Victims deserve better than this from their archbishop

Very disturbing news from the Archdiocese of Moncton, New Brunswick:

17 January 2018:  Blame tough lives of priests’ victims on economy, not abuse, says church

Note the following four quotes from the article:

 – (1)  To the argument that victims were emotionally traumatized by the abuse and unable to complete an education or earn a decent income, the church maintains it is not responsible for what happened to those individuals through the course of their lives.

“Such damage was on account of existing sociological, educational, linguistic and economic factors present in New Brunswick and elsewhere at material times, which factors were not caused by the archdiocese,” the defence document says.

 – (2) The church also argued it shouldn’t have to pay because it already engaged in a conciliation process in 2012, led by retired judge Michel Bastarache and meant to compensate victims.

“The plaintiff chose not to enter that process, and cannot complain of not being provided for as a result,” the archdiocese said in its defence

– (3) “The plaintiff has entered into an illegal, inflated and unenforceable agreement of contingency with his solicitors, the result of which is to promote unreasonable litigation … and to increase costs to the archdiocese,” the church says.

And,

 (4)  according to the article, in denying responsibility for psychological anguish the victims experienced, the diocese argued that “Such losses or damages arose from mental or physical conditions that existed prior to the assaults or were acquired … after the assaults,”

I believe it is a given that the disregard for the plight of victims of clerical exhibited above  embraced by the Archbishop of the Moncton Archdiocese, Valéry Vienneau.  It is, after all, Archbishop Vienneau who is paying these lawyers.  But are we to conclude that the archbishop, Justice Bastarache, all the “Conciliation” process staff, diocesan lawyers and all diocesan staff who have dealt with and interacted with victims over the past few years  concur with the mindset exhibited above?  And, are we to conclude that any hint of understating or sympathy expressed to victims for the long-term suffering they have endured was a ruse, – no more than a means to an end, the end being to entice them into the conciliation process and thereby, it seems, avert an “increase in costs to the archdiocese” ?

It’s amazing is it not that the diocese seems to think that victims should have had no option but to engage in the diocesan conciliation process?

This truly is disgusting.  And revealing.

Please keep the victims in your prayers.  They truly deserve better than this.

Enough for now,

Sylvia