Churches sold to compensate victims

[cappie]

Churches sold to compensate victims


A diocese in Canada's eastern province of Newfoundland will sell all of its churches and missions to come up with the money to compensate the victims of sexual assault by a priest.

AAP reports that the Catholic Diocese of St George's said it would sell about 150 properties to raise $A13.58 million for the victims of Fr Kevin Bennett, who was convicted in 1990 of hundreds of sexual assaults over three decades as a priest on the west coast of the island.

"Everything," Bishop Douglas Crosby said. "All of the churches, all of the parish houses, all the missions."

Bennett pleaded guilty and was sentenced to four years in prison in the early 1990s. Now retired and in his 70s, he continues to draw a church pension.

His 39 victims launched a civil suit in 1991, claiming damages from Bennett, some of his superiors, the western Newfoundland diocese of St George's and the church as a whole.

The case was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, which upheld the right of victims to sue their diocese.

Early this year, St George's became the first Catholic diocese in Canada to seek bankruptcy protection as a result of sexual abuse claims.

SOURCE
Churches sold to compensate victims (National Nine News/Australian Associated Press 10/5/05)

[Don John of Austria]

The problem is that the Church is submiting to the State at all, the Church should simply declare that they are not subject to the authority of the state and refuse to pay or acknowledge the States precieved authority in any way. If the State wants to come take the property let them come take it, TAKE IT, not be gven it. The Bishop should act like the prince he is supposed to be and fight to protect what God has intrusted him with. It is just sickning.

[jezic]

i don't know if i agree with that, but it is sickening.

it is sad that this happened yes, but sadder still that they are proving they missed the whole point of compassion and forgiveness.

[Aloysius]

Don John is right, the secular authority has no authority over the state, if anything the Church's authority ought to override the state's

now, the bishop here governed very poorly throughout the sexual abuse crises if he allowed this to go on, but the secular state still has no authority to punish his diocese for that. If I were bishop the only way they'd get the property is by force, and the only way they'd get the Cathedral is if it included my corpse.

[journeyman]

Since a Canadian or American diocese is a domestic (Canadian or American) entity, and not an embassy of the Holy See (which would have a better claim to immunity under international law), how can you justify the argument that the property is not subject to civil law jurisdiction and penalties.

[Aloysius]

because the Church has divine authority over the state.

this is not an argument from the point of international law, DJ and I are saying that the Church should simply defy the unjust laws that put the state above the church. Meaning, unless they send police and/or soldiers to remove our priests from the premesis, we should order our priests to remain there and run activities as normal even if the law says they shouldn't.

again, we don't have any claim to immunity from the point of view of man's laws... but Divine Law is clear that the Church is not subject to the secular authority.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='May 10 2005, 08:19 PM'] The problem is that the Church is submiting to the State at all, the Church should simply declare that they are not subject to the authority of the state and refuse to pay or acknowledge the States precieved authority in any way. If the State wants to come take the property let them come take it, TAKE IT, not be gven it. The Bishop should act like the prince he is supposed to be and fight to protect what God has intrusted him with. It is just sickning. [/quote]
You are correct.

This is just the beginning of the persecutions.

Hidden agendas and bigotry by crooked judges rule these cases.

There is no justice in the court systems for the Church. If there was justice, then the cities who have employees that are guilty of crimes would have to pay the victims of those crimes equally.

God Bless,
ironmonk

[KizlarAgha]

Ironmonk, Aloysius, Don John - I totally and wholeheartedly agree. In medieval times a man could run to the church for clemency and not be removed by secular authorities at all.

I say that the priests and property of the Catholic church are beholden to no government save that of the Holy See. This Bishop should have refused to pay, and forced the government to act.

Edited May 12, 2005 by KizlarAgha

[journeyman]

Are you saying there should be immunity from prosecution for any offense committed by a cleric? drinking and driving? running stop signs? killing pedestrians? robbing banks?

Diplomats have that kind of immunity and it infuriates people. Is that justice?

Cities, states (the feds) and their employees do not have total sovereign immunity. What they do have is insurance. and lawyers. When an employee violates the law, that typically exceeds their authority, and the employee typically loses the shield of the government's sovereign immunity. (the government still doesn't pay, because now the employee is no longer acting in accordance with the terms of their employment)

Suppose you are a small business. You hire a someone to work the evening shift. Late one night, right before quitting time, that employee lures a child into the back room and does something horrible. Should you lose your store? You didn't do the horrible thing, but you hired the person and put them in a position where they could do what they did without proper instruction or supervision. You'd better have insurance, or you're going to lose the store. You may lose it anyway.

You show the public a Church that is prosecuting and punishing priests for violating their vows and the public trust . . . and I'll show you a public that isn't as likely to sue the Church . . . because they will have faith in the Church to provide (and/or its ecclesiastic courts to render) justice

[Aloysius]

again, the bishop would have no 'legal' means by which to refuse to pay up. but acting as the shepherd of his diocese he ought to say "these churches are sacred ground who answer to the Authority of God and Church alone, not the secular authority"

no one is denying he failed in his duties to govern the church as a bishop to discipline his priests... however, the church is not accountable to any democratic government (it is ruled from the top down, from God to Pope to Bishops) and its authority is far above that of the state no matter what form the state takes.

the Church is not in the same category as businesses or states, it is far above all such things.

now in regards to clerics and their crimes, the clerics should probably be first accountable to the church. however, individual clerics are citizens of the state and as such can be punished individually, i.e. fined or put in jail, provided they are guilty of some sort of crime. the Church itself, or any individual diocese, cannot be punished as it holds supreme authority over all matters of man. if anything, the Church should be able to impose punishments on the state; but that won't happen anytime soon. until then, we should simply refuse to recognize any claim of the state to have authority to punish a diocese.

[Defender_of_the_Faith]

This is terrible. The entire diocese should not have to pay for the mistakes of one of its priests. This punnishes not only the church, but also all of the parrisioners who belong to that diocese. Ironmonk, Aloysius, Don John, and KizlarAgha are all right. The state has clearly overstepped it's bounds. The priest alone should be punnished. :angry:

[journeyman]

re-read cappie's summary - - hundreds of victims over three decades - 39 plaintiffs - $13.58 million (Australian) award - (read between the lines, if they have to sell everything, they aren't a wealthy diocese . . . some of our big city cathedrals are probably worth that all by themselves) . . .

is that the work of a single rogue outlaw priest? or was there active cooperation (or intentional disbelief) on the part of the diocese as well

the award works out to just under $350,000 per plaintiff

would you let someone do that to you for $350,000

and the perpetrator is still drawing his pension . . . although the diocese may find a way to cut that off in its bankruptcy . . . or should he keep that?

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='journeyman' date='May 12 2005, 01:05 AM'] re-read cappie's summary - - hundreds of victims over three decades - 39 plaintiffs - $13.58 million (Australian) award - (read between the lines, if they have to sell everything, they aren't a wealthy diocese . . . some of our big city cathedrals are probably worth that all by themselves) . . .

is that the work of a single rogue outlaw priest? or was there active cooperation (or intentional disbelief) on the part of the diocese as well

the award works out to just under $350,000 per plaintiff

would you let someone do that to you for $350,000

and the perpetrator is still drawing his pension . . . although the diocese may find a way to cut that off in its bankruptcy . . . or should he keep that? [/quote]
It doesn't matter. The Church doesn't answer to secular authorities, it answers to God. If the Church cannot be sued, it will be less likely to be sued, that's just common sense. Especially in America, the allure of easy money causes many lawsuits. I find an interesting discrepancy however.

The United States Government cannot be sued by a citizen unless the government consents to being sued. And yet the Church should be under the authority of a secular, immoral, democracy. The very idea disgusts me.

If the Church is bound by secular democracy then how long will it be before Catholic hospitals must allow abortions to be performed? I've seen several laws on that and lawsuits concerning it. That's disgusting.

The Church answers to God. If the priest repents, he is forgiven. The victims should forgive him and move on with their lives, not seek monetary compensation which is nothing but a hollow victory on their parts.

On another level, this is atrocious. How many parishioners gave money to the diocese to support it? This money is now going to random people? How horrible. What about good works provided by the diocese like soup kitchens, dinners for the homeless, other kinds of support? All gone. Finally, how many souls will be lost without the church properties. Imagine if all of the Catholic churches in your town were suddenly sold, demolished, and turned into parking lots - or shopping malls. What would that do to your faith? Some of us are stronger, others weaker. We should never allow a situation such as this one.

If even one soul is lost because of a lust for monetary compensation on the part of the victims, then they are guilty of a worse crime than sexual abuse.

[cmotherofpirl]

It sets a dangerous precedent that will be taken advantage of by as many people as possible.

[Mogmog]

In some sense it seems to me that individuals (including Bishops) responsible for covering up these types of things or allowing them by purposeful oversight should be able to be held responsible as individuals, but not as an entire diocese. On the other hand, I don't really think money can redress these things to begin with. Because of that I'm inclined to say that situations like this are more about greed than any form of justice.

[Aloysius]

the Bishop governed improperly by not immediately defrocking and/or excommunicating those who committed these crimes, but the Bishop's governance of his diocese is accountable to the Church. The state has no authority to punish the Bishop for how he governed his church even if it was not done correctly.

[Mogmog]

I have no problem with it if no civil law was broken by an individual. Do you propose that civil law in general is not applicable to bishops? Criminal law?

[Aloysius]

civil law is not applicable to the Church, it is the state that ought to be bound by the Church's law and not the other way around.

[Mogmog]

Well I suppose this isn't the place to flesh this out in debate form, and I really don't have the motivation to do so at the moment anyway. In any case, we agree that justice was not done in this case.

[journeyman]

Civil law is not applicable to the Church?

think about the consequences of that . . .

building codes don't apply to Church construction?
traffic laws don't apply to Church
(ordained only? employees? what about the nuns?)
criminal law doesn't apply to the Church
inheritance law doesn't apply to the Church
laws governing ownership of real property don't apply to the Church
tax laws don't apply to the Church
(just the tax law applicable to the citizens, or all the tax laws?)
(shall we tax the church, or just deny a tax deduction to its members?)


and think about the flip side, when the Church has a grievance

the Church can't use the court system to enforce its claims
(against, for example, the priests who behaved improperly)
(against, for example, the rogue lawyer who defrauded an estate rather than paying over the bequests to the heirs (one of whom might have been the Church))
(against, for example, the contractor who broke his contract and didn't finish building the new sanctuary)


What is the Church?
(the building? the priest? the parish congregation?)

The Church would find it as difficult to live in a society in which it, as a member of the society, is not subject to and entitled to the benefits of the civil law as we would find it to live in a society which had no civil law at all