Here is a curious tidbit from the report:
An outside accounting firm concludes the fund was losing money because more priests are sick or retired, their benefits were increased in 2001 and the cost of health insurance has gone up. It says it found no evidence the funds were used to pay sexual abuse settlements, but it couldn’t state that conclusively because of the scope of the study.
Is there any investigation going on that place that is ever conclusive?
Let me take a stab at translating that piece of Chancery-speak: When the auditors got to the evidence, the scope of the study abruptly drew lines that could conclusively state that clergy funds were not used to pay sexual abuse settlements.
I will say there are two things in the article that I disagree with - For Fr. Bill McKenizie to whine about putting priests on leave and paying them while an accusation is investigate lacks compassion and dignity. What kind of mercy and charity doesn't continue to pay a man who may be falsely accused? Especially in this economic climate when a "repressed memory" or two may come in handy when unemployment runs out.
The other point in the article I disagree with is the nursing home arrangements. Most of us out here in the land of the living would have to go on Medicaid if we needed to go to a nursing home. Maybe I don't understand the objection. Expecting the diocese to pay cash for nursing home is just not reasonable. Nobody could afford it.
I don't know how many parishes there are in Quincy - three, four?
One would be plenty. One in each town would be plenty. Put the rest up for sale and take care of the priests.
This is a very disheartening situation for our priests who are dedicated to serving us and serving the Archdiocese. I'm deeply sorry about the situation and for the anguish it is causing.