Skip to main content

View Diary: Los Angeles archdiocese 'quietly appropriated $115 million' from dead people (141 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  If the law is anything like the law in BC, (15+ / 0-)

    the funds given to a non-profit for a specific purpose cannot be used for anything else, other wise it is fraud.

    So it would depend on how the fund for the cemetaries was registered, I would think.

                           Just my two cents,
                                 Heather

                         

    Torture is ALWAYS wrong, no matter who is inflicting it on whom.

    by Chacounne on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:57:00 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Again, from the LATimes: (9+ / 0-)
      The church's use of fund money appears to be legal. State law prohibits private cemeteries from touching the principal of their perpetual care funds and bars them from using the interest on those funds for anything other than maintenance. Those laws, however, do not apply to cemeteries run by religious organizations.
      Kaili edited out the first sentence, no doubt for space reasons. Ditto the fact that the account has nothing to do with current maintenance or the ability of the cemeteries to keep from becoming unkempt. The fund was not expected to be needed for another 187 years. Even as one who has relatives in those cemeteries, I'm quite sure I'm not going to care by then. Typical lousy PR by Mahony, but hardly on par with his actual nefarious activities reassigning and covering for abusive priests.
      •  Seriously, what is your point? (17+ / 0-)

        You keep suggesting I've been misleading, even though I've made it perfectly clear in the post that this bullshit quiet appropriation of funds is legal. Bullshit, but legal. Unless you think that as long as it's legal, it's also ethical and moral and totally excusable?

        So what's your point? It's not nefarious? It's not yet another sickening example of the shady activities of the church leadership? This is the organization that holds itself out as the moral authority of the universe, but hey, since it's technically legal to quietly move money it's not supposed to touch to pay off sexual abuse settlements, BFD?

        I note how you're not quoting the part of the article I left out about how the leadership sort of, oops!, forgot to include in its reports where it got this money even though it was supposed to. But hey, it's legal, so big deal, right?

        I just don't get it. I really do not get it.

        •  I understand that you don't get it. I really do. (0+ / 0-)

          But characterizing me as a church apologist doesn't actually make me one, so no, you're not going to engage me in defending other acts or omissions by an organization to which I do not belong. You sound more like Roxine the Tree Climber every day. If someone questions your orthodoxy, just shriek "apologist!!" and release the hounds!

          My focus is not the church. It's your diary. My point in this particular comment was to clear up the confusion evidenced by commenters who, after reading your diary, concluded that the transfer of money was not legal, that there is no evidence the fund would be replenished (and thus bring on the horrors of unkempt graves), or that Mahony was not authorized to do what he did. You can figure you just have a bunch of dumb readers, or you can think about whether the author has any responsibility for misleading them -- and, if they were misled, whether you consider that failure or success.

          My point in some other comments was to call attention to what I consider hack ... journalism? muckraking? editorializing? ... whatever it is you're trying to do. I get that you have a whole fan club that laps up your froth, and obviously kos agrees that it's of value to his enterprise. I agree with your positions more often than not. But imo, you phoned this one in, at best. But I'm sure you care as little about my approval as I do yours, so it's all good.

      •  It's the same. (0+ / 0-)

        Man's a sleaze. Give him an opportunity and he takes it.

        "Have you left no sense of decency, sir, at long last?" Army Attorney to Sen. McCarthy, 1954. "We have done nothing to be ashamed of. We have nothing to apologize for." NRA 12/14/2012.

        by bontemps2012 on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 07:12:18 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site