From today’s online WSJ, an article with the tagline “Catholic Church Offers to Settle Abuse Claims – With a Catch: A potential flood of lawsuits has spurred the Catholic Church to offer mediation, only if accusers agree not to sue.” About halfway through the article, the paper describes a “mediation” process under which
“Alleged victims tell their stories to the mediators—some in person at offices, and others by phone, over video calls or through their lawyers. No church officials are present. If there is corroboration, such as a police report or another accusation against the priest, the mediators make an offer, Ms. Biros said. Settlement amounts depend on such factors as the victim’s age and the type of abuse, she said, and range from about $500,000 to “considerably lower.”
An entire Mediation course final exam question right there in three sentences ripped from the Wall Street Journal…
MM
MM- I forwarded your post to the Pennsylvania Council of Mediators…
LBF
This highlights my concern, although I know I’m in the minority, about the “expansion” of the meaning of the word mediation. People see that, and they think “oh, that’s what mediation is.” I’m not a “purist,” and I don’t like labels anyway. I understand mediation can look like a variety of different things. Should this example be one of them?