They’re saving their pennies for the next referendum
Lawrence Grech, who leads the abuse victims, meets the Archbishop
This was my column in The Malta Independent on Sunday, 25 September
.The Archbishop’s Curia has announced that it bears no ‘legal responsibility’ for what happened to those boys placed in the care of a religious order, and therefore it shall not be giving them financial compensation.
Instead, it has offered to pay for the services of a psychiatrist should they feel they need one.
It is interesting that the statement left out the standard words ‘or moral’ after ‘legal’. Take note of this, because it gives away the rationale behind the decision. Moral responsibility be damned, it is only legal responsibility that counts in the courts of law when suing for financial compensation.
Unlike British, United States, Canadian, Australian and Irish law, Maltese law does not make allowance for financial compensation for damages in this manner. Elsewhere, the Catholic Church paid out compensation, to those who had been abused as children, in negotiated out-of-court settlements precisely to avoid the awkwardness of being sued.
In Malta, the cynical decision has been taken that, since there is no way the men can sue them for compensation, there is by definition no need to settle out of court. And moral responsibility, they have decided, makes them morally liable only to repairing the damage that was done by means of paying for a psychiatrist.
I don’t know on what grounds the men are going to proceed in their civil suit against the Catholic Church and the Missionary Society of St Paul, as they have said they will, but I shall certainly be interested to find out.
What fascinates me beyond measure is the way the Archbishop’s Curia said, as though it is a limited liability company selling consumer products and brushing off an irritating customer who claims to have gotten diarrhoea by eating one of them, that its lawyers said it needn’t pay out any money because it is not legally responsible.
Yet even a limited liability company selling consumer products would know that, legally responsible or not, compensating the people involved is crucial to avert a major public relations disaster and damage to its image.
The Archbishop’s Curia now looks like, if I might be forgiven the colloquialism, a total bastard and a cynical and nastily calculating one at that.
But let’s leave aside the public relations problems. If the Archbishop’s Curia wishes to add to its problems in that field, good luck to it.
It seems to have forgotten, though, that it is the representative office of the Catholic Church, so behaving like a heartless s.o.b. should clearly not be an option here. What would Christ have done, they should be asking themselves?
Struggle as I might, I can’t picture any scenarios in which he consults his top-echelon lawyers and then says, Look, I’m not going to be giving you any money because you can’t take me to court, but if you like, I’ll pay for your psychiatric treatment.
I’ve long since given up expecting gentlemanly behaviour from anyone in Malta. But when even the Archbishop and his advisers are reduced to adhering to the Code of Chavs (“I won’t because I don’t have to and you can’t make me”) then it’s time to abandon hope, all ye who enter here.
The Archbishop’s Curia was not legally obliged to give money to the anti-divorce campaign earlier this year, but still it gave those campaigners €180,000. It gave them the money because it wanted to do so.
By the same token, it has decided not to give those men any money because it doesn’t want to do so. It shouldn’t use the law as an excuse or a crutch, because its motivation might be simple but it is certainly not pure.
As for all this talk of the law, what can I say except that the Archbishop’s Curia certainly knows how to give unto Caesar’s that which is Caesar’s when it wants to, but it wasn’t so fast to stick with the law when the slight matter of sexually abusive behaviour by priests came up before it.
Then, it saw fit to create its own alternative tribunal so that Caesar and his laws could be kept out of it as far as possible.
PLAN Z: ELECT JOSEPH MUSCAT
Christine Lagarde, who heads the International Monetary Fund, said on Friday that the world might see the evaporation of consumer demand if Europe and the United States don’t get their houses in order.
“If there is no collective rapid action, we run the risk of losing the battle for growth,” she said at the opening session of the IMF and World Bank annual meetings in Washington.
“There are dark clouds over Europe and there is huge uncertainty in the United States and, with that, we could risk a collapse in global demand. Well, so what? Let’s remove the clouds and remove the uncertainty. Easier said than done and it requires clearly a collective action. What we want for our countries is inclusive, job-creating growth. We need to act now and we need to act together. Our problems can be largely economic, but the solutions are essentially political solutions.”
Malta’s solution?
To elect Joseph Muscat as prime minister, Anglu Farrugia as deputy prime minister and Il-Guy, Karmenu Vella, as finance minister, on a programme written by that same Karmenu Vella, minister in the cabinets of Dom Mintoff, Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici and Alfred Sant.
May we rest in peace.
20 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110927/local/Obese-children-partly-to-blame-for-uniform-shortage-supplier.386596
Epic! Epic headline! Epic quote!
Daphne, an article, PLEASE.
With making nagging media noise about compensation (right or not, besides the point), the victims are inadvertently eroding the respect they managed to get from public opinion for the original abuse case.
I think they should rightfully seek compensation, legally but privately, away from the prying eyes of the cameras. I again agree with Lou Bondi here. This case is steadfastly becoming a media circus and might backfire on people who want justice ultimately served.
@ Wayne Hewitt
Justice should be served from the beginning!
I agree with you on this one, Mr Hewitt.
May I ask: Will financial compensation cancel the “hurt” that was caused by the abusers of those boys many years ago? If yes, then go ahead; but it seems to me that in the long run, those men’s minds was initially pointed at “what can we gain from our story?” – I might be wrong but that’s what I feel.
[Daphne – You are wrong. Financial compensation comes into play when the original wrong cannot be redressed. If a man blinds another man, he doesn’t just go to jail. He can’t give the other man his eyesight back, so instead he is obliged to give him money. Are you suggesting that the blinded man should be left with no compensation just because the man who blinded him has gone to prison?]
Daphne, much as I sympathise with these poor victims, I question their request for financial compensation. They wanted and deserved justice and this was / is being achieved through the courts and the resulting sentences handed down (pending appeal).
[Daphne – How wrong you are. If you were run over by a drunken driver and left crippled for life, you would not consider it sufficient for the drunken driver to be locked away behind bars. Nor would you be content because justice had been served. Justice to the drunken driver, perhaps, but what about justice to you? That’s where financial compensation comes into it. If you can’t get your spine and legs back, then you get money instead – though of course you would rather have your spine and your legs, just as these men would rather not have had to go through all that for any amount of money.]
They also deserve all the help they can get to deal with the psychological scars that they bear as a result of their bad experiences. But money? What exactly is financial compensation going to heal? Isn’t it more important that they are provided with all the support, counceling and therapy they need to look forward to leading as normal a life as they can? No bank balance, fancy car, big house or designer clothes will achieve that.
Yes, but if I could have my spine and legs back, that – and seeing the bastard who hurt me locked away – should be enough for me.
Besides, as far as I’m aware the financial compensation in such cases is quantified according to the loss of earnings, etc, of the victim as a result of the injury.
It is intended to make up for what he/she would have earned if the injury hadn’t occurred.
If it can be proved and quantified in the case of these men, then I agree they should receive appropriate compensation.
But the impression is that they are out to get as much as they can, almost like they want to take advantage of the sympathy that they have deservedly attracted for the ordeal that they went through, combined with the current wave of anti-anything-to-do-with-the-Church.
I agree with you that the compensation should be paid, but, taking the example of the drunk driver:
The drunk driver gets sent to prison, but is uninsured/joy riding and still lives with his parents or simply doesn’t own property, and has little in the bank.
What happens?
Should his parents / family or employers be forced to pay?
[Daphne – OF COURSE NOT, DAVID. Once you are over 18, your parents are not responsible for your actions. And I can’t see what his employers have got to do with it. The answer is that the unlucky person gets nothing, on the same principle that you can’t get what you’re owed from a company that’s bankrupt.]
It’s a difficult legal question!
[Daphne – It isn’t, actually, at all.]
I haven’t followed the nitty gritty of the case but if the church knew of past problems with these pederasts then they should definitely shoulder part of the blame.
I believe that the the Church authorities must be legally responsible for the environment of church homes, just as I would hold school authorities responsible if, God forbid, something so terrible happened to a schoolchild on the premises.
And finally, how the hell do priests sworn to poverty afford those very pricey lawyers, did they offer their services pro bono?
The difficult legal question (to me – I’m no lawyer) is how does the victim get compensation from priests who supposedly (being priests) have nothing?
I dragged employers into it because technically I suppose the church was their employer! But if employers shouldn’t be made to pay (I agree – it’s ludicrous) why should the church? That is were the legal question is a bit quirky to me.
I believe the church SHOULD be liable NOT because they are priests BUT because the abuse happened in a home administered by the church.
Regarding “the uninsured” – As far as I know, where there is bodily injury, the car’s insurers would be legally obliged to pay the damages due, even if the driver himself was not covered by the insurance policy (being under-age, not licensed or whatever), The insurance company would then sue the driver concerned for compensation (without much hope of recouping their dues).
I may be wrong, but maybe a lawyer would wish to clarify.
And will it be whip Mizzi, Minister of IT and infrastructure? I believe he shadows Austin Gatt ? And will Mr Tie-Me-Up be minister of health?
The Maltese Curia’s interest lies in providing closure to the matter, and not just to these men.
Closure, in this case, means never to forget or abandon them.
Surely there are ways they can be compensated to get their life back. Whatever these may be, the initiative lies with the Curia.
The courage required is in the message of the church herself.
What will these eight men gain by being awarded an obscene sum in damages or whatever it is obscene sums are awarded for?
Will it solve their psychological plight? Hardly.
My bet is that they saw what the Catholic Church was made to pay in Ireland and the United States of America and they took a pot shot. I daresay that that was their motivation.
If it isn’t, why didn’t somebody kick up a comparable fuss about children abused and neglected by their parents? None of what I’m saying is to be construed as a “cause” for mitigation mind you, but I’ve never heard or seen anything quite like this before.
[Daphne – Reuben, the Maltese contempt ( ‘I am above all that’; ‘money doesn’t buy happiness’) for any sign of interest in adequate compensation for work or damages is extremely tiresome, particularly when you know that its root cause is not indifference to money but rather an obsession with it.
Of course people kick up a fuss when children are abused by their parents. But they have to know about it first.]
I never expected the Maltese Curia to pay a eurocent.
The time-hallowed “Maltese” adage goes something like this :
Il-knisja, il-gewwa plenty u l-barra nienti.
I knew you’d counter with something like that. The problem is that many people have trouble differentiating revenge from justice.
You still haven’t provided a good enough reason for compensation. Adequate compensation, to really rub it in.
Perhaps the logic of their action will dawn on us when we see them crying all the way to the bank, as the man said.
I am sorry I do not agree with you on this one Daphne. I do not think that being compensated financially will ever rid the victims of their trauma which is after all the crux of the whole matter. The victims were traumatised for life. Only sessions with a psychiatrist will help them overcome that. What is the use of having money when the trauma will remain for life ?
[Daphne – Better to be miserable in comfort than in poverty, Etil. That’s what I always tell people when they bore me with ‘money can’t buy happiness’. Funny how you never hear the rich say that.]
I believe that there are two instances in Maltese law where moral damages are given.
1. People with disability who were discriminated against (Equal Opportunities Act 2000).
2. Persons who were about to be married and one of the spouses chickens out of the marriage at the last moment.
Am I right?
So the Curia is not legally obliged to give any of the men compensation.
Was it, however, legally obliged to pay the ex-priests’ legal fees? I doubt it.
Even if it weren’t, but chose to do so anyhow, it would be admission on the church’s part that the priests somehow needed their (albeit financial) help, since they formed part of the church community, even in their wrong-doings.
Where does that leave the boys (now men) who were left at their mercy?
X’qatta nies bla skrupli u bla kuxjenza hawn.
I find their reasoning shocking – that all that is legal is morally acceptable. It most certainly is not, especially when coming from the representatives in Malta of the Catholic Church.
So reasoning like the Curia is reasoning now it is not wrong to have an abortion where it is legal, to have euthenasia where it is legal, to divorce where it is legal.
If they give these poor guys money then the church must compensate the hundreds if not thousands of other victims out there. I’m sure the curia doesn’t want to go down that alley.