Sorry to read that the insurance companies have to pay out as much as agreed upon. I am not an advocate of insurance companies, as I have many issues with them, but believe that a priest attacking a boy is not their responsibility, but the church\’s. Sue the Church and the men wearing the funny looking garments who are very often complicit.
Perris ruled parishes and other church properties could be used to pay for lawsuits against the Archdiocese, however, it is also true, but has been kept from the public record, that the Archdiocese is vicariously liable for acts committed by priests/clergy belonging to parishes and monasteries. This would make Archdiocese monies available to plaintiffs, in addition to much smaller pay-offs available only through the parish/monastery. By reorganizing to protect parish money, to make them legally separate from the Archdiocese, perhaps the Archdiocese seeks to separate themselves from becoming liable in the future, by pointing out the parishes and monasteries do not share funds with the Archdiocese, making it therefore more difficult to prove the Archdiocese would have a financial and/or supervisory role to the parishes/monasteries. Cases in Oregon were being dismissed, where a claimant named the Archdiocese as being vicariously liable. Before I filed my own case, I did extensive research to find out whether this was true, that the Archdiocese was not liable…And, according to documents from/by the Archdiocese, which point to further evidence of documents that would prove such a relationship, the Archdiocese IS vicariously liable for any acts by clergy within their regional boundaries, if those acts are in any way connected to, or mixed up with, \”teaching, preaching,\” and any other thing that would have to do with the morals and promoting the doctrine of the church. If a professor monk or priest who teaches at a monastery abuses a student, the Archdiocese is vicariously liable because they are in a supervisory role over any capacity where doctrine and morals are concerned. Because this professor/monk or priest violated the morals of the church, he is liable to the Archdiocese for correction and investigation–also, because he is teaching religious doctrine and has abused a person while he had an obligation to be a \”standard\”, the Archdiocese is legally liable for the abuse that occured to the student. This is all in the church\’s own documents but it has been kept from the record. I gave this information, an exhibit, to several judges, and to the bankruptcy court to be scanned online for my case and it was refused. It has been \”lost\” in another courthouse whenever I requested the record for purposes of making copies or having it scanned. Without going into a lot of detail, suffice it to say, the Archdiocese won BIG in this case. Not only did they manage, with help from, actually (and oddly enough) the plaintiff\’s \”Tort Claimant\’s Committee) to keep this information from the record, they purposefully eliminated claims, representation, and allocations for damages brought by adults who had been abused by clergy, making it into a \”sex abuse of children\” thing. By doing this, the Archdiocese was able to eliminate any future liability from lawsuits brought by adults who had been abused by clergy in the past, and at the same time, they refused to acknowledge the ones that were pending at the time of bankruptcy. I could go on and on. Basically, and don\’t take my word for it more than anything else you read or hear, it was a sham. There may be an opportunity for some of the evidence to be brought forward later, but, you see, the Archdiocese is already making plans on how they can escape future liability. They have wiggled out of several key responsibities in this process, and after wiggling free, they reorganize. It has been a success for them. Not to mention, none of the lawyers lost out in this process. All of the lawyers involved profited from this proceeding, and from cooperation with the Archdiocese. Insurance companies? It was generous, in my opinion, for them to agree to pay. The Archdiocese has more than enough money, with combined property money and money from monasteries and parishes, not to mention the Holy See if needed, to pay for settlements without having to close churches or affect their \”ministries\”. I have very little faith in the system after what I\’ve seen.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Sorry to read that the insurance companies have to pay out as much as agreed upon. I am not an advocate of insurance companies, as I have many issues with them, but believe that a priest attacking a boy is not their responsibility, but the church\’s. Sue the Church and the men wearing the funny looking garments who are very often complicit.
Perris ruled parishes and other church properties could be used to pay for lawsuits against the Archdiocese, however, it is also true, but has been kept from the public record, that the Archdiocese is vicariously liable for acts committed by priests/clergy belonging to parishes and monasteries. This would make Archdiocese monies available to plaintiffs, in addition to much smaller pay-offs available only through the parish/monastery. By reorganizing to protect parish money, to make them legally separate from the Archdiocese, perhaps the Archdiocese seeks to separate themselves from becoming liable in the future, by pointing out the parishes and monasteries do not share funds with the Archdiocese, making it therefore more difficult to prove the Archdiocese would have a financial and/or supervisory role to the parishes/monasteries. Cases in Oregon were being dismissed, where a claimant named the Archdiocese as being vicariously liable. Before I filed my own case, I did extensive research to find out whether this was true, that the Archdiocese was not liable…And, according to documents from/by the Archdiocese, which point to further evidence of documents that would prove such a relationship, the Archdiocese IS vicariously liable for any acts by clergy within their regional boundaries, if those acts are in any way connected to, or mixed up with, \”teaching, preaching,\” and any other thing that would have to do with the morals and promoting the doctrine of the church. If a professor monk or priest who teaches at a monastery abuses a student, the Archdiocese is vicariously liable because they are in a supervisory role over any capacity where doctrine and morals are concerned. Because this professor/monk or priest violated the morals of the church, he is liable to the Archdiocese for correction and investigation–also, because he is teaching religious doctrine and has abused a person while he had an obligation to be a \”standard\”, the Archdiocese is legally liable for the abuse that occured to the student. This is all in the church\’s own documents but it has been kept from the record. I gave this information, an exhibit, to several judges, and to the bankruptcy court to be scanned online for my case and it was refused. It has been \”lost\” in another courthouse whenever I requested the record for purposes of making copies or having it scanned. Without going into a lot of detail, suffice it to say, the Archdiocese won BIG in this case. Not only did they manage, with help from, actually (and oddly enough) the plaintiff\’s \”Tort Claimant\’s Committee) to keep this information from the record, they purposefully eliminated claims, representation, and allocations for damages brought by adults who had been abused by clergy, making it into a \”sex abuse of children\” thing. By doing this, the Archdiocese was able to eliminate any future liability from lawsuits brought by adults who had been abused by clergy in the past, and at the same time, they refused to acknowledge the ones that were pending at the time of bankruptcy. I could go on and on. Basically, and don\’t take my word for it more than anything else you read or hear, it was a sham. There may be an opportunity for some of the evidence to be brought forward later, but, you see, the Archdiocese is already making plans on how they can escape future liability. They have wiggled out of several key responsibities in this process, and after wiggling free, they reorganize. It has been a success for them. Not to mention, none of the lawyers lost out in this process. All of the lawyers involved profited from this proceeding, and from cooperation with the Archdiocese. Insurance companies? It was generous, in my opinion, for them to agree to pay. The Archdiocese has more than enough money, with combined property money and money from monasteries and parishes, not to mention the Holy See if needed, to pay for settlements without having to close churches or affect their \”ministries\”. I have very little faith in the system after what I\’ve seen.