According to U.S. Bishops’ National Catholic Risk Retention Group, Inc. (NCRRG), all accused priests, regardless of guilt or innocence, are to be treated in a way analogous to – get this — terrorists. And you know what happens to terrorists: Kill them first; never ask questions later. If that doesn’t work, imprison them first; never ask questions later. Regardless of guilt or innocence. It’s got to stop, and it’s got to stop now.
If you haven’t already done so, as a primer, read this ♬ “Kíll the priest! ♬ Kíll the priest! ♬ Kíll the chí-ld ráp-ing priest!” ♬ (Meet the cheerleader) A HSH Special & this “The Judas Crisis” – Priests falsely accused and wrongly thrown out of the priesthood? Why? Follow the thirty pieces of silver – A HSH Special
Now, if chancery officials kept this from the NCRRG (Cardinal) (Arch)Bishop shareholders, let them say so. If the (Cardinal) (Arch)Bishop shareholders thought that all accused priests, regardless of guilt or especially innocence, ought best be eliminated, you know, pro bono Ecclesiae, for the good of the Church, let them say so. Whatever the case, they — the (Cardinal) (Arch)Bishops – need to make public statements of apology and drop their shareholding status in The National Catholic Risk Retention Group, Inc., as well as drop the homosexualized VIRTUS® program now making a bid to go worldwide by way of the Abuse Symposium in Rome, as it is the same company as the NCRRG. The (Cardinal) (Arch)Bishops need to do this now.
“But Father! But Father!” — shriek the chancery attorneys – with a sharp, piercing shrillness of having been found out and offering their best defence, always on the tip of their collective forked tongue: “Don’t you know that there are even hundreds of millions of dollars at stake? We have to protect, you know, the property of the Church, because that’s much more important than the people, right? The mission of the Church is property! That’s how we get paid! The bottom-line comes down to material goods! Not people! Except us! Grow up!”
In this post I’ll be bringing you through the first part of just one newsletter of the NCRRG. You can read the rest of the newsletters for yourselves, although I’ll also put up some commentary, please God, on the most recent 2012 newsletter. Really, one newsletter is as horrific as the others.
At any rate, it’s guaranteed: the more you read, the more you’ll know that the attitude of abuse of office/power (= infidelity) which brought about the abuse crisis in the first place is more firmly entrenched than ever by weakling opportunists, who give themselves a licence to kill, quite literally. It’s called “risk control.”
We’ll be going through the Fall issue of the Newsletter of the NCRRG for 2010, so, just a year and half ago, the first part of which was written by Michael T. Burnett, Esq. Regarding sexual abuse, he describes, as a kind of spokesman, exactly what the NCRRG expects of its shareholders, that is, about 1/4 of the (Arch)Dioceses of the United States.
Now, one would think that since the (Cardinal) (Arch)Bishops are paying a great deal of money into the NCRRG, they surely, therefore, must glance over the very brief, very plainly written newsletters before various board meetings, right? One would think that they must agree with what’s written in the newsletters about policy and expectations, right? I mean, because otherwise they would have dumped the aggressive tactics of NCRRG that we’ll expose below, right? I mean, there must be some concern for the priests on the part of the (Cardinal) (Arch)Bishops… But, again, I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt, that is, until someone kindly puts this article on their desks. After all, the (Cardinal) (Arch)Bishops have surely delegated others to “take care of” accusations in relation to NCRRG policies and expectations.
Here’s a list of those (Arch)Dioceses, etc., that belong to the NCRRG. I am surprised to see some of the policyholders who are on this list. If you are disgusted that your (Cardinal) (Arch)Bishop is implicated, I hope you click on the printer icon below this article and then send it to him, as a courtesy. I mean, perhaps none of them know about this. It’s time they got a heads up. I’m sure some of them are good and holy, but just have no idea of the travesties taking place in their names. Help them out. Here’s the current list:
National Catholic Policyholders*
Archdiocese of Boston, Massachusetts [$$$$$$$]
Archdiocese of Cincinnati, Ohio
Archdiocese of Denver, Colorado
Archdiocese of Indianapolis, Indiana
Archdiocese of Newark, New Jersey
Archdiocese of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Archdiocese of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania [$$$$$$$]
Archdiocese of Portland, Oregon
Diocese of Albany, New York
Diocese of Allentown, Pennsylvania
Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown, Pennsylvania
Diocese of Austin, Texas
Diocese of Beaumont, Texas
Diocese of Brooklyn, New York
Diocese of Brownsville, Texas
Diocese of Buffalo, New York
Diocese of Burlington, Vermont
Diocese of Camden, New Jersey
Diocese of Columbus, Ohio
Diocese of Dallas, Texas
Diocese of El Paso, Texas
Diocese of Erie, Pennsylvania
Diocese of Evansville, Indiana
Diocese of Gary, Indiana
Diocese of Greensburg, Pennsylvania
Diocese of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
Diocese of Jefferson City, Missouri
Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph, Missouri
Diocese of Lafayette, Louisiana
Diocese of Las Cruces, New Mexico
Diocese of Little Rock, Arkansas
Diocese of Madison, Wisconsin
Diocese of Manchester, New Hampshire [Msgr. Arsenault - sigh]
Diocese of Metuchen, New Jersey
Diocese of Ogdensburg, New York
Diocese of Paterson, New Jersey
Diocese of Peoria, Illinois
Diocese of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Diocese of Portland, Maine [$$$$$$$]
Diocese of Raleigh, North Carolina
Diocese of Richmond, Virginia
Diocese of Rockford, Illinois
Diocese of Rockville Centre, New York
Diocese of San Jose, California
Diocese of Scranton, Pennsylvania
Diocese of Shreveport, Louisiana
Diocese of Sioux City, Iowa
Diocese of Springfield, Illinois
Diocese of Springfield, Massachusetts
Diocese of Syracuse, New York [Msgr. Rossetti - sigh]
Diocese of Trenton, New Jersey
Diocese of Tulsa, Oklahoma
Diocese of Victoria, Texas
Diocese of Winona, Minnesota
Diocese of Youngstown, Ohio
Ukrainian Catholic Metropolitan Archdiocese of Philadelphia
Christian Brothers Risk Pooling Trust [$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$ - Over 1,300 religious orders, insitutes and congregations in all fifty states.]
* This list is constantly changing. In 2002 there were 56 (Arch)Dioceses. A few years later, there were 67. Etc. This list was accessed in May 2012 on the ©2012 page here. It’s unknown if that list is accurate up to this minute. With the millions of dollars changing hands, you think it would be. The other (Arch)Dioceses may have similar kinds of policies.
Now, it would be a courtesy firstly to reprimand one’s brother priests and (Cardinal) (Arch)Bishops in private, sending this article (and all the rest in this abuse series) to their chanceries without anyone else knowing about it, right? Surely, that is what our Lord expects in the Gospel, right?
Matthew 18,15 “If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. 16 If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector” (nab).
Well, in this case, that is not what our Lord expects. Why not? Because that right to privacy was dismissed by those who put others in mortal danger. Would any chancery officials who kept this from our (Cardinal) (Arch)Bishops not also keep this article from hitting their desks? What’s the prudent and just action to take for the sake of those who have been put in danger? My guess is immediately helping those who have been put in danger.
* * *
The condescension with which the NCRRG newsletter is written to their Eminences and Excellencies makes one sick. But that is part of the psychological warfare – the shock tactics — being used on the Episcopacy in order to make them submit to ridding themselves of their troublesome priests, as if they were Henry II against Saint Thomas Becket. Yes, you got that right! Troublesome priests are particularly and especially those priests who are innocent, who are most dangerous to the financial viability of their (Arch)Dioceses, that is, because of their innocence: blanket settlements are cheaper than any successfully litigated claim. Innocent priests ruin the modus agendi of the NCRRG, and so the possibility of innocent priests in view of the “innocent until proven guilty principle” is not even considered. Doesn’t make sense, you say? Reread The Judas Crisis, paying special attention to the words of Hutchins, the abuse attorney for cases in the Diocese of Manchester. Welcome to the world of treasonous Judas-like betrayal… No one could care less if the accused priests happen to be innocent. That’s beside the point. Money is everything. Here’s the newsletter:
* * *
In the wake of 9/11 [... and with the newsletter being written on the 9th anniversary of 9/11, and amid the heated lead-up to the elimination of Osama bin Laden, killed, in fact, by the Special Warfare Development Group not long afterward... anyway, in the wake of 9/11...], federal, state, and local governments realized the need for a proactive [read: "deadly"], coordinated, comprehensive, and updated approach to the threat of terrorism—and for a more effective response to attacks should they occur in the future [read: “overwhelming response”, used to create a situation in which no response, no defense can be given, since, in fact, everyone dies]. Our country had been served by military, intelligence, law enforcement, and safety professionals with millions of years of combined experience and expertise in a wide array of disciplines. [Watch this condescension show itself for what it is...] Yet, these disciplines and experts were uncoordinated, parochial, and ad hoc in their approach to terrorist threats. Based upon what we ["we"?] learned, protocols were developed to better utilize and coordinate the nation’s resources, now fostering cooperation and synergies in the efforts to enhance homeland security. [It all sounds so... pleasant.]
Similar to the 9/11 and homeland security experience [!], the sexual abuse scandal revealed a host of risks that imperil the ecclesiastical and charitable missions of the Catholic Church. [“host of risks” = “army of priests”] Churches and charities need proactive [in the analogy, this meant summary execution of thousands of terrorists, only the tiniest fraction of whom obtained hospitality, if you will, from JTF-GTMO prison], coordinated, comprehensive, and updated approaches to reduce injury and loss [=payouts], and to properly respond to losses when they do occur [how to reduce capital outflow]. As in the homeland security context [...don’t forget the analogy...], religious and nonprofit institutions are served by professionals with vast experience in a variety of disciplines. However, as with pre-9/11 homeland security measures [...don’t forget the analogy...], many of these experts’ efforts are not coordinated, and are often ad hoc and reactive in their scope. Protocols, resources and efforts, implemented, and employed in an integrated fashion, will more effectively prevent loss [cash outflow], control risk [immediately slit the throats of priests, regardless of the facts of the case (see below)], and improve claims handling in the Church. [Do it immediately, regardless of the facts (see below).]
Church entities must therefore employ comprehensive, integrated, proactive loss prevention, loss control, and claims handling programs that go beyond traditional “best practices” [e.g., with ambiguous, misleading, unjust terminology] and address heightened risks facing churches. [“go beyond traditional ‘best practices’ = slit the throats of priests regardless of the facts of the case, immediately doing payouts regardless of the facts, avoiding, at all costs, litigated claims. Even one successful litigated claim is 15 times the payout for an out-of-court, immediate settlement, regardless of the facts: HERE]
* * *
Before we continue with the newsletter, let’s just remind ourselves of a few things, shall we?
- Some prisoners with life sentences make a sport of killing other prisoners, since, in fact, they have nothing to lose regarding length of sentence in prison. In return for a bit of solitary confinement, they have enhanced their reputations by killing certain prisoners.
- Those accused of sexual misconduct are more targeted to be killed in prison than any other type of prisoner.
- There is a higher risk of being murdered in prison for priests convicted (rightly or wrongly) of sexual misconduct than for any other type of prisoner.
- There are priests accused of sexual misconduct who are killed in prison; as time goes by, some of these may be innocent.
- Some prisoners kill others because they have a little voice in their heads which tells them that they have a divine mandate to kill those rightly or wrongly convicted of sexual offenses. Some just reason it out as a “good thing to do.”
- If such out-for-the-kill prisoners are provided a mandate from a mainstream church to kill rightly or wrongly convicted prisoners, they are infinitely more likely to carry out the death sentence provided by, they think, God Himself. That would be a joy for them.
- For the NCRRG to give prisoners the divine mandate to kill prisoners – by comparing these priests, whether guilty or innocent, to terrorists that have to be eliminated at the earliest possible convenience — is criminal, is it not? Is it not called odium fidei, hatred of the faith?
As we will see below, the NCRRG is not only not interested in due process for priests (in favor of wrongly accused priests), but they have a sine qua non trumping-all-other-motives motive for holding all accused priests to be guilty with zero regard for the facts of the case: $$$$$$$ Blanket settlements that ignore the facts are always cheaper than litigated cases.
But maybe not in the long run: They might pay for prison costs!
And let’s not forget:
- Monsignor Rossetti has everything to do with the VIRTUS® program, which has everything to do with The National Catholic Risk Retention Group, Inc. ♬ “Kíll the priest! ♬ Kíll the priest! ♬ Kíll the chí-ld ráp-ing priest!” ♬ (Meet the cheerleader) A HSH Special
- Monsignor Arsenault has everything to do with the VIRTUS® program and everything to do with The National Catholic Risk Retention Group, Inc. The Judas Crisis – Priests falsely accused and wrongly thrown out of the priesthood? Why? Follow the thirty pieces of silver – A HSH Special
- Rossetti and Arsenault, visionaries of the homosexualized VIRTUS® program, succeeded each other at the horrific Saint Luke Institute.
- Rossetti and Arsenault are both indebted to Bishop MacCormack. The bishop, like Monsignor Arsenault, had a major part to play in the wrongful conviction of Father Gordon MacRae. They have to keep him in prison at all costs, regardless of the facts screaming his innocence. The NCRRG has the same opinion, though only for reasons of $$$$$$$. If innocent priest start to be exonerated, the scheme of blanket settlements is destroyed, along with their castle built upon the bodies of the innocent priests caught up in their machinations.
- Did I mention that Monsignor Arsenault has been Chairman of the Board for NCRRG?
* * *
Again, if an investigative journalist needs a bit of incentive in order to approach an editorial board or a publisher about this, just remember these few points:
- If priests can be treated with horrific injustice for the sake of sycophantically pleasing agitprop groups, you can bet that those responsible for this abuse of office/power won’t hesitate to once again cover up with the same abuse of office/power any sexual misconduct of the clergy. It’s all about political correctness. It’s all about appearances. And sexual abuse of the vulnerable is also all about abuse of office/power, is it not?
- As long as falsely accused priests are banned from the priesthood solely for the reason of a continuing abuse of office/power of their ecclesiastical superiors, know that absolutely nothing has changed with attitudes which brought us the abuse crisis in the first place. Nothing.
- We have all failed if bishops as guilty as Judas himself for such abuse of office/power are allowed to continue with impunity. If we don’t pursue this, it means that we want the abuse of office/power to continue. It means that we desire sexual abuse to continue. These things are all inseparably bound together.
- Following up on this will have the abuse crisis come full circle and will provide hero-priests for those who have truly been victims of sexual abuse by priests. Why? Not only will this be an occasion to gut any tendency to abuse office/power, but it will show real victims that there are many who have suffered in perfect solidarity with them, namely, those priests who were falsely accused by those who would capitalize on the sufferings of real victims, effectively raping those real victims once again. And, as Dawn Eden has shown, true victims do need real heroes to give them hope. Hope is essential. This is about the recovery of hope.
* * *
Now then, let’s continue with the newsletter, shall we?
The expanded, proactive, comprehensive program must be comprised of efforts to achieve truth, justice, healing, and prevention. These four interrelated virtues are the best form of risk control and cost control. Both individually and organizationally, doing “the right thing” morally, ethically, and legally is also doing “the right thing” in the stewardship of resources, and in securing maximum insurability and coverage. [Sounds good, but let’s see if he means including due process for priests who would otherwise, in any other world, be taken as innocent until proven guilty...]
Comprehensive, Proactive, Integrated Risk Control Measures
A fully integrated program includes, among other things, safe environment programs [=the homosexualized VIRTUS® array of programs], background checks, training, and monitoring of personnel associated with the organization and invitees on the organization’s premises. The efforts must also include working with civil authorities and social services to develop a well-informed set of protocols. However, thinking “outside the box” to best achieve the greatest loss prevention [$$$$$$$] and loss control programs includes a sampling of the following elements, among others.
All personnel must be educated as to how their roles contribute in prevention of loss and proper claims handling efforts; even if their job responsibilities fall outside the traditional ambit of risk management duties—and even if they are not considered part of the risk management and claims handling team. Too often, an innocent church or nonprofit incurs liability because an employee or volunteer has not been trained in “best practices.” Too often, many best practices are employed by various departments or professionals, but failure to coordinate thwarts these efforts and results in loss. When clergy, employees, and volunteers are educated and trained appropriately, they can coordinate efforts to best prevent losses from occurring.
Physical Plant, Property, and Premises Safety Measures
In addition to addressing perils like fire, windstorm, flood, earthquake, vandalism, and similar causes of damage to property, effective risk management includes comprehensive assessments of liability risks associated with configurations and conditions of property, especially with respect to injury from sexual misconduct, crime, or premises liability due to defective conditions of property. For example, an effective loss control program must include efforts to identify risks that present opportunities for sexual misconduct on insured’s properties, and must include actions to remedy such dangers.
Hiring and Human Resources Protocols
The Church must adopt professional hiring and human resources norms and standards to protect against employment practices liability and employee misconduct. Fortunately, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and statutory exceptions favoring churches and charities offer leeway that commercial enterprises do not enjoy. The Church must take full advantage of this leeway. Ask questions of prospective employees and establish conditions of employment not permitted in the commercial world to better protect against these risks. [If this meant that the Church must avoid ordaining homosexuals, I would absolutely agree. He should specify. Why doesn't he?]
Comprehensive, Coordinated Reporting and Notice Mandates
Churches must establish protocols and detailed reporting mechanisms that comply with and, in many cases, exceed civil law mandates for reporting suspected sexual abuse. [mechanisms exceeding civil law mandates... He must specify. And he will. Further below.] Reporting of sexual abuse should foster [must necessitate] cooperation with civil authorities. Effective protocols ensure that all employees, volunteers, and clergy are educated as to their reporting obligations.
Policies to Combat Abuse Perpetrated With Technology
Churches and charities must implement risk control policies to minimize liability arising from the abuse of technology. Restricted access to computers, filters, and other policies prevent the abuse of computers for illegal or abusive purposes. Failure to adequately protect against and respond to such threats could have tragic and serious legal consequences.
Truth and Transparency
Proactive loss prevention and loss control demand transparency and truth. Churches must establish information management, transparency, and public relations protocols that maximize public awareness of risk control policies and claims handling practices, especially in sexual misconduct claims. However, transparency and truth work both ways. Churches and charities must  acknowledge past mistakes, but must also “correct the record” when false representations and factual inaccuracies are disseminated to the public or to claimants. [In other words, “both ways” still has nothing to do with due process for priests...] How churches communicate with abuse claimants and the public can yield significant proactive benefits in how claims are asserted and evolve[sounds a bit manipulative to me, a bit of an effort, I don’t know, to suppress the truth... you know, in favor of deminishing "losses"... I don't know. Just my opinion], and in healing and reconciliation.
Attention to Compassionate “Intangibles”
The missions of religious entities require unique, sometimes counterintuitive, actions and sensibilities as part of a comprehensive risk control and claims handling program. The program must include attention to “intangible” components that humanize claims handling. These considerations may include a limitless variety of unconventional actions that promote healing and resolution, and are customized to account for personalities, history and other organization-specific considerations. The Church must act as “church” when handling claims.[sounds good, but let’s wait to see what he really means by this...]
Claimant Participation, Partnership, and Control in Claims Handling
Churches should develop intentions and guidelines to introduce an element of claim “control” on the part of claimants, especially in sexual abuse cases. The more that claimants have “a say” in how their claims are handled, the more they feel respected and heard, the greater the chance of healing, reconciliation, and cost-efficient resolution.
The surrender of control may seem antithetical—even counterintuitive— to claims control. “Conventional wisdom” may counsel against it. And yet, trust—not control—is one of the most powerful tools in the claim resolution process. It is when one renders himself most vulnerable that he has the greatest capacity to creatively and cooperatively resolve claims. This is often achieved through partnerships with injured parties.[In effect, what this means is manipulating the alleged victim by shoving money down his or her throat as quickly as possible, regardless of the facts, regardless of the fact that the priest is to be taken as innocent until proven guilty. Let’s see how he does this...]
The Role of Legal Counsel in Claims Handling and Resolution
Strict claims handling protocols that regulate the involvement of defense counsel must be enforced. The proper role of attorneys is to provide legal advice and perspective to claims handling and resolution endeavors—not to control them. [“defense counsel” = working for the (Arch)Diocese, not for the accused priest] The goal is to create an infrastructure and knowledge base wherein church officials develop the confidence necessary to control claims handling informed by legal counsel’s advice, not led by legal counsel.
Nevertheless, religious and nonprofit entities often surrender risk control and claims handling responsibilities to dispute-oriented professionals on an ad hoc basis. Ceding control often forfeits proactivity [immediate settlement], risk control [holding all priests as guilty with no chance of proving their innocense (which logically can’t be done anyway)], and claims handling [encouraging alleged victims to go for the money immediately] to professions that are trained to be reactive, and that profit from adversarial dispute “resolution.” This has, on occasion, led to aggressive and costly defense tactics, which may be more appropriate and effective in the world of commercial litigation, but which are [get this...]counterproductive to the Church’s mission[which, in that opinion, is retaining $$$$$$$, with no interest to justice for all involved]. Insensitive, imprudent defenses advanced on behalf of the Church have scandalized the faithful and the public. [I would agree with that, since they still had nothing do with justice for anybody, and were only concerned about $$$$$$$. However, the immediate settlement game is also insensitive to alleged victims and alleged perpetrators. Often, the allegations are not even heard, leaving true victims reeling with money shoved down their throats, almost encouraging them to commit suicide. False accusations are also encouraged. And there are innocent priests who are stripped of their priesthood and, with concerted jury stacking, are sent to prison.] All this adds to the cost of claims handling and resolution. It can be especially harmful when the church is insured under a “self-eroding” or “wasting” [non-NCRRG] policy, in which defense costs reduce policy limits and compensatory resources. It precludes healing, reconciliation, and compassionate treatment of people who have been wronged or injured. [In other words, get rid of the defense costs. How is that done? Immediate settlements of any claims, regardless of the facts, which is harmful to both claimants and those accused. Just be just!]
Many Catholic entities have been very well-served by legal counsel who understand these dynamics, and who respect the need for control of claims handling by Catholic entities’ risk management professionals. We must learn from these lawyers’ examples, and implement their practices in all Catholic organizations. [He means the NCRRG.]
Early, Effective, Compassionate, and Healing Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
Religious and nonprofit entities must employ early and creative forms of ADR (for lack of a better term) to achieve the most compassionate, expedited, cost-effective and healing claim resolutions. In fact, “alternative dispute resolution” is an inadequate description of the nuanced process necessary to achieve compassionate and healing resolution. It presumes the existence of a dispute. It need not.[all priests are guilty, no matter what.] Unfortunately, however, mediation is often an adversarial negotiation process that is premised upon an existence or expectation of discord. [all priests are guilty, no matter what.]
This [that is, any adversarial, defensive] approach rarely achieves healing and reconciliation, even when it results in a settlement [instead of a litigated claim]. Early and creative ADR in Church claims does not resemble the ADR that emanates from and is best utilized in commercial litigation. “Late-in-the-game” mediation, often following extensive discovery and litigation, impedes compassionate and cost-effective closure. Claim resolution in the religious and nonprofit world requires pastoral outreach, even if the claim is in litigation. Often, proper ADR results in greater healing and engenders good will. Other claimants feel encouraged to come forward in a non-adversarial way, saving heartache and excessive cost. [Make a claim. Get paid. No matter what. Accuser gets immediate cash. Priest gets thrown out of the priesthood, and can be thrown into prison for life, which may, instead, result in his murder, especially as encouraged by the all accused priests are terrorists idea promoted by the NCRRG. This isn’t a nicey nice game reducing payouts. It’s as bloodthirsty as any betrayal by Judas.]
Accurate Claim Valuations
Early and nuanced claim valuation is a critical component of any comprehensive risk control and claims handling program. An extensive database of claim resolution values which offers numerous data points and metrics, and utilizes a complex and well-informed process to discern the most accurate claim values and settlement trends, is absolutely essential [and is brought to you by the speaker, who is selling something. Get it?]. It provides context in how a claim is assessed, handled and resolved. Proper claim valuation helps decision makers in the fluid analysis and leveraging of healing options against the relative costs of such resolution measures. Insurers gain confidence that loss payments reflect expert valuations, data-driven metrics, and the cost benefits of healing mechanisms. [That’s about the coldest thing I’ve read in long time.]
Appropriate and Fair Compensation
Compensation for wronged claimants must be fair, fair to all parties, including the Church. [We are not talking about the priest here, not at all] Disproportionately large settlements often do not reflect the facts and liability exposure. A fair settlement should be based on compensation data, and should reflect the exigencies of the claim. A fair settlement assists in expedited claim resolution, and is an element of proactive risk control. When claimants are treated fairly, they often realize a greater measure of healing—and it sets the tone for other claims. Fair compensation encourages claimants to directly approach churches in lieu of filing suit. Claimants avoid caustic litigation and attorneys’ fees. [Just. Wow. He doesn’t want alleged victims to have the benefit of an attorney. Just. Wow. “Come to us and we’ll shove money down your throat right away, ’cause that’s all you want, right? Sigh. And the priest, of course, has zero defense in all this. None. Zilch. Nada.]
Insurance Coverage Considerations
Churches and charities must employ protocols that ensure compliance with all the terms and conditions of insurance policies to maintain the integrity of their full coverages and insurance protections. As one example, policies and procedures to ensure compliance with notice of claim provisions in insurance policies must be implemented and enforced. Proper notice is an essential component of proper claims handling. Timely notice eliminates a potential impediment to an insured’s coverage for a claim. It also reduces cost and helps insurers to quickly assess a claim and to better provide for an insured’s needs in the claim or litigation process. [♬ Quicky settlement! ♬ Quicky settlement! ♬ /// ♬ “Kíll the priest! ♬ Kíll the priest! ♬ Kíll the chí-ld ráp-ing priest!” ♬ regardless of very possible innocence of the priest.]
The journey to effective loss prevention, loss control and proper claims handling in religious and nonprofit entities involves numerous steps coordinated in a steady gait over an at-times rocky terrain. Don’t be caught flat-footed! Implement these and other protocols of an integrated, proactive, comprehensive program customized to best meet your organization’s risk management needs. [“your organization” – The Church belongs to God. He sees all things, including injustice at the service of money. Your loss control for this should be repentance and confession and reparation]
© Copyright 2010 Michael T. Burnett, Esq. [Hey, Michael. I hope this running commentary doesn’t offend your little copyright. I’m not in competition with you. Really! And I’m not selling this. Really! It’s a critique so as to protect the lives of my fellow priests against your violent aggression. Get over it.]
Final comment: What can we all do about this? I’ll have to think about it. Any suggestions? Writing a courtesy note to your (Cardinal) (Arch)Bishop would be a start. Include a copy of this article.