Associated Press
LOS ANGELES, July 16 – After a whirlwind weekend, the negotiations that produced a landmark $660 million settlement between the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles and more than 500 alleged victims of clergy abuse are heading toward a conclusion.
Attorneys from both sides, as well as Cardinal Roger Mahony, are expected in court Monday to enter a formal settlement agreement with Judge Haley Fromholtz. The deal marks the end of more than five years of negotiations and is by far the largest payout by any diocese since the clergy abuse scandal emerged in Boston in 2002.
Mahony, leader of the nation’s largest archdiocese, apologized Sunday to the hundreds of clergy sex abuse victims who will receive a share of the settlement.
“There really is no way to go back and give them that innocence that was taken from them. The one thing I wish I could give the victims … I cannot,” he said.
“Once again, I apologize to anyone who has been offended, who has been abused. It should not have happened and should not ever happen again.”
Mahony said he has met with dozens of victims of clergy abuse in the past 14 months and those meetings helped him understand the importance of a quick resolution to what he called a “terrible sin and crime.”
The cardinal said the settlement will not have an impact on the archdiocese’s core ministry, but said the church will have to sell buildings, use some of its invested funds, and borrow money. He said the archdiocese will not sell any parish properties or parish schools.
“We gather today because this long journey has now come to an end and a new chapter of that journey is beginning,” Mahony told reporters.
The settlement also calls for the release of priests’ confidential personnel files after review by a judge.
“I think for those of us who have been involved in this for more than five years, it’s a huge relief,” said Michael Hennigan, archdiocese attorney. “But it’s a disappointment, too, that we didn’t get it done much earlier than this.”
Parishioners reacted with a mix of disappointment and relief.
Vivian Viscarra, 50, who attends Mass at the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels three times a month, said the victims deserve the payout even though it could hurt the church’s ability to deliver important services. The amount would average a little more than $1.3 million per plaintiff, although individual payouts will vary according to the severity and duration of the abuse.
“I am disappointed,” Viscarra said. “And it’s making me reevaluate my views of whether people in the ministry should be married. People do have needs.”
The deal settles all 508 cases that remained against the archdiocese, which also paid $60 million in December to settle 45 cases that weren’t covered by sexual abuse insurance.
The archdiocese will pay $250 million, insurance carriers will pay a combined $227 million and several religious orders will chip in $60 million. The remaining $123 million will come from litigation with religious orders that chose not to participate in the deal, with the archdiocese guaranteeing resolution of those 80 to 100 cases within five years, Hennigan said. The archdiocese is released from liability in those claims, said Tod Tamberg, church spokesman.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys can expect to receive up to 40 percent of the settlement money – or $264 million – for their work.
The settlements push the total amount paid out by the U.S. church since 1950 to more than $2 billion, with about a quarter of that coming from the Los Angeles archdiocese. A judge must sign off on the agreement.
Previously, the Los Angeles archdiocese, its insurers and various Roman Catholic orders had paid more than $114 million to settle 86 claims. Several religious orders in California have also reached multimillion-dollar settlements in recent months, including the Carmelites, the Franciscans and the Jesuits.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Beliefnet
Advertisement
posted July 16, 2007 at 11:36 am
Just as a high tide raises all boats, a low tide like this strands many of us working in churches. Our denomination is structured differently and deal with these sorts of conflict more directly (so I have been told – and seen), so I don’t think we are headed for such a cataclysmic problem. However, all of us in the ministry are held at arms length and our credibility is uncertain because of things like this. The victims deserve the payments, which often seem inadaquate to the harm. It is sad that the RC Church has to deal with this, but they did not deal with it earlier when problems with some priests were first identified. But they are draining the bay for all of us, too.
Faith and hope will prevail, and joy and peace will abound.
posted July 16, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Do people really believe their claim to be ‘the one true church’? That’s a big claim for such a demonic, abusive, corrupt machine which has generated so much unnecessary suffering throughout history.
posted July 16, 2007 at 4:50 pm
How sad.
posted July 16, 2007 at 6:50 pm
The RCC could have saved themselves a lot of embarrassment and money if they hadn’t overlooked the original situations,by sending the priests for “treatment” in some monastery and then sending them BACK to work in the churches again…moving them from church to church, to once again abuse. Never calling the authorities, never kicking their butts out of the church, totally ignoring what they were being told.
I’m glad the victims are getting paid, but it won’t erase the abuse they had inflicted upon them. We can hope the church has learned that their centuries old habit of secrets is unacceptable. I guess some of the priests figure they will be “forgiven” by their god. Somehow I don’t think the victims will “forgive”. How could they?
Mahony apologized…little late, isn’t it? At least the files of the offending priests are being made public….
And “gee”, they are going to have to sell some property…what a shame!!
If nothing else the RCC situation over the last few years has brought to the surface that even ministers and priests, can’t be trusted by church members and friends, alone with their kids. Even those who claim to represent “god” are just human…some good and some not.
posted July 17, 2007 at 12:05 am
It is good to have this settlement and I hope it’s all the cases. I hope a lot of organizations, religious and otherwise, have learned from this but I wouldn’t bet the lesson will be retained very many (if any) decades.
posted July 17, 2007 at 12:08 am
Now the latest posts are on the bottom. (!?)
posted July 17, 2007 at 3:10 pm
“Faith and hope will prevail, and joy and peace will abound.”
Now THAT’s faith.
posted July 17, 2007 at 4:44 pm
A married clergy may help ease the issue some. I’ve never understood why the Church does not allow its priests to marry anyway. The immediate disciples, including Peter, were married; so what’s the big deal. The Church maintains that you can not serve two masters, and the clergy of the Church are considered married to Christ and the shepherds of the Church. This, however, simply is not logical.
On the other hand, the mess the Church finds itself in, is due to paedophilia. For a paedophile marriage would make no difference. These men are generally oriented toward homosexuality, but not all paedophiles are gay. Whether gay or straight it is right and proper that the Courts punish not just the Church financially, but the guilty priests individually with lengthy prison terms. A Bishop wishing to solve the problem can not do so merely by moving the offender to another parish, even out of state. Just as a homosexual can not change his sexual orientation because of the DNA passed to him by his mother, a paedophile is not likely to change because he suffers from a serious mental disease as well as a heart ripe with immorality. Both should pay, and pay through the nose, Church and priest. $600 million is not nearly enough compensation for the innocent children who will have to live with the violation the rest of their lives.
posted July 17, 2007 at 6:14 pm
“Never calling the authorities, never kicking their butts out of the church, totally ignoring what they were being told.”
- is written Vatican policy.
posted July 17, 2007 at 6:21 pm
nnmns: Yes, I discovered yesterday that the new posts are now at the bottom!
Has anyone figured out how to read a poster’s profile? Previously if you clicked on their name, it popped up. Just asking.
posted July 17, 2007 at 6:48 pm
I don’t think they have this new format mastered yet. I take it the word limit is gone, or at least increased.
posted July 17, 2007 at 7:51 pm
nnmns,
Yes, I think the word limit seems to be gone, or at least increased, as up to this time, I haven’t reached it.
Also I have noticed that there is no “sign in” any more on these pages. I accidently sent one without filling in the name and email, and it posted.
posted July 18, 2007 at 10:30 am
New format – Aah, progress! -cough, cough, snicker, sly smile-
I miss the access to profiles. Think they will ever set that up again? It is helpful to know a little about who each of us presents ourselves to be. I like the less limited word length – but it is dangerous to key-mad fanatics like me. Forced editing is helpful, though I often felt like I was working on a telegraph. Stop. More, much more later. Stop.
posted July 18, 2007 at 10:42 am
Jestrfyl,
I typed in a person’s name at the top in the “search” spot and was able to get their profile, but couldn’t find the “edit” line at the bottom. It was nice to click on a person’s name to go to their profile. I do like the no word limit. That did get frustrating when I had a long train of thought going. (rare, but did sometimes).
On a couple of discussion sites, that are still set up the previous way, if said to sign in to reply and I couldn’t do that. Where is the sign in now?
posted July 18, 2007 at 10:46 am
Meant to say “it was nice Previously to be able to click on a person’s name…
Also, not seeing the edit or change line on my profile, when I looked, not going to change anyone elses!
posted July 19, 2007 at 2:17 am
Hi guys!
I know questions are on various blog entries but, here goes.
No, Lion and I did not remove earlier posts. Setting up the new blog probably caused a few disappearances.
The blogs are on a different system than the mini-boards and discussion boards. There isn’t a “sign-in” to Beliefnet, and so there is no access to a member’s profile because…well…it’s not the same system.
Yes, the word count is definitely larger here.
We will be monitoring the blogs, and the ROC do still apply. So after this brief “honeymoon” period – I mean, how can we expect you guys NOT to comment on the changes! – we’d appreciate it if questions/remarks are emailed to us like before. Just click on the link in the POST A COMMENT area that goes to the ROC to find email links. ‘Cause, really, they don’t have anything to do with the blog entry, and some questions are better handled by staff that aren’t necessarily reading all these entries.
I think I covered the main questions I’m seeing pop up.
We hope you’ll enjoy the differences!
Beliefnet_Tiger
Community Monitor
Beliefnet.com
posted July 19, 2007 at 8:27 am
BnTiger – thank you very much for your info. I very much prefer the new format. Is there any way to add a “preview and edit” feature?
But: later comments later – what a concept! And the columns are much wider so it’s easier to read the posts.
BTW, yawl: try to be mindful to break up posts into smallish paragraphs. Big blocks of gray are very hard to read, especially on screen.
There’s a BnLion, you say: is there also a BnBear, Oh My?
Anyway – back on track:
I don’t love the capitalist system, and don’t love the insurance industry, but this is one area in which we all owe them a great debt. Way back when, ten or fifteen years ago, the actions and inactions for which the RCC is being zapped was not notably different than those of other churches.
Thinking of sexual abuse by clergy and lay leaders incorrectly, responding inappropriately or not at all, and generally getting it wrong in almost every way one can get it wrong, was standard in most churches. And back then, occasionally, a victim would step up with enough evidence to sue, and the insurance company would pay out a settlement.
After awhile, insurance companies started to get tired of paying for such abuses, and began to impose policies on churches as a condition of insurability. These conditions included criminal background checks and sexual abuse prevention training for ordinands and others (I passed mine).
Had individual abusers not been held accountable by their victims, the churches would not have been held accountable by our insurers, and we would all still be thinking wrong. I think we’re doing that less and less.
Self-insured churches, like I assume the RCs are, would of course be a little behind the curve – and it shows.
posted July 19, 2007 at 10:39 am
BN Tiger – (and this is for public eyes)
First thanks for your email to me about the system changes.
Next, I am favorably impressed that you posted to this page after 2 am. Tiger’s stalking in the night are simply way cool – in a mystrious kind of way.
C – I like most of the changes, and it will simply take a while to ge tused to the things I am not so sure about. I try to look at this as if I am just getting into the system and don’t know the way it used to be.
I love the monikers, Lion and Tiger. Does this make all of us Dorothys? O My!
posted July 20, 2007 at 2:32 am
Is there any way to add a “preview and edit” feature?
Sorry, that’s a tech question. Best to email that one in.
There’s a BnLion, you say: is there also a BnBear, Oh My?
Actually, yes, but he doesn’t monitor the boards often. He has other duties.
I am favorably impressed that you posted to this page after 2 am. Tiger’s stalking in the night are simply way cool – in a mystrious kind of way.
I’m a definite night owl…or a dangerous man eater. I forget sometimes. ;-p
Does this make all of us Dorothys? O My!
Only if you really want to be. A flying monkey would be cool. They don’t get nearly enough screen time.
Well, back to work for me, and back to discussing the LA Archdiocese for you guys! Don’t forget to email us with any problems or questions.
Thanks!
Beliefnet_Tiger
posted July 29, 2007 at 5:45 pm
I’m 76 years old and a Catholic. Over the years, I have dropped money in the collection plates all over the country. I tried to respond to the pleas for financial help when ever I could. Never, never did I suspect the Church was stockpiling billions instead of using in for charitable purposes.
Never again will I drop a dime until I see the audited books …for the entire church in the country.