Fuck the church.

While I’m here, Fuck the catholic church and their ‘servants’ [though I’m sure similar things happen in other religions]

From: http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=1&story_id=10899

The Dutch Catholic Church has gone to court to force insurer Aegon to reimburse a damages pay-out to a girl who was sexually abused by a priest. The Bishop of Rotterdam claims the abuse was an industrial accident and was covered by the Church’s liability insurance, it was reported Friday

The girl was six when she was abused by the priest in Rotterdam. She took a claim against the diocese and in February 2000 she was awarded NLG 100,000 (EUR 45,000) compensation. The priest was prosecuted for the sexual abuse.

Rotterdam diocese wants Aegon to reimburse it with EUR 58,000 to cover the full cost of dealing with the case because it claims the abuse should formally be seen as an industrial accident.

“Industrial accident” huh.

And they are wondering why there are so many atheïsts in the Netherlands…

Which goes to show you, when you’re getting diddled by a priest, wear safety goggles!

I’m envisioning one of those signs outside the local cathedral: " ___ Days Without A Soul-Injuring Molestation."

Huh. And I though we invented chutzpah.

…before the church fucks you!

They could clear up this whole scandal thing just by declaring pedophilia a sacrament.

Did the bishop really say “industrial accident”? I mean, yes, the phrase appears in quote marks in the article, but I have a hard time believing he really meant “industrial accident.” Maybe something more like “work-related occurance” of something would be more appropriate.

But I guess I don’t see how this is enormously different from a delivery van driver getting drunk, losing control of his van, and plowing into a pedestrian. Or, more comparably, an enraged employee coming into work and shooting his co-workers. In both of these occurances, it seems to me that the employer would have at least an arguable case for their insurer covering costs arising from any resulting lawsuit. Why is this so different?

Industrial accident?

Did he trip on a chalice and fall into her vagina?


This was the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
Mark 12:11

Because the situation you describe is negligence. The acts imputed to the abusive priest are wilful misconduct.

If a fire starts in your house because you mistakenly left a cigarette smoldering in the trash can, your insurance will cover you. If you deliberately burn your house down, it likely won’t.

There is at least some case law in the US that’s amazingly on point: a homeowner sought to force his insurance company to pay up when he lost a civil trial for absuing two young children. Since the abuse occured in his basement, the homeowner reasoned, his insurance company was obligated to defend him and pay any judgements that resulted from his abuse, up to the limits of his policy.

The court disgreed.

I join in the outrage at the abuse. Sickening.

As to whether the insurance will cover the damages, that will depend on the terms of the policy. Since the award was in 2000, the abuse probably occurred several years prior, and the policy may well have been ambiguous. Insurers have recently gotten much more specific on whether abuse is covered.

Yes, child abuse often is specifically covered. Many YMCAs, day-care centers, schools and similar child-intensive businesses have such coverage. The organization (even one where screening is taken extremely seriously) may manage to hire an abuser–should the organization be bankrupted and go out of business because of this? I know the RCC is a lovely fat target where people will argue for exactly this result (and the lack of screening, effective action upon complaints and preventative processes in many dioscese will support such arguments), but it is not the only organization which has employed people who have abused children entrusted to them.

I don’t agree that the mere availability of insurance coverage for child abuse is outrageous. (The insurance protects the organization from money damages; it has nothing to do with protecting an individual criminal from the results of his crimes.)

On preview–Bricker is addressing a type of coverage different from that purchased by businesses–business policies can be written to cover the intentional acts of employees.

The Dutch must have an OSHA too.

Except theirs stands for Occupational Sexual Harrassment Association.

Gosh, I was under the impression Catholic Priests weren’t into girls.

Silly me.

Well, you do know that the Galgamak woman’s vagina is ringed with razor sharp teeth. Henceforth, if she was a Galgamak it might qualify. You might want to check with the spider queen for clarification.

My bad – I shouldn’t have made such a sweeping conclusion in an area of law I’m unfamilar with…

I think part of the problem here is that it’s The Church and a Priest involved and not just some Random Joe working for a big company like GE. Pretend for a moment that GE has a Take your daughter to work day and one of the girls gets separated from her group and raped in a closet.

An attack by a worker (priest) during normal work hours when there happened to be a little girl around. Is the company responsible? Perhaps, considering that they manage the space, they have some responsibility for what goes on there. Does GE’s insurance company pay the settlement? It doesn’t seem unreasonable to ask the question, and I certainly don’t think that there would be outrage if they did.

Since this is a church we’re talking about, emotions kind of take over.

I don’t really give a damn if the insurance pays up.

The fact that the church itself calls rape a thing that happens sometimes in their line of bussiness, [hence the industrial accident - and Yes, they called it that]is enough to make me feel nauseous.

Yes, Cheesetalk emotions take over. I’m kinda thinking of the little girl and her parents who now are supposed to believe going to church is a risk they should have avoided.

zut Would “work-related occurance” make it any better? Is raping little girls [*or boys, I was surprised too *Brian Ekers] a work related occurance for priests? Thanks for educating me on that one.

hehehehe Matt_mcl :slight_smile: I really would have had a booming laugh, if this wasn’t so sad and un-fucking[well, not really]-believeable.

Actually, Bricker, there’s nothing much wrong with what you said in re homeowners’ policies (though I would be interested to see how a court would handle a case where a family member of the policyholder and not the policyholder himself perpetrated the abuse–I bet there’s already one of those out there too :frowning: ).

The difference is in the nature of individual and organization coverage and, just to be pedantic, we can step through the likely charges after the GE example Cheesesteak suggests.

The little girl who was raped in the closet should immediately tell the police. If things work correctly, the abuser will be arrested, tried and sent to prison on criminal charges.

The girl may then sue the abuser in a civil suit for monetary damages. If the abuser has a homeowner’s policy, he might ask his insurance company to defend him. The insurance company will deny coverage because the harm is the result of the policyholder’s deliberate criminal act. The insurance company will probably win, as in the case cited by Bricker–the policy doesn’t cover intentional criminal acts. The girl will win damages against the abuser, and may claim his house and car and any other assets he has, to the extent of her damages.

The abuser, however, may have very few assets, so the girl may sue GE for damages on a negligence theory–hiring without screening, poor supervision of the day’s activities, soundproof closets, etc. GE may be able to 100% successfully defend itself against charges of negligence if GE can show that it did reasonable screening, that the supervision met reasonable and customary standards and that the closets were not unusual for the purposes designed (i.e., GE proves that it was not negligent in any way). If GE loses, it loses because the girl shows GE was negligent in one or more of these respects; there is IMHO little danger that the bad employee’s act will be attributed respondeat superior to GE because his intervening criminal volitional act was very outside of the scope of his duties. Thus, GE’s insurance should cover for GE’s negligence (unless the policy specifically excludes child abuse or the policy requires GE to do specific loss control procedures with respect to kids which were neglected); the insurer is not asked to cover a volitional criminal act which is the employee’s act only, not attirbutable to GE under respondeat superior. (Bets on respondeat superior are off if GE has a pattern and history of hiring abusers, not firing them when they are revealed and regularly bringing kids around.)

That’s how I see it playing out, but I don’t have to litigate the policies myself.

gum–It is disgusting that it is necessary, but organizations can be wiped out by abuse judgments. This applies for YMCAs, summer camps, swim clubs, Little League, schools, etc., not just the RCC. I do care that insurance that is designed to cover abuse pays up when coverage exists.

Do you have a link to the story in a Dutch newspaper, because I don’t get the meaning of “industrial accident” in this context.

Salaam. A

Are you aware of the enormous brouhaha in the US over the past few years about Catholic priests abusing children and bishops covering it up by moving the priests to other parishes – where they continued to molest children? (I’m not trying to be snarky, here. I’m just not sure how big a story that would be in the Netherlands.) The point being… well, yeah, I do kind of expect to hear the occasional story about priests molesting children.

Now, I’m not implying that it’s right that this should happen. It’s still horrible and sickening. But the Church has thousands of priests, and even though I’d hope that every single one of them is a man of scrupulous morality, that’s not the way the world works. Some of them are going to be embezzelers, some thieves, some murderers, and some child molesters.

So all those things are going to happen in the Church’s line of business – because a priest is always a priest, 24/7, and some priests will be bad apples, and whatever they do will reflect on the Church.

That’s the sad part of the whole thing. The term ‘industrial accident’ is not at all fitting to what happened but the main reason that they’re calling this an industrial accident is to make it fit the policy that they had written for them. It’s a shitty term but since their "industry’ seems to have these events popping up all around them.
Most likely they have a premises/operations part of their policy that defends against malfeasances that happen in the church or with the church’s activities. I’d think that most churches are now having riders or new policies written with sexual abuse claims written into them. Most of the companies we insure that deal with children have sexual abuse coverage explicitly written into them.

Aldebaran Especially for you, my sweet. http://www.hetparool.nl/nieuws/2004/AUG/20/p1.html Plenty more where that came from. Just google for bisdom Rotterdam Aegon.

zut, Yeah. I read about all those priests being unable to keep their dicks in their pants.
No worries. It happens and has happened everywhere.

I believe it’s called ‘celibacy’ right?