So, our leadership's latest explanation given for the huge insurance rates in 2005, 2006, and 2007 is that personal liability claims in the 1990s "rose dramatically". I can buy that, given the circumstances.
That begs the question, though, why did our parish leadership on multiple occasions and from multiple mouths, tell us that it was insurance costs for St. Patrick's that ate up any profit from its sale? That it would have been better to give St. Patrick's away rather than sell it?
Was St. Patrick's a convenient scapegoat?