MYCVAStory

SORRY FOR THE LENGTH BUT..... Actually, the scaling factors are in the Trust Distribution Procedures. From: ARTICLE VIII CLAIMS MATRIX AND SCALING FACTORS the portion found below the abuse matrix is: B. Scaling Factors. After the Settlement Trustee has assigned an Allowed Abuse Claim to one of the six tiers in the Claims Matrix, the Settlement Trustee will utilize the Scaling Factors described below to determine the Proposed Allowed Claim Amount for each Allowed Abuse Claim. The Scaling Factors are based on evidence regarding the BSA’s and other putative Protected Parties’ historical abuse settlements, litigation outcomes, and other evidence supporting the Scaling Factors. Each Allowed Abuse Claim will be evaluated for each factor by the Settlement Trustee through his or her review of the evidence obtained through the relevant Proof of Claim, Trust Claim Submission and any related or follow-up materials, interviews or examinations, as well as materials obtained by the Settlement Trust or the Direct Abuse Claimant through the Document Obligations. These scaling factors can increase or decrease the Proposed Allowed Claim Amount for an Allowed Abuse Claim depending on the severity of the facts underlying the Claim. By default, the value of each scaling factor is one (1), meaning that in the absence of the application of the scaling factor, the Base Matrix Value assigned to a Claim is not affected by that factor. In contrast, if the Settlement Trustee determines that a particular scaling factor as applied to a given Allowed Abuse Claim is 1.5, the Proposed Allowed Claim Amount for the Allowed Abuse Claim will be increased by 50%, the result of multiplying the Base Matrix Value of the Allowed Abuse Claim by 1.5. The combined effect of all scaling factors is determined by multiplying the scaling factors together then multiplying the result by the Base Matrix Value of the Allowed Abuse Claim. See Article VIII.F for illustrative example. C. Aggravating Scaling Factors. The Settlement Trustee may assign upward Scaling Factors to each Allowed Abuse Claim based on the following categories: (i) Nature of Abuse and Circumstances. To account for particularly severe Abuse or aggravating circumstances, the Settlement Trustee may assign an upward Scaling Factor of up to 1.5 to each Allowed Abuse Claim. The hypothetical base case scenario for this scaling factor would involve a single incident of Abuse with a single perpetrator with such perpetrator having accessed the victim as an employee or volunteer within BSA-sponsored scouting. The hypothetical base case is incorporated into the Base Matrix Value in the Claims Matrix’ tiers and would not receive an increase on account of this factor. By way of example, aggravating factors that can give rise to a higher scaling factor include the following factors: a. Extended duration and/or frequency of the Abuse; b. Exploitation of the Abuse Claimant for child pornography; c. Coercion or threat or use of force or violence, stalking; and d. Multiple perpetrators involved in sexual misconduct. (ii) Abuser Profile. To account for the alleged abuser’s profile, the Settlement Trustee may assign an upward Scaling Factor of up to 2.0 to an Allowed Abuse Claim. This factor is to be evaluated relative to a hypothetical base case scenario involving a perpetrator as to whom there is no other known allegations of Abuse. The hypothetical base case is incorporated into the Base Matrix Value in the Claims Matrix’ tiers and would not receive an increase on account of this factor. An upward Scaling Factor may be applied for this category as follows (the Settlement Trustee may only apply the scaling factor of the single highest applicable category listed below): a. 1.25 if the abuser was accused by at least one (1) other alleged victim of Abuse; b. 1.5 if the abuser was accused by five (5) or more other alleged victims of Abuse; c. 2.0 if the abuser was accused by ten (10) or more other alleged victims of Abuse; and d. 1.25 to 2.0 if there is evidence that the Protected Party knew or should have known (i) the abuser had previously committed or may commit Abuse and failed to take reasonable steps to protect the survivor from that danger, or (ii) of the prior Abuse or the foreseeability of the risk of Abuse and failed to take reasonable steps to protect the survivor from that danger. (iii) Impact of the Abuse. To account for the impact of the alleged Abuse on the Abuse Claimant’s mental health, physical health, inter-personal relationships, vocational capacity or success, academic capacity or success, and whether the alleged Abuse at issue resulted in legal difficulties for the Abuse Claimant, the Settlement Trustee may assign an upward Scaling Factor of up to 1.5. This factor is to be evaluated relative to a hypothetical base case scenario of a victim of Abuse who suffered the typical level of Abuse-related distress within the tier to which the Allowed Abuse Claim was assigned. The hypothetical base case is incorporated into the Base Matrix Values in the Claims Matrix’ tiers and would not receive an increase on account of this factor. The Settlement Trustee will consider, along with any and all other relevant factors, whether the Abuse at issue manifested or otherwise led the Abuse Claimant to experience or engage in behaviors resulting from: a. Mental Health Issues: This includes anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse, addiction, embarrassment, fear, flashbacks, nightmares, sleep issues, sleep disturbances, exaggerated startle response, boundary issues, self-destructive behaviors, guilt, grief, homophobia, hostility, humiliation, anger, isolation, hollowness, regret, shame, isolation, sexual addiction, sexual problems, sexual identity Case 20-10343-LSS Doc 8813 Filed 02/15/22 Page 170 of 459 18 confusion, low self-esteem or self-image, bitterness, suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and hospitalization or receipt of treatment for any of the foregoing. b. Physical Health Issues: This includes physical manifestations of emotional distress, gastrointestinal issues, headaches, high blood pressure, physical manifestations of anxiety, erectile dysfunction, heart palpitations, sexually-transmitted diseases, physical damage caused by acts of Abuse, reproductive damage, self-cutting, other self-injurious behavior, and hospitalization or receipt of treatment for any of the foregoing. c. Interpersonal Relationships: This includes problems with authority figures, hypervigilance, sexual problems, marital difficulties, problems with intimacy, lack of trust, isolation, betrayal, impaired relations, secrecy, social discreditation and isolation, damage to family relationships, and fear of children or parenting. d. Vocational Capacity: This includes under- and un-employment, difficulty with authority figures, difficulty changing and maintaining employment, feelings of unworthiness, or guilt related to financial success. e. Academic Capacity: This includes school behavior problems. f. Legal Difficulties: This includes criminal difficulties, bankruptcy, and fraud. E. Mitigating Scaling Factors. The Settlement Trustee may assign a mitigating Scaling Factor in the range of 0 to 1.0 except as specifically provided below to each Allowed Abuse Claim to eliminate or decrease the Proposed Allowed Claim Amount for such Claim. Each mitigating factor is to be evaluated relative to a hypothetical base case scenario of a timely asserted Abuse Claim with supporting evidence that demonstrates, by a preponderance of the evidence, Abuse by a perpetrator that accessed the victim as an employee, agent or volunteer of a Protected Party, as a registered Scout or as a participant in Scouting within BSA-sponsored Scouting. If statute of limitations revival legislation occurs in a particular jurisdiction, the Settlement Trustee may modify the applicable Scaling Factor (as described below) relevant thereto on a go-forward basis and determine Proposed Allowed Claim Amounts for Abuse Claims in such jurisdiction thereafter based on such modified Scaling Factor. Included in the hypothetical base case scenario is that the applicable period under a statute of limitations or repose for timely asserting such Abuse Claim against any potentially responsible party will not have passed. The hypothetical base case is incorporated into the Base Matrix Values in the Claims Matrix tiers and would not receive a decrease on account of these factors. Such factors may include the following: (i) Absence of Protected Party Relationship or Presence of a Responsible Party that Is Not a Protected Party. a. Familial Relationship. A Protected Party’s responsibility for a perpetrator may be factually or legally attenuated or mitigated where the perpetrator also had a familial relationship with the Abuse Claimant. Familial Abuse— Case 20-10343-LSS Doc 8813 Filed 02/15/22 Page 171 of 459 19 even if the perpetrator was an employee, agent or volunteer of a Protected Party, and the Abuse occurred in connection with BSA-related Scouting—should result in a significant reduction of the Proposed Allowed Claim Amount. b. Other Non-Scouting Relationship. A Protected Party’s responsibility for a perpetrator may be factually or legally attenuated or mitigated where the perpetrator also maintained a non-familial relationship with the Abuse Claimant through a separate affiliation, such as a school, or a religious organization, even if the perpetrator was an employee, agent or volunteer of a Protected Party, or the Abuse occurred in settings where a Protected Party did not have the ability or responsibility to exercise control. Factors to consider include how close the relationship was between the perpetrator and the victim outside of their Scouting-related relationship, whether Abuse occurred and the extent of such Abuse outside of their Scouting relationship, and applicable law related to apportionment of liability. In such event, the Settlement Trustee shall determine and apply a mitigating Scaling Factor that accounts for such other relationship and the related Abuse. By way of example, if the Settlement Trustee determines after evaluation of an Allowed Abuse Claim and application of all of the other Scaling Factors that the perpetrator, who was an employee, agent or volunteer of a Protected Party for BSA-related Scouting, also was the primary teacher (at a non-Protected Party entity or institution) of the Abuse Claimant outside of BSA-related Scouting, and if numerous incidents of Abuse occurred outside of Scouting before one incident of BSA-related Scouting Abuse occurred, the Settlement Trustee shall apply a mitigating Scaling Factor as a material reduction of the Proposed Allowed Claim Amount. c. Other Responsible Non-Protected Party. The Abuse Claimant may have a cause of action under applicable law for a portion of his or her Direct Abuse Claim against a responsible entity, such as a Chartered Organization, that is not a Protected Party. By way of example, if the Settlement Trustee determines after evaluation of a Submitted Abuse Claim that (i) a Chartered Organization that is not a Protected Party is responsible under applicable law for a portion of the liability and (ii) a Protected Party(ies) are not also liable for the same portion of the liability) (taking into account the relevant jurisdiction’s prevailing law on apportionment of damages), the Settlement Trustee shall apply a final Scaling Factor to account for such non-Protected Party’s portion of the liability. (ii) Other Settlements, Awards, Contributions, or Limitations. The Settlement Trustee may consider any further limitations on the Abuse Claimant’s recovery in the tort system. The Settlement Trustee also should consider the amounts of any settlements or awards already received by the Abuse Claimant from other, non-Protected Party sources as well as agreed and reasonably likely to be received contributions from other, non-Protected Party sources that are related to the Abuse. By way of example, the Settlement Trustee should assign an appropriate Scaling Case 20-10343-LSS Doc 8813 Filed 02/15/22 Page 172 of 459 20 Factor to Allowed Abuse Claims capped by charitable immunity under the laws of the jurisdiction where the Abuse occurred. Notwithstanding the foregoing, where an Abuse Claimant has obtained a recovery based on the independent liability of a third party for separate instances of Abuse that occurred without connection to Scouting activities, or on the Non-Scouting portion of a Mixed Claim, no mitigating factor or reduction in value will be applied based on that recovery. (iii) Statute of Limitations or Repose. If the evidence provided by the Abuse Claimant or otherwise obtained by the Settlement Trustee results in the Settlement Trustee concluding that the subject Direct Abuse Claim could be dismissed or denied in the tort system as to all Protected Parties against whom the Direct Abuse Claim was timely submitted (as set forth in Articles IV.A) due to the passage of a statute of limitations or a statute of repose, the Settlement Trustee shall apply an appropriate Scaling Factor based on the ranges set forth in Schedule 1 hereof; provided, however, the Settlement Trustee will weigh the strength of any relevant evidence submitted by the Abuse Claimant to determine whether the statute of limitations could be tolled or deemed timely under applicable law, and may apply a higher Scaling Factor if such evidence demonstrates to the Settlement Trustee that tolling or a finding of timeliness would be appropriate under applicable state law. (iv) Absence of a Putative Defendant. If the Direct Abuse Claim could be diminished because such claim was not timely submitted against BSA or another Protected Party (as set forth in Articles IV.A) (a “Missing Party”), such that in a suit in the tort system, such Direct Abuse Claim would be burdened by an “empty chair” defense due to the absence of a Missing Party(ies), the Settlement Trustee shall apply a mitigating Scaling Factor to account for a Missing Party’s absence. By way of example, where a timely submitted Direct Abuse Claim was not timely submitted against BSA (i.e., the Abuse Claimant failed to timely file a Chapter 11 POC) but was only timely submitted against the Local Council and/or another Protected Party (as set forth in Articles IV.A(ii) and (iii)), such absence of the BSA due to BSA’s discharge would be the basis for such a substantial reduction. Any Direct Abuse Claim that is reduced due to the absence of the BSA under this mitigating Scaling Factor shall only be payable, as reduced, from Settlement Trust Assets contributed by the applicable Local Council or Chartered Organization, pro rata with all other Direct Abuse entitled to share in the Settlement Trust Assets contributed by such Local Council or Chartered Organization. F. Allowed Abuse Claim Calculus. After the Settlement Trustee assigns an Allowed Abuse Claim to a Claims Matrix tier and determines the appropriate Scaling Factors that apply to the Claim, the Proposed Allowed Claim Amount for the Allowed Abuse Claim is the product of the Base Matrix Value of the Claim and the Scaling Factors applied to the Claim. In no event can an Allowed Abuse Claim’s Proposed Allowed Claim Amount (or Allowed Claim Amount) exceed the Maximum Matrix Value for the Claim’s assigned Claims Matrix tier. By way of example, if an Allowed Abuse Claim is determined by the Settlement Trustee to be a tier 1 claim (Base Matrix Value of $600,000) with a Scaling Factor of 1.5 for the nature and circumstances of the abuse, and a mitigating Scaling Factor of 0.75, and no other Scaling Factors, the Proposed Allowed Claim Amount for the Allowed Abuse Claim would be $675,000, calculated as $600,000 x 1.5 x 0.75 = Case 20-10343-LSS Doc 8813 Filed 02/15/22 Page 173 of 459 21 $675,000. As a further example, if, in addition to the above Scaling Factors, the same Allowed Abuse Claim had an additional aggravating Scaling Factor of 2.0 on account of the abuser’s profile, the Proposed Allowed Claim Amount for the Allowed Abuse Claim would be $1,350,000 (calculated as $600,000 x 1.5 x .75 x 2.0).

Yes, it has. But with no parties in opposition objecting to that, and they haven't, the judge isn't going to become a financial analyst.

ANY suggestions of when a ruling will come down is a guess. Period. It might be the end of Jun it might be tomorrow. It also might be scheduled and we all hear her read it and it might get posted to the docket without her verbalizing it. It also might be a part of a hearing where she essentially says "I'm good with this but I'd like to give some parties 48-72 hours to see if they can resolve that." I'm struck by the irony that after decades Survivors find themselves waiting, again. But, there will be more of that. If a trust is established then expedited checks will go out with relative speed; relative to two years of bankruptcy proceedings that is. For those filing a yet-to-be-developed award form and submitting documentation the wait will be MUCH longer AFTER a Trust becomes operational. Then....there will also be litigation against non-settling insurers....and the insurance industry is masterful at delay since it's all about time value of money. Let's hope in the meantime more Survivors don't fall prey to the "structured settlement" lenders that prey on people that need their money now.

The expense to run any Trust is an important issue. It's also a function of the size of the trust. There's economy of scale so the larger the trust balance the smaller the percentage to go to expenses (but quite possibly much more in total). A good target is 5-7% but start-up expenses are often large. THIS was why the TCC was fighting the "trust governance" issue so hard with the first plan. If a small group of attorneys, say a "coalition" if you will, then there are few checks and balances on everything from professional fees to claim administration. If there's a trust then Survivors MUST demand transparency and assurance that THEIR money is being spent appropriately. As far as total claims, this will be interesting. In many "mass tort" cases claimants just sort of disappear. They are non-responsive and don't follow-through. But, many experts I've spoken too say that it's different with sexual abuse. Fewer claimants try to make bogus claims and follow-through is higher. Time will tell. The Bates report threw out the 43,000 claimant figure but it is VERY important to remember two things. One, it was not his original figure. The original was much higher. Two, THIS number was produced after the first failed vote I believe to provide "Trust fully funded" headlines. It's easy to fund a trust when you just decreased the denominator! I don't like making guesses unless I have enough data to make an educated one. Or, I'll admit that it's a wild-a$$ guess. This is sort of the latter for me. I'd think about starting with the close to 60K people who voted, and then increase that number because there's a financial motivation to participate. Final number? Beats me but I'd be surprised if it's 43,000. Remember too....it also comes down to validation.

This author has staked out a space highly defensive of the church so there must be some perspective. For example, here's a comment from: https://beyondthesestonewalls.com/blog/gordon-macrae/catholic-media-join-sex-abuse-pile-david-f-pierre-jr As I have written in the past, “credible” could mean as little as that the abuse was geographically possible, that it can be shown that the accuser was merely at a parish at the same time as an accused cleric. The “credible” bar is a very low one indeed.What do we truly know about the McCarrick scandal? We know he had a beach house. We know that he often invited priests and seminarians there. We know that McCarrick often shared a bed with a guest. We know a lot of clergy were uncomfortable with it.People ask, “Why didn’t people say anything?” Well, here’s an idea: Maybe there was no abuse. Maybe the whole beach house thing was gay, creepy, and wildly inappropriate, but no one ever felt that the interactions rose to the level of “abuse.” Has anyone ever thought of that?Yes, gay seminarians and priests should not be sharing a beach house. But was anyone really surprised by this public revelation? Uh-huh...."Why didn't people say anything? How long have Survivors been hearing that?

No. That's the debtor's problem. While the Judge has expressed support for "continuing the mission" of the BSA it's ultimately up to the debtor to propose a plan IT feels will work. Inherent in that is the agreement of the other parties that the BSA will survive at least long enough to pay any amounts owed.

Did you get on? There was a bit of a delay in their admitting people to the hearing today.

I'm catching up but I noticed that you posted that comment and then photos of Scouts and adults. I'm also assuming that these are not all your family. If that's the case I believe they should be removed from this forum. Unless releases were signed or there was express consent that photos taken during a Scouting event would be shared with a larger audience I suspect those pictured and their parents believed this was for private and not public use. If It was my child I'd ask that you use photos he wasn't in to make your case. All of that said, I hope you will be as aggressive as you believe is warranted in addressing your YP concerns. When it comes to youth safety, mental or physical, there's no excuse not to be zealous.

Short answer: Apparently not. Long answer: I haven't seen this in writing but that shouldn't be taken to mean that it isn't important or could be part of new YP measures. I think all parties (TCC and SWG) were focused on creating a structural mechanism for ongoing evaluation and changes. This was the right tact to take. If the non-monetary demands were too granular then there would have been an excellent chance that any "laundry list" would have had omissions AND not able to address needed changes in the future. So, the non-monetary agreements are for a YP Executive and Youth Protection Committee along with a third-party entity that will ALL be responsible for YP evaluation and changes now AND in the future. Can a non-retaliation policy be put in place then if it's brought to the attention of the YPE and YPC? Absolutely.

She has a lot of work to do because confirmation of portions are typically appealed more than rejections. If she has issues with confirmation and must reject portions that becomes the BSA's problem to clean up. If she confirms portions and say the insurers appeal then she needs to have her case law locked down. Given the complexity of this and the historic nature and scope it should take a long time. Something else to consider. Judges ARE aware of news cycles. A long Memorial Day weekend coming up? The Friday before makes for a nice opportunity for s ruling when the press and others are preoccupied with days off. Also, she does NOT have to schedule a court date to announce or read her decision. Some judges like this and in Purdue Pharma Judge Drain read his decision for OVER two hours! But, she can just post it to the docket at any moment of she wants! Lastly, she can call in some parties to suggest her direction and see if they can cure a conflict prior to the final ruling. But at this date, unless it''s happened and we don't know, it's probably past that. It's coming....keep an eye on the docket and after we have the ruling don't fall for the spin. There very well may be winners and losers so the first spin ANY group puts on this is theirs alone.

Perhaps that's the most important lesson. There is no formula, no system or predictability. Our own individual treatments are as individual and varied as we are. So too will be the solution for Scouting. No rule or rules. No edict or pronouncement. A whole host of measures and actions and nothing short of cultural change and perseverance from to top to the bottom of the organization informed now and forever by what happened and reminders of it so no one ever forgets and as the ways that abusers change an ever-present philosophy of tirelessness to predict and react and stop it.

An important issue. It is considered part of the human reaction to trauma. Think of it as part of the "fight or flight mechanism." Something so awfully traumatic is buried so that the mind doesn't have to deal with it again and the resulting impacts. Another way to look at it is not the lack of emotional strength but the absolute strength to keep it inside where the victim has some degree of perceived control over it. What we see then, over time, are the coming together of many factors that "allow" the abuse to be shared. For many that's just plain losing the desire or ability to hold it inside for so long because of essentially being too tired to do so. That may also be coupled with a place in life where it's perceived as "safer" to share. When you consider that for many men they don't share their abuse until well into middle-age when their life is more solidified it makes sense. It also explains why the bankruptcy was SO painful for many. They knew they had to come forward but they were NOT ready to share, but they did. For others, they decided not to file a claim and now face a lifetime of second-guessing. Oh, and for those who did come forward, and had to tell others, they too might wish they hadn't when any award is insignificant. I had to tell my family after decades of keeping it secret. I still have days, many, when I wonder if maybe I shouldn't have. But then, I remember how hard it got to live that lie that nothing had ever happened.

I should have quoted better originally. Johnsuch said "I know for a fact that survivor members of the YPT committee read these posts and some ideas may be brought forward for incorporation. " I'm not clear what Committee that's supposed to be unless one has been formed, prior to any confirmation ruling, and the BSA hasn't communicated that. I'm looking forward to a TCC Town Hall after a ruling and getting a sense of "what now?!"

Which committee is this? The one that was a part of the non-monetary demands of the settlement has not been created. Of course. But as the old saying goes, "The unaimed arrow never misses."

I'd suggest that has already been the prevailing opinion with parents. And here we are.

I'd like to frame this discussion in a different way. A lot of it is focused on the past of course. The future can be seen as binary; it will get better or it won't. For those who believe it will get better, and I know you hope in your heart it does, I'd like you to address the degree that "better" is good enough. If the current plan goes through the reported YP violations will be known publicly. There will be reporting for anyone interested on a troop-lvelel for the preceding two years. The details are to be worked out but clearly we will have a MUCH better understanding of any REPORTED abuse at the most serious levels. Given that, and given that we know victims will NOT report right away, if you are so convinced that Scouting need survive I'd like you to address the point where you believe it, or some part of it, should cease to exist because it CANNOT keep children safe. What is that number or frequency? What level of abuse? Under what circumstances in the future can the BSA say "We have proven that we can keep children safe?" What is satisfactory? I don't ask these questions as someone who is supporting the destruction r continuance of the BSA. It's an exercise to focus on the FUTURE. What say you? What's your "good enough?"

So just so I understand your view, the BSA HAD decades of knowledge that abuse WAS occuring, but because they didn't know Abuser X was going to cause abuse then the BSA has no fault in all of this? So much for logic.

If I wasn't going to be thrown off this forum I'd say this in a MUCH different manner. But instead, please remember that for any Survivor telling his/her story your terminology is an insult beyond words.

Just sharing. I have no connection: https://tribecafilm.com/films/leave-no-trace-2022

I believe the intent is confirmed abuse cases only. This is consistent with privacy laws and why employers only report dates of employment and not cause of termination.

This interests me. Given that Scouting has built-in overnight experiences central to its operation, and was until recently essentially solely male, how would predators have had a "much easier time?" I'm reminded of Willie Sutton when asked why he robbed banks; "Because that's where they keep the money." So where would the predators have gone where their horrors would have been "easier" to commit?

A critical change is for troop parents to be informed when there was a YP breach in their troop and prospective ones knowing report frequency for past two years. Details to be worked out. No one has suggested impinging on privacy or due process to the best of my knowledge. Michael Johnson reported that HIS reviews of YP reports showed that 50% were youth-on-youth. THAT was a surprise and must change how we think. We all do. In the meantime, we are getting it from the person who was at the center of the reporting. By his account, trying to enact change. When that didn't happen he grew frustrated and left AND, AND THIS IS IMPORTANT, said that he did NOT take a payout to sign an NDA.

That's your opinion and I understand it. As well, I understand the opposing opinion. Both have their sound reasoning. But, when you are calling for "truth and context" and asking that the abuse reported by 82,500 claimants (truth until it is not) include reminders of the total number that have been in scouting or some other context you feel is important then it is reasonable to ask for that context you believe is fair so our own opinions are informed. I'll only add this, a single case of abuse might not seem like a big deal "in context" until it happens to you, or your child. Finding out that was a pattern over decades, hidden by those who could have prevented it and change occuring only as a result of bankruptcy, well, for those on the fence it is logical that they are reserving judgement on the continuance of the BSA until it proves that it deserves it.

Okay, so please provide the context that will help some people come around to supporting the BSA's continuance. I'm not calling for its termination, or encouraging its continuance. Being a Survivor for decades whle your abuser walks free means getting pretty good at accepting to some extent things you have no control over. But, I'm interested in understanding better the context that will help those who don't agree with you come around to the thinking that "in context" the abuse was what, not so bad? Acceptable? Better than other organizations?

Survivors know this well and I hope others appreciate it. ALL those "triggers" that hit out of nowhere. Sitting in a movie theater holding your wife's hand when the trailer for "Spotlight" comes on and she asks why you're squeezing so hard and sweating. The room spinning when Facebook suggests you should send a friend request to your abuser. The jokes others make when they have no idea of your past. Every day is a new opportunity to be triggered and why so many Survivors gt to middle-age and said to themselves "I just can't do this anymore" and why we all want to scream at the top of our lungs at people who ask why we finally decided to come forward, as if it was our choice.