And if this model succeeds in New York, it will not stay in New York.
Why New Jersey should be paying attention
Several New Jersey dioceses are currently negotiating settlements with survivors. If the Archdiocese of New York — one of the most powerful dioceses in the world — can secure a unanimity-based settlement outside of bankruptcy, other dioceses will see an opportunity to follow the same path.
That would mean:
- No judicial oversight
- No public accounting of assets
- No independent valuation of property
- No discovery into institutional conduct
- No court-mandated voting structure
- No transparency
Instead, survivors would be forced into a private process designed by the very institutions that harmed them.
This is not a hypothetical risk. It is a blueprint.
Unanimity is not fairness — it is coercion
In every major mass-tort bankruptcy, courts recognize that survivors are not a monolith. They have different experiences, different needs and different levels of trust in the process. That is why bankruptcy law requires a supermajority, not unanimity.
Unanimity gives extraordinary power to a single individual — and extraordinary leverage to the institution demanding it.
It also creates a dynamic that is uniquely harmful to survivors of sexual abuse. It forces survivors into conflict with one another. It pressures them to police each other’s decisions, to persuade or plead with those who cannot or will not agree. It recreates the very isolation and silence that allowed abuse to flourish.
A “win-win” for the Archdiocese — and a “lose-lose” for survivors
The most troubling aspect of this model is how it positions the Church to claim victory no matter what happens.
If survivors accept the settlement unanimously, the Archdiocese gets exactly what it wants:
- A private process
- No judicial scrutiny
- No discovery
- No public accounting
- No precedent that could bind other dioceses
But if even one survivor cannot agree — because the offer is too low, because the process feels coercive or because they simply want their day in court — the Archdiocese still wins.
It will say: “We made a generous offer. We tried. The survivors rejected it.”
This narrative shifts blame onto survivors themselves, turning their trauma into a public relations shield for the institution that harmed them. It allows the Church to portray itself as reasonable and compassionate while painting survivors as the obstacle to resolution.
Meanwhile, survivors lose either way.
If they accept, they accept under pressure. If they refuse, they are blamed for the collapse of the deal — by the Church, by the public and potentially by other survivors who feel forced into conflict.
This is not justice. It is manipulation.
A direct message to Archbishop Ronald A. Hicks
Archbishop Hicks, the settlement structure your Archdiocese is advancing is not merely flawed. It is immoral and dangerous. It asks survivors to bear the burden of unanimity — a burden no court would ever impose — while the institution that harmed them avoids the scrutiny that bankruptcy would require.
If the Archdiocese believes its offer is fair, it should file for bankruptcy and present it to a judge. If it does not believe a judge would approve it, then the public deserves to know why.
The national implications are enormous
If this model succeeds, it will become a template for institutions across the country — not just Catholic dioceses, but universities, youth organizations and any entity facing systemic abuse claims.
They will see a path to:
- Avoid court oversight
- Avoid public accountability
- Avoid discovery
- Avoid transparency
- Avoid survivor-majority voting requirements
And they will use it.
Survivors nationwide could find themselves trapped in private settlement structures that demand impossible levels of agreement and weaponize the threat of bankruptcy to force compliance.
New Jersey survivors have already waited long enough
Many survivors in New Jersey came forward during the state’s look back window believing they would finally have their day in court. They trusted that the system would protect them. They trusted that institutions would not be allowed to manipulate the process.
A unanimity-based settlement model would betray that trust.
It would replace the protections survivors fought for with a system designed to benefit institutions, not victims. It would turn trauma into leverage.
It would pit survivor against survivor. And it would set a precedent that could shape the future of institutional abuse cases for decades.
We cannot allow this to happen
New Jersey has been a national leader in supporting survivors. We strengthened our laws. We expanded access to justice. We recognized that transparency and accountability are essential.
We cannot allow a private settlement model in New York to undo that progress.
Survivors deserve a process grounded in fairness, not fear. They deserve transparency, not secrecy. They deserve a system that recognizes the complexity of trauma, not one that exploits it.
The Archdiocese of New York is testing a model that could reshape how institutional abuse cases are resolved nationwide. New Jersey — and the country — should pay attention. Because if this becomes the new standard, survivors everywhere will pay the price.
Mark Crawford is a New Jersey-based survivor of clergy sexual abuse and one of the state’s most longstanding advocates for institutional accountability and statute of limitations reform.
Calling your elected representative in the state Assembly or Senate is the most effective way to influence policy. To find your state Assembly member and Senator to voice your position, go to the New Jersey Legislature website’s Legislative Roster.
