Luxist

D: Either you did not read the entire story...
B: Either you did not read my entire comment...

D: ...or your anti-catholic bias prevented you from comprehending what the story said.
B: ...or your pro-catholic bias prevented you from comprehending what my comment actually said.

D: The money goes to the Conrad N. Hilton Fund for Sisters, NOT the Arcdiocese of Los Angeles.
B: "It operates under the auspices of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles..."

D: The money is used by the sisters to help those who need it.
B: The money "...will eventually..." be used in that manner. But every dollar the Catholic Church has spent to first cover-up and then payoff the horrific sexual scandal that has now grown worldwide was money that was supposed to be used for more nobler causes than bailing-out pedophile priests. And I'm not the only one suspicious of the Church being auspicious:
http://www.charitygovernance.com/charity_governance/2004/11/the_catholic_ch.html
The Church has a regrettable history of financial mismanagement that is now being reviewed for criminal intent. Did my so-called bias cause these series of unfortuneate events, or did these unfortuneate events cause my so-called bias?

D: Furthermore, why do you judge all Catholic priests based on the actions of a small percentage, who were selfish and abused their authority for sexual gratification?
B: Furthermore, why to you misquote me to say "all" Catholica priests? I never wrote anything of the kind and, in-fact, wrote but one quantifying reference as "...many priests..." Not "all," not even "most."

D: You have done what certain people in our own history did less than 100 years ago, ie. people saying black men were more likely to to rape a woman than white men.
B: I've done nothing of the kind. You, however, have accused me of not reading the entire story, assailing all priests and stereotyping or profiling people into classes. Ironically it is you, Sir, who have presumed incorrectly, not read completely and accused unjustly.