ANOTHER SEXUAL ABUSE LAWSUIT AGAINST CHICAGO PRIEST - Mark P. Loftus

September 26, 2025

Just this week, another sexual abuse lawsuit was filed against Rev. Donald McGuire, a Chicago area priest. The lawsuit, filed by two brothers, claims that McGuire sexually abused the two boys at different times. The older brother is claiming abuse from 1988 through 1994, while the younger brother is claiming abuse from 2001 through 2002.
In 2006, McGuire was convicted of molesting two boys in the 1960’s. He is currently living in Oak Lawn, a southwest Chicago suburb, while that conviction is being appealed. He was only recently advised by his superiors that he can no longer wear his collar.
AND WHO PAYS THE PRICE??
In an ironic twist, just this week I saw another article about the efforts taken by the Los Angeles Diocese to fund the $660 million dollar settlement it reached with hundreds of sexual abuse victims. The diocese has decided to sell some 50 non-parish properties. One of those properties is the convent used by the Sisters of St. Bethany, located in Santa Barbara. The convent, which was built for the order in 1952 is currently occupied by three older nuns who work with the poor in the community. Although they do not pay rent, they do make sufficient funds to sustain the property. Recently, the Diocese advised them[in a letter]that they were to vacate the premises on or before 12/31/07. The Diocese defended its action by noting that everybody was having to sacrifice. By way of example, it was noted that Diocese employees didn’t get a raise in 2007. Okay, but that doesn’t quite equate with losing your home of 50 years. And not to put too fine a point on it, but the nuns didn’t abuse any minors. Instead, that was done by 245 Diocese priests. And the unrebutted evidence indicates that for decades the Diocese didn’t act on parent complaints, didn’t call police and didn’t warn parishioners when allegations were made against a particular priest. In fact, up until 2004, parishioners were not advised of allegations against a Diocese priest even if that priest was “sent away” for psychological counselling. How many of those 50 non-parish properties that house priests are being sold??

Red Tesla sedan driving on a road.
September 26, 2025
According to online reports, Tesla ignored a $60 million dollar settlement overture in the wrongful death case that ultimately resulted in a $242 million dollar jury verdict against the car maker. The lawsuit grew out of 2019 crash where a Tesla Model S with Autopilot engaged, plowed through a Florida intersection and crashed into a Chevy Tahoe. Neima Benavides Leon and her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo were standing near the Tahoe when the Tesla crashed into it. Leon was killed and Angulo suffered serious injuries. A lawsuit was filed against Tesla, asserting that although the Autopilot feature was engaged, the vehicle did not brake. Florida law permits a monetary demand to be issued before trial. If the defendant fails to accept the demand within 30 days it is considered rejected. If the plaintiff then goes to trial and secures a verdict 25% greater than the offer, the defendant is on the hook for plaintiff’s investigative expenses and attorneys’ fees. Tesla is appealing the jury verdict, citing “substantial errors of law and irregularities at trial.”.
Johnson's baby powder container, white bottle, blue text, red seal, 400g.
September 26, 2025
This important ruling got kind of lost in the news cycle. A couple weeks ago, the United States Supreme Court refused to vacate a $2.2 billion dollar ovarian cancer verdict against Johnson & Johnson[“J & J”]. The verdict was originally returned by a Missouri jury in 2018 on behalf of 22 women. The original verdict was actually $4.7 billion but a Missouri Appellate Court reduced the award to $2 billion. Each of the women claimed that there was asbestos and asbestos-laced talc in J & J talcum powder products they used, and they developed ovarian cancer as a result. Asbestos is known to cause cancer. Talc, in its raw form is often found in close proximity to naturally occurring asbestos. When J & J mined talc, that talc sometimes contained asbestos. And that asbestos sometimes found its way into J & J personal hygiene products. [In 2019, J & J recalled 33,000 bottles of J & J products after FDA testing found asbestos in test samples]. J & J, has known of the risk of asbestos contamination in talc products since the 1970’s. Some 21,000 plus ovarian cancer cases are pending against J & J throughout the United States.
Movie poster for
September 26, 2025
Reports today say that DuPont and the State of New Jersey have reached a $2 Billion dollar settlement arising out of DuPont’s release of “forever chemicals” into soil, wetlands and other areas in New Jersey – and then forgetting to clean up the mess they made. The settlement with DuPont is reportedly the largest environmental settlement ever obtained by a state. “Forever chemicals” – also known as PFAS(referring to per and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are man-made chemicals that are used in an extensive variety of products as they are both water and grease-resistant. The chemicals are linked to litany of health problems, including increased risk of certain cancers(kidney, testicular and breast) liver damage, thyroid issues and reproductive problems(such as decreased fertility, low birthweight and developmental problems). NJ.Com is reporting that one of the sites where DuPont created munitions created such significant contamination in the environment that over 300 homes required filters to prevent toxic chemicals from seeping into their homes. The settlement terms provide that DuPont will spend $875 millions cleaning up the contamination and set aside another $125 million to cover other damages that may arise. Additionally, DuPont will also set p a $1.2 billion funding source and reserve fund of $475 million to ensure that even if the company fails to make payments, or goes bankrupt, public funds will not be used. For a stark introduction into the nature of PFAS, check out Dark Waters, a compelling and criminally underrated movie based on the decades old fight waged by attorney Robert Bilott against DuPont for contaminating West Virginia rural communities.