Skip to content

What I told Prov. #3 I seek

August 1, 2009

It might be too difficult to explain here what I asked of provincial #3, because it was shaped and influenced by experiences with provincials #1 and #2, and that might be too much to tell.   But I have shared some of that on this blog already, so I’ll give it a shot.

1.  Provincial #1 had offered me an apology in ’03 and I turned it down.  In my mind, the abuser was the one who harmed me.   Now, in ’09, I asked provincial #3 for an apology for the breaches, for breaking the trust I placed in the province, the poor supervision and the lying.

An apology doesn’t seem to be out of the ordinary for the province.  They do that.

2.  I suggested some new statements “clarifying” the restrictions in the agreement to help new provincials.  There doesn’t seem (to me) to be anything new there — just more straightforward language.

That doesn’t look like a big problem for the province.  They do that too.

3.  I asked to be compensated for the breach of contract, my time documenting the breaches (being supervisor), and the poor supervision.   I said the best way to go was use the ’03 agreement as a guide, and do at least the same thing, re compensation.  Under Missouri law, I could seek a lot more — the entire original claim in 2003. The ’03 agreement was much less than the claim could be.   But since it was the ’03 agreement what was breached, that’s where I start.

This will take some consideration for the province, since there will always be arguments in favor and against it.  But they do this too.

4.  I asked for a written commitment to do better and to provide proper supervision in the future.

I doubt this is a big deal.    It’s something they might do without me asking for it.

I am certain the financial issues are the ones the new provincial will look at.   I’m also sure money made the last provincial lie very recklessly.

Some background info I should make clear:  when I contacted the Missouri province to report the abusive Jesuit for the first time in 2003, I did not ask for money.  I simply asked the province to address needs that came up in the future.   The province told me they wanted a figure, we spent some time on it, and ultimately provincial #1 simply paid the figure they asked me to provide.  It was a good experience.

That’s my history with the Missouri province under provincial #1.  Provincial #2’s lying strengthened my resolve to see this through.  No one should be treated the way he treated me.

Also, I told provincial #3 he could split the total in half and pay half in ’09 and half in ’10 if that was easier in this economy.

I’m not going to try to predict anything.   Under provincial #1, there were timely conversations and no interest in surprising me with things in a letter.   My intuition tells me provincial #3 will write.  That’s the only thing I think I “know” — because that’s what provincial #2 did.    But I gave #3 my phone numbers so we could talk it over, which seems better and more like the province I used to know.

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: