Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site