.

What gets me is how a non-profit orginiaztion can become so rich and powerful, and yet some of it's own believers go homeless and hungry year after year. Maybe this thing is deeper than we thought......maybe is a food for sex deal! "oh you're hungry, me too my child." As if it's not sick enough already.

Quite the imagination you have. Considered a career in pseudo nonfiction?

I knew someone that applied for aid from Catholic Charities. She and her kids went hungry because they didn't qualify as good Catholics and had a bit of equity to their name. In other words, they still had material possessions they could sell, so as to feed themselves.

I can see CC's point! God knows the church is not about materialism. No way!

Sorry it's just my sick mind. I guess I have a very dark sense of humor sometimes. But it's still sad and scarry what innocent people go through at the hands of those they trust.
But really when you think about all of the money churches spend on stuff like huge buildings, and fancy homes for the pastor or clergy to live in, fancy cars, and for the Roman Church, priceless paintings and art, and then to think about how they were aquired, it just seems that churches would want to put the money back into the communities and actually come up with long term solutions to some of these simple problems like hunger, which only takes money to fix. There sure seems to me to be enough of that around, unless of course you have bad or mismanagement.

^Just a point, but I think you're generalizing the mega-churches as the norm. Most churches are small or medium sized, and barely scrapes in enough money to keep itself afloat. In these churches, ministers don't get paid six or seven-figure salaries. They get generally an average wage/salary. Certainly not a lot when you factor in that they work 60 or 70 hours a week (that's contact hours with others, that doesn't include sermon-preparation time or anything). And it doesn't reflect the amount of study that they've done. As a general rule, having a university degree is a pre-requisite for entry into most bible colleges. That means 3-4 years study before doing another 4 years in Bible training. Any other career that requires 7-8 years of tertiary study for completion entitles you to a career that will get you a hell of a lot of money (medicine, for example - 7-8 years is most of the way to specialising, and that's when you start rolling in the big bucks).

Sorry, I'm rambling. I'm just trying to point out that the mega-churches where the pastor lives in a mansion, drives a ferrari, wears an armani suit and a rolex, well that's just not how things generally are. It's just that these are the most noticeable by non-Christians, and I for one wish churches like this would use the money for better purposes.

Regards, PA

Better purposes really in your own opinion. Spreading a virus in my opinion. With the tax breaks it's losing out on the tax payers and this country. If you really want a church or want to pray... You don't even need a building... You can go out into a field and pray with a group of people... Surely since god is everywhere. It's the greed to want more that you simply don't need to talk to a god that is everywhere.

"In 1850, I believe, the church property in the United States, which paid no tax, amounted to $87 million. In 1900, without a check, it is safe to say, this property will reach a sum exceeding $3 billion. I would suggest the taxation of all property equally."

-- Ulysses S Grant

^You assume that going somewhere to pray is the sole purpose of church. And yes, that was my opinion before, but surely if the mega-churches with their mega-money could put it towards...... say, feeding the homeless, ending poverty, getting me an Xbox360 or PS3, seeking peace..... then surely this cannot be a bad thing.

I cannot believe that the payment of money by the church is considered a settlement for abuse!! What in the world can anyone be thinking???

So they should get a tax break for simply being a faith? If they want to do something, they should do it on their own or through an actual charity rather then religion. I don't see a need for religion to get tax breaks when that money could be spent on education, health care or other vital areas of a society. If churchs have to shut down over it, then so be it... But nobody is stopping them from raising money on their own and keeping up a church.