Abuse secrecy guilt settlement case

MrThrifty

Gonna open no doubt a touchy discussion here... While I have all the sympathy in the world for those who have been abused as children (by whoever), I got the impression yesterday that something had gone astray somewhere in the justice system... I am referring to the case reported in the news about a man who was sworn to secrecy about a priest who had abused him as a teenager but who felt plagued with guilt afterwards when he heard about all the others who were then subsequently abused by the same priest. See http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/1130/bolandb.html for RTE's report on the case.

The main element of the case reported appears to relate to the man feeling 'responsible for the misery of the priest's subsequent victims' rather than the abuse he suffered himself (something I am not trying to take away from). Anyway, the settlement is rumoured to be in excess of a previous settlement of 250k which was awarded in a similar case, the positive outcome of which presumably motivated the 'victim' to take this more recent case.

So, here's my issue. Given the man's guilt for what happened to subsequent victims of abuse as a result of his secrecy, and also the fact that it is generally acknowledged that victims of abuse have been very poorly compensated (not that it is possible to ever fully compensate for such a thing), is it not contradictory for him to take the settlement money for himself and not donate it all to some relevant agency or charity so that subsequent victims would be some way compensated for his guilt-ridden actions.

Put it this way, if you were a subsequent victim of abuse in this case, how would you feel hearing about your man getting hundreds of thousands in compensation for what is reported to be mainly his guilt at not doing anything to prevent the abuse that you suffered, something for which you have been miserably compensated for, if at all.

To those who might suggest that he will probably donate the money appropriately anyway, it's a nice notion but you would think that this would have been stated by the man at this stage and widely reported. In fact, by settling the case out of court, the man ensured personal compensation as opposed to a court order for an amount to be paid to agencies or charities involved in helping victims of abuse.

If the topic at hand was not abuse-related but maybe something like a council compo claim etc., then I think there might have been a lot more cynical eyebrows raised at the motivations and the settlement.

Que attack on OP for such insensitivity or posting on inappropriate forum...

Kevin Duffy

Just 'cos he felt guilty doesn't mean he should feel guilty. He was a kid who was abused, his reaction to that isn't open to criticism. Stick your judgement of his actions up your hole.

TheZohanS

He was compensated for being abused. He stated that he felt guilty that he and his family took the RC Church at their word that Smyth wouldn't be allowed access to boys and girls and the RC Church broke their word and allowed the abuse to continue, something he only found out about 20 years later.


Nothing to see here, move along, and no he shouldn't have to give his settlement away.

massdebater

He can do whatever the hell he wants with the money. Who are you or I to say what he should do with it.

LeeHoffmann

Are people guilty for something somebody else does? He shouldn't feel guilty and he shouldn't have to give up the money. I imagine that any person who was subsequently abused might feel anger that they haven't received similar compensation - but I'd be sure that anger isn't directed at the first victim - they would be angry at their abuser, the organisation (Catholic Church) etc

Guill

Kevin Duffy wrote: »

Just 'cos he felt guilty doesn't mean he should feel guilty. He was a kid who was abused, his reaction to that isn't open to criticism. Stick your judgement of his actions up your hole.

Is that not how all this started???

MrThrifty

Okay, so I'll just keep my trap shut so...

There was me thinking that it was a lack of willingness to discuss things openly in the first place that led to some of the church-related scandals. If the case had been about a victim of physical abuse by the guards, then there would be lots of HEALTHY discussion on it and the outcome.

As I said, the main element of the case as it seemed to be reported was the man's guilt for not preventing what subsequently happened to the later victims. I wasn't suggesting that he should have to give the money away - it just seems contradictory not to in some respects.

mackg

Wait a minute now I'm confused, is this the second settlement he has received?

LeeHoffmann

If the case had been about a victim of physical abuse by the guards, then there would lots of HEALTHY discussion on it and the outcome.

no, for me it would be the same thing. He's a victim. He is in no way guilty for any future crime the guards/priests commit.

MrThrifty

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

no, for me it would be the same thing. He's a victim. He is in no way guilty for any future crime the guards/priests commit.

I agree.

And if the case was taken against the church purely in relating to the the abuse he suffered then that's that. However, it seemed to be reported that it was more in relation to the guilt he suffered afterwards upon discovering that there had been further victims as a result of his actions. Maybe it was an untrue spin that the media (radio in particular) were putting on the case and if someone can point to a reliable source that contradicts this then well and good.

LeeHoffmann

I'm not going to go trawling the internet to look for contradictory evidence. I think it unlikely that the Catholic Church would pay him compensation because of the guilt he suffered...however, if they did, that would leave the door open for the other victims to come a claiming their guilt money too.

Kevin Duffy

MrThrifty wrote: »

Okay, so I'll just keep my trap shut so...

Not a bad idea.

MrThrifty wrote: »

I wasn't suggesting that he should have to give the money away - it just seems contradictory not to in some respects.

Lol, the ironing. This is pathetic, cop on and leave the fella alone, he's gone through enough without whispering campaigns motivated by jealously masquerading as moral rectitude.

Kevin Duffy

MrThrifty wrote: »

I agree.

And if the case was taken against the church purely in relating to the the abuse he suffered then that's that. However, it seemed to be reported that it was more in relation to the guilt he suffered afterwards upon discovering that there had been further victims as a result of his actions. Maybe it was an untrue spin that the media (radio in particular) were putting on the case and if someone can point to a reliable source that contradicts this then well and good.

How the fúck are you not getting that it wasn't "his actions" that saw others abused?

MrThrifty

Kevin Duffy wrote: »

Lol, the ironing. This is pathetic, cop on and leave the fella alone, he's gone through enough without whispering campaigns motivated by jealously masquerading as moral rectitude.

What about the ironing? This is not an attempt at a whispering campaign but the opposite in fact - I'm just raising an open discussion on the topic.

Kevin Duffy wrote: »

How the fúck are you not getting that it wasn't "his actions" that saw others abused?

Read my previous post. I do not believe that... but once AGAIN, from how it was reported on the radio, it seemed that this was how the victim in this case felt and the main reason for taking the case.

Note that it was in the church's interest to make a personal settlement out of court to avoid a potentially larger in-court settlement (and perhaps not an entirely personal settlement either) and also further ramifications.