No one likes to be caught red-handed when they are being lazy, neglecting professional duties, or showing their incompetence. Hence, from the very beginning I adapted the attitude that I might be able to gently win over my would-be adversaries and to reveal to them serious flaws in their current system that needed to be corrected. My motto was: “You attract more flies with a spoonful of honey than with a barrel of vinegar.”
Who am I?
I am a research theologian who published two books with Liturgical Press: (a) THE DIDACHE (2003) and (b) SALVATION IS FROM THE JEWS (2007). My Didache book (110 pp.) is affectionately called “my mouse.” My thousand-page volume (“the elephant”) published with
Paulist Press is the powerful protector of “my mouse.” Thanks to my online forums and online blogging, “my mouse” continues to attract roughly the same level of sales today as it did when first published in 2003. My annual royalties are roughly $1000. I estimate that, over a period of twenty years, I have contributed roughly $60,000 to the operating costs of the Press. When my next and final Didache volume (“my kangaroo”) appears, I anticipate a surge in the sales of “my mouse.”
Mini-Biography: Aaron Milavec began his career as an innovative teacher and oral story teller. After devoting twenty-five years to the training of future priests and lay ministers, Aaron turned his attention to creating online courses in gender studies and the empowerment of women. Aaron has gained an international reputation as a Didache scholar. He has published eighteen books, eight chapters in collected works, and seventy journal articles. His two most recent books are occupied with the graced power of love: The Red String Chronicles (2017) and What Jesus Would Say to Same-Sex Couples (2019).
Prof. Aaron Milavec, theologian, author, public speaker, advocate, Didache and Polanyi interpreter, Current research fellow with the Wijngaards Institute for Catholic Research
My Purpose
I am writing this narrative for the authors and the staff within Liturgical Press. I believe in your mission and your role in bringing a big dream into reality. I fear, however, that the arrogant and authoritarian leadership style exhibited by Sandra Eiynck, the CFO, and by Therese Ratliff, the CEO, are bound to inflict harm upon the staff and authors of the Press. As I wrote to Abbot John:
In brief, the two most powerful persons at Liturgical Press show themselves quite easily inclined to be authoritarian and brutal, not only to me but to all those others who, like me, have had and will have the audacity to question their hidden financial irregularities. In brief, we are dealing with systemic mismanagement.
I am writing this to alert authors and the Board of Directors that Sandra Eiynck, the Chief Financial Officer, has sanctioned and promoted policies from 2017 onward that are ineffectual and self-serving. As a result, authors who share their research and talents in the form of books for sale (a) fail to receive their royalty payments in a timely fashion and, when they do receive such payments, (b) the number of eBooks is underreported and the calculation of the net sales is invariable flawed.
Some of my readers may imagine that I have a vendetta against Sandra Eiynck and that I am intent upon embarrassing her by exposing her rudeness and incompetence. Far from it. From the very beginning, I presented myself as a research scholar, as a productive writer, and as a concerned friend and collaborator. Moreover, even after receiving repeated and undeserved abuse, I still had goodwill toward all concerned. Here is what I wrote to Sandra:
In closing, I want to say that I honor you as a resourceful and just Director of Finance. Your resistance to my appeal to justice can be dismissed as a momentary lapse of judgment. My intention is not to scare you or to belittle you. On the contrary, I want to save your legacy of honor that you have built up so far. I want you to [someday be able to] retire with honor.
My final hope was to bring a greater efficiency and economic justice within the operating procedures surrounding the computation and distribution of royalties. As it turned out, my innocent discoveries and my reporting of financial irregularities were met with disbelief and dismissal. Then, when I endeavored to bring this to the attention of Therese Ratliff, the Director and CEO, and Abbot John Klassen, President of the Board of Directors, I was met with either open hostility and stonewalling or an inappropriate silence.
In the end, even my spoonful of honey failed to attract the least bit of interest in investigating how and why authors failed to receive timely and just royalties. Thus, as things now stand, the conduct of Sandra Eiynck from 2017 to the present goes unnoticed and uninvestigated. No one knows how many authors have been cheated of their just remuneration. Furthermore, due to the open hostility and stonewalling of Therese Ratliff and due to the uncritical support she receives from Abbot John Klassen, President of the Board of Directors, there is little or no prospect that Liturgical Press will ever be transparent and just when it comes to computing and distributing royalty payments. Is this a harsh judgment? It may appear to be so. All I can do is narrate the events, and to allow you to decide for yourself.
The positive and supportive relations of 2003
As the Canadian geese honked during their V-formation as they flew over my home in Cincinnati to escape the bitter cold of another Canadian winter in 2002, I was removing the passenger seats from my Mazda and packing all of the clothes, books, and camping equipment that I would need during my nine-month stay on Vancouver Island in Canada. I was fortunate enough to have received a Research Fellowship on the Interface of Science and Religion at the prestigious University of Victoria.
This fellowship came at just the right moment. My life in Cincinnati had surrounded me with a whirlwind of activities. Now I was heading off to a life of peace and quiet and contemplation. In order to save money and to satisfy my life-style as a nature lover, I would be camping on each of the six nights along the way. The total driving distance is 4000 km. Driving six hours each day would suffice to get me to the ferry that will bring me to Vancouver Island.
Two books were in the process of being prepared for the printers. “My mouse” was being handled by the staff of Liturgical Press. I remembered, before falling asleep at night, how the Liturgical Press staff was so helpful and informative. I had suggested to them a cover design and, without missing a beat, they accepted my ideas enthusiastically. They consulted with me when designing advertising copy as well. Our give and take relationship was a joy to behold.
In contrast, Paulist Press staff was very secretive and resistant to my suggestions. Their mantra was, “Just relax, Aaron. Let us do what we know best.” But, truth to say, they chose a very blurred image of Jesus taken from a primitive ossuary for use on the cover. A friend of mine told me that the blurred image appears to be a man walking a circus bear. Furthermore, they wanted to change my text in more than a dozen places in order to harmonize my narrative with popular devotional prejudices upheld by most Catholics. My senior editor, a scholar in early Christianity, happily silenced these uninformed “editors” on my behalf. If it had not been for him, I would have completely backed out of my contract with Paulist.
I share there things because I want to show how positive and supportive my relations were with the Liturgical Press staff in 2002-3. In 2023, all this goodwill was squandered and turned around.
The conduct of Sandra Eiynck, Director of Finance
Here are the seven emails that detail how I gained the ire of Sandra Eiynck. The opening email comes from her assistant, Lynn Tamm.
#1
From Tamm, Lynn on 2022-11-03
Hello Aaron,
I hope this email finds you well.
Your inquiry about royalties was brought to my attention. We encountered an issue with our software program, which has since been corrected and we are in the process of getting the payments out. [Notice that Lynn acknowledges that there was some unspecified problem with “our software program,” but that this has been corrected and “we are in the process of getting the payments out.” This is good news.]
I noticed in our notes that you prefer your payment to be paid by EFT. But I’m not sure if we have the correct banking information for you. Could you please confirm where it should be transferred to, please? [I respond by sending out my banking information = router number for bank + my account number]
Also, let me know if there are any other questions or concerns that I can help you with. [This is a welcome invitation. See #2]
With warmest regards,
Lynn Tamm
#2
From: Aaron Milavec <milavec@churchonfire.net>
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2022
To: Tamm, Lynn <LTAMM@litpress.org>
Subject: Re: Royalty Payments
Dear Lynn,
It distresses me to hear that for all these years, the royalties were being returned and no one was making the effort to contact me and to correct the problem with the defective wire transfers.
Do you recognize that the dollar in 2022 is worth less than the dollar in 2017? Using the inflation calculator [https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/2017?amount=1], I get the following result:
$777.48 in 2017 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $945.24 today, an increase of $167.76 over 5 years. The dollar had an average inflation rate of 3.99% per year between 2017 and today, producing a cumulative price increase of 21.58%.
Thus, for the six royalty payments (rounded off to the nearest whole dollar):
2017 777–>945
2018 1014–>1203
2019 1068–>1245
2020 958–>1103
2021 1079–>1187
2022 962–>962
—————
$6645 = total amount due adjusted for inflation
In addition, the LitPr [abbr. Liturgical Press] might want to consider imposing a voluntary fine for each year that the monies wired were returned but no “due diligence” was taken to correct this. Since I have been injured by this lack of due diligence, this fine would also be added to the required royalty payments adjusted for inflation.
I want to emphasize that I hold no animosity toward LitPr. I do expect, however, that LitPr will continue to act honestly and promptly in repairing what is my due.
Peace and joy,
Aaron
#3
From Tamm, Lynn on 2022-11-18
Dear Aaron,
I cannot make any decision on this. I have brought your request to the attention of Sandy Eiynck and she will be in touch with you in the next few days. [Lynn provides a response that is informative.]
Thank you,
Lynn
#4
From Eiynck, Sandra on 2022-11-19
Dear Mr. Aaron,
Lynn Tamm forwarded your message to me concerning your royalty payments.
We are not in a position to pay you the additional amount your [sic] are requesting. There is nothing in the contract you have with us that addresses the non-receipt of payment or a fine for the non-receipt. [Sandra completely dismisses my appeal to the injustice of paying a 2017 debt with an equal amount of 2022 dollars. Sandra falls back entirely on the fact that the contract does not address how to deal with late payments. Since the contract presumes that annual payments of royalties are being paid, it is no wonder that the contract saw no purpose in addressing such a question. Sandra seemingly has no ability to think outside the box. Alternately, it is quite possible that Sandra was shaking in fear that all her financial irregularities would be exposed once an investigation was underway. Hence, her hiding behind the letter of the contract was her lifeboat in her moment of danger.]
We do our best to get in touch with authors when payments are returned, but do not always have current information. Oftentimes we need to wait for the author to reach out to us in order to get payments made.
Sincerely,
Sandy Eiynck
#5
To Eiynck, Sandra, 1 more… on 2022-11-20
Dear Sandra and Lynn,
When you say, “We are not in a position to . . . ,” I hear you to be saying, “We are not in a position to act justly.”
You say that I was contacted. Help me understand this. On what dates and by what means and by whom?
The U.S. Bishops pastoral letter, “Economic Justice for All” calls us to act thusly:
Justice has many nuances.(9) Fundamentally it suggests a sense of what is right or of what should happen. For example, paths are just when they bring you to your destination (Gen 24:48; Ps 23:3), and laws are just when they create harmony within the community, as Isaiah says: “Justice will bring about peace; right will produce calm and security” (Isa 32:17). God is “just” by acting as God should, coming to the people’s aid and summoning them to conversion when they stray. People are summoned to be “just,” that is, to be in a proper relation to God, by observing God’s laws which form them into a faithful community. Biblical justice is more comprehensive than subsequent philosophical definitions. It is not concerned with a strict definition of rights and duties, but with the rightness of the human condition before God and within society. Nor is justice opposed to love; rather, it is both a manifestation of love and a condition for love to grow.
The US Department of Labor stipulates the following interest tables when calculating back pay:
-
Purpose and Rate of Interest. The purpose of applying interest on back pay awards is to compensate the victim(s) for the loss of the use and purchasing power of their income. Interest on back pay is calculated at the same percentage rate as the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) underpayment formula. Interest on back pay must be compounded quarterly under the laws OFCCP enforces.
-
Rate Adjustments. The IRS may adjust its rate on a quarterly basis. The interest rates applicable to various periods are available on the IRS website at https://apps.irs.gov/app/picklist/list/federalRates.html.
I urge you not to act rashly. Seek the advice of those who cherish justice.
Fraternally,
Aaron
#6
To Eiynck, Sandra, 1 more… on 2022-11-23 13:54
Dear Sandra,
At this moment, I have a grievance. You say that there is nothing in the contract that addresses my grievance. Hence, some exploration is required.
Here are the qualities that you identify in yourself: “Critical Thinking, Microsoft Office, Grant Writing, Leadership, Public Speaking, Editing, Event Planning, Research.” For our task here, critical thinking and research are called for. You take pride in having such skills. With this we can securely go forward. [I wanted to learn more about Sandra. I did a Google search. Among the items I found were Sandra’s self-evaluation. I accept her self-evaluation and honor it by way of implementing what follows.]
Three questions:
Q1. Do you recognize that the dollar in 2022 is worth less than the dollar in 2017?
Q2a. If so, do you think that there would be some merit in taking into account the devaluation of the 2022 dollar when paying out the royalties that were calculated in 2017 dollars? [For the moment, do not factor in any praise or blame for the delay in the payments.]
Q2b. My book, THE DIDACHE, is currently listed as costing $19.95. What if a customer came in with an add that listed my book as costing $12.95 (printed in 2013) and insisted that he should be able to buy my book for that amount today? How would you respond to him?
Q3. You say that I was contacted when the bank money transfer of 2017 failed to go through. Help me understand this. On what dates and by what means and by whom? [As Director of Finance, it might be of interest to you to discover just how well your staff is functioning.]
Peace and joy,
Aaron
SANDRA OFFERED NO RESPONSE TO THIS EMAIL. SHE DID NOT EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIVING IT.
#7
To Tamm, Lynn, 1 more… on 2022-11-30 11:12
Dear Sandra,
For twenty years, my little book, THE DIDACHE, has been selling steadily. In the years to come, this steady seller will be the Liturgical Press’ golden goose. Most books taper off after the first five years. Not so for THE DIDACHE. Every year, without fail, it continues to lay golden eggs.
What I liked about the production staff [in 2002-2015] is that they were open to innovative ideas. They let me design the front and back cover. After ten years, they encouraged me to update and to expand this golden goose.
Now all of this good will and mutuality built up over twenty years is in danger of being dwindled away because you have chosen to ignore my appeal for economic justice. Your case, as I see it, is exceedingly weak. You argue that the contract says nothing about how to handle cases where the bank returns royalty payments for a period of five years. That’s why I cited the US Catholic Bishops in their pastoral letter on economic justice. That’s why I cited the ruling by the US Department of Commerce regarding how they require justice when making late salary payments.
Maybe you think that by ignoring me, I will just eventually go away. I am sorry, but I will not do this. Here is what I will do. I will begin by going to your Supervisor at LitPr. Then I will explore whether LitPr has a mediation process that resolves such disputes. If none exists, then an outside mediator will need to be found. Finally, if all else fails, I will go to the Small Claims Court. At this point, however, my patience with you will have been exhausted. I will, in the end, be awarded the $794 (plus interest) that is my due, but I will be bitter that I had to waste so much time in order to achieve the justice that you denied me. Meanwhile, nearly all the good will and mutuality built up over twenty years will be dwindled away. You will be retiring with a legacy of shame. I will be telling the story of how I was mistreated by LitPr.
My intention is not to scare you. On the contrary, I want to save your legacy of honor that you have built up so far. I want you to retire with honor.
For the moment, however, the ball is in your court. You can continue to ignore me, but you will know what is coming. Your eyes are opened. You can answer the three critical questions that I sent in my last email. That will put us back into dialogue. That will allow that I have something to learn from you and that you have something to learn from me. If we remain in dialogue, we will find a mutually acceptable solution somewhere down the line. You take pride in being intelligent, resourceful, and a problem solver. If so, please respond to my three questions in a timely fashion. You will find that I am a gentle and loving person but that I do not tolerate anyone who functions as a dictator.
Maybe you don’t have the time to dedicate to dialogue and mediation. Then, in that case, I would advise sending $794 as quick as possible. If you do this now, (a) you won’t have to defend yourself and (b) you will miss out on the adventure of staying with this issue until it is mutually resolved. On the other hand, sending $794 will get that “pest of a theologian off your back.” More importantly, the good will and mutuality built up over twenty years will remain intact, and it will continue to grow for the next twenty years. You will retire with honor.
I myself do not want to be a dictator. Hence, I give you permission to share my emails with those whom you regard as trusted advisors. You are free, at any point, to take their advice or to reject it. The ball is in your court. If you choose to ignore it, you will thereby be enabling me to win “the game.” You get to decide.
In closing, I want to say that I honor you as a resourceful and just Director of Finance. Your resistance to my appeal to justice can be dismissed as a momentary lapse of judgment. My intention is not to scare you or to belittle you. On the contrary, I want to save your legacy of honor that you have built up so far. I want you to retire with honor.
Fraternally,
Aaron
cc:Lynn
SANDRA OFFERED NO RESPONSE TO THIS EMAIL. SHE DID NOT EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIVING IT.
The conduct of Dr. Therese Ratliff, Director and CEO
As for starters, I wish to note that Therese Ratliff did not allow her email address to be listed and that when I finally did get it [due to a personal contact within LitPr], I noticed that she had taken TRatliff001@litpress.org To my knowledge, the other 34 employees have taken an email address which consists in the first letter of their given name followed by their family name without the “001”. Peter Dwyer had taken PDwyer@litpress.org Hence, I presume that Therese Ratliff had deliberately added the “001” by way of affirming her rank as #1 and by way of preventing outsiders from being able to contact her because they would wrongly presume that TRatliff@litpress.org is her email address.
All in all, Therese Ratliff never responded to any of my emails. She never even acknowledged that she was receiving them. Behind the scenes, however, Therese Ratliff contacted the company lawyer and directed him to write a letter of complaint to me that ended with a “cease and desist” warning. Here it is:
Here is my reply transmitted on 27 March 2023:
Dear Therese L. Ratliff, PhD, Director and CEO
It pains me that you, as yet, have never written a single email to me. This is a very unorthodox way of doing business with one of your distinguished authors.
It is doubly-painful in so far as you evidently reported to your lawyer that you were being “repeatedly harassed” by me. Does it not occur to you that I was awaiting a simple acknowledgement that you have received my complaint? I wrote in my emails, “I do not know whether you have received my complaint.” A single email saying, “I have received your complaint and am considering the merits of your case,” would have halted any repeated attempts to contact you.
If this explanation seems plausible to you, please tell me and we can then mutually drop the accusation of “harassment.”
Your lawyer also prejudices my letters to Sandra Eiynck by characterizing them as “defamatory communications.” In matter of fact, my letters have been respectful. I needed to alert you to the impoverished notion of justice and civility manifest by one of your cherished employees. Read in the context of my expressed hope to safeguard the reputation of Liturgical Press for the future, I am surprised that you completely overlook my good intentions to improve the performance level of the Press.
If this explanation seems plausible to you, please tell me and we can then mutually drop the accusation of “character assassination.”
Your lawyer makes a case for placing the blame entirely on my shoulders, by referring to calling to mind the case of “a bank account, insurance policy, credit card account, magazine subscription” where “it is your responsibility to notify the paying party or vendor of any change of address.” Except for the case of payouts of an “insurance policy,” your lawyer is correct in his observations. However, the text of his letter implies that I had changed my mailing address and/or my email address without notifying Liturgical Press. This is completely erroneous. No such changes had ever taken place. Even when I moved to China, I maintained my USA mailing address on 2739 Queenswood Drive.
Three points:
#1 Royalties are a contractual obligation made to remunerate authors. Not to employ due diligence to pay such royalties constitutes a breach of contract. This is not the case for “a bank account, insurance policy, credit card account, magazine subscription.” Would you agree with me, therefore, that David W. Koehser is making the error of not separating the apples from the oranges. Paying royalties in a timely fashion is a requirement of the contract. If electronic payments are not going through, then the contract argues strongly in favor of requiring that the royalty checks be mailed to my home address as was the former practice for fourteen years. No one seems to notice this. Here again, the absence of fail-safe procedures leads to breaches of contract. Would that the lawyer had been consulted as to whether there was a contractual obligation to pay the royalties due even if that meant reverting back to mailing out checks.
#2 LitPress [abbr. for “Liturgical Press”] was diligent in sending out the annual royalty checks from 2003 to 2016. They were faithfully mailed to my family home on 2739 Queenswood Drive [and later sent to 1649 Sutton Ave.]
Then [in 2017] the treasurer made preparations in order to expedite delivery of royalties using electronic bank transfers. Notified of this, I contacted my bank and obtained the routing number and the checking account number for my PNC Bank. They correctly informed me that these numbers were clearly printed on the bottom of every check that I use. Hence, from my side, no error was possible. I sent these to LitPress. I am 100% certain that I trusted them to implement their new system in a way that would not leave me hanging.
My trust was misplaced. For six consecutive years, the treasurer knew or should have known that my royalty checks were being returned. No evidence has been put forward demonstrating that notices were sent to my email and home addresses. No investigation was made to track down how a clerical error might have altered my routing number or my checking account number when they were being transcribed into the new system. No attention was given to the possibility that, after a simple five-minute phone conversation with my PNC Bank, the error might have been easily corrected.
#3 I hold Sandra Eiynck responsible for not drafting and implementing fail-safe procedures from the very first moment when electronic payments were first being introduced. More especially, she should have employed the widely used fail-safe procedure whereby major companies, after transcribing the numbers, they make an electronic transfer of $.47 by way of alerting authors that “the system is working correctly for you.”
In cases when the $.47 was returned, further procedures would be necessary to determine whether transcription errors were somehow introduced into the numbers that I originally sent. If an in-house error is not verifiable, then further procedures would entail sending out notices to my email and home addresses on record requesting that a voided check be sent to the Press. On the bottom of a voided check, the correct routing number and the checking account number are printed. This insures immediate success.
It does not bode well for the future of LitPress to have a treasurer who is blind to the importance of drafting fail-safe procedures. It is solely the responsibility of LitPress to detect and correct the bugs in their system. Authors have no competence or responsibility to do this (contrary to the opinion of your lawyer who wants to hold authors as entirely responsible). Going further, it does not bode well to have a treasurer who is so self-assured as to be certain that she has nothing to learn from my sad story. How many others suffered as I did? You will never find out the truth in this matter. But have you even tried to do so?
I am sure that Sandra Eiynck functions quite well in most areas of her professional life; yet, this should not blind you to the fact that there are at least three areas that I would judge as needing improvement: (1) Drafting and implementing fail-safe procedures for electronic transfers of royalties; (2) Acquiring skills to listen to and to appropriately respond to persons who disagree; and (3) Leaving room for self-improvement, admission of shortcomings, and being able to say, “What can I do to make up for the pain I caused you?”
O.K. Now the ball is in your court.
#1 What are the merits and short-comings in your lawyer’s analysis?
#2 What are the merits and the short-comings of Sandra Eiynck in this case?
#3 How can we move together toward a mutual understanding and a financial settlement that allows me to continue to sing the praises of LitPress and allows you to redeem this whole sordid affair in your favor?
[Notice here that, in #3, Aaron shows himself ready to arrive at a mutual understanding and a financial settlement despite the supreme lack of civility and fair play on the part of Sandra Eiynck and Therese Ratliff.]
Your devoted servant,
PS: The U.S. Bishops pastoral letter, “Economic Justice for All” calls us to act thusly:
Justice has many nuances. Fundamentally it suggests a sense of what is right or of what should happen. For example, paths are just when they bring you to your destination (Gen 24:48; Ps 23:3), and laws are just when they create harmony within the community, as Isaiah says: “Justice will bring about peace; right will produce calm and security” (Isa 32:17). . . Biblical justice is more comprehensive than subsequent philosophical [or legal] definitions. It is not concerned with a strict definition of rights and duties, but with the rightness of the human condition before God and within society. Nor is justice opposed to love; rather, it is both a manifestation of love and a condition for love to grow.
The US Department of Labor stipulates the following interest tables when calculating back pay:
-
Purpose and Rate of Interest. The purpose of applying interest on back pay awards is to compensate the victim(s) for the loss of the use and purchasing power of their income. Interest on back pay is calculated at the same percentage rate as the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) underpayment formula. Interest on back pay must be compounded quarterly under the laws OFCCP enforces.
-
Rate Adjustments. The IRS may adjust its rate on a quarterly basis. The interest rates applicable to various periods are available on the IRS website at https://apps.irs.gov/app/picklist/list/federalRates.html.
How would you rate (using a scale going from A+ to F) the conduct of Therese Ratliff relative to her [ ] Christian civility and her [ ] pursuing justice? How would you rate (A+ to F) the conduct of Aaron relative to his [ ] Christian civility and his [ ] pursuing justice? Any reflections?
The conduct of Abbot John Klassen, President of the Board of Directors
As President of the Board of Directors, Abbot John Klassen was a major player in identifying and in vetting Therese Ratliff as the future Director and CEO for Liturgical Press. Here is the press release:
COLLEGEVILLE, Minn. — Abbot John Klassen, OSB, is pleased to announce that Therese L. Ratliff, PhD, will be the next director and chief executive officer of Liturgical Press, the publishing apostolate of Saint John’s Abbey. Ratliff will succeed Peter Dwyer, who is set to retire in June 2022 after 33 years of service to the Press, 21 years as director.
Ratliff will be the second layperson and the first woman to lead Liturgical Press in its 96-year history. . . .
“We are thrilled to have Therese Ratliff come on board as director of Liturgical Press,” said Klassen. “She is an energetic, vibrant person who brings a rich set of leadership experiences in the world of Catholic publishing. I am confident that she will continue the Benedictine mission of the Press as it seeks to serve today’s believers in exciting new ways.”
“I am thrilled to be joining a talented, top-notch team and look forward to building on the extraordinary reputation of Liturgical Press,” said Ratliff. “We in Catholic publishing must meet the moment our world faces in diverse new ways, and I’m confident that, together, we will find new pathways and explore new directions for the Gospel to take root and flourish.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~end~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am pleased that Abbot John finds Therese Ratliff to be “an energetic, vibrant person.” Therese, for her part, speaks boldly about the “new ways” she intends to introduce: “We will find new pathways and explore new directions for the Gospel to take root and flourish.”
I wonder if Abbot John asked Therese Ratliff about her experiences with “social justice in the workplace.” When I finally get the opportunity to meet Abbot John, this will be one of the areas that I would like to explore with him. I already know that “pursuing justice” and “seeking to heal those deprived of justice” is high on the list of Abbot John’s priorities.
But how about Therese? She speaks enthusiastically of “new directions for the Gospel to take root and flourish.” Do you imagine that Therese was imagining, as Director and CEO, that she would examine the strengths and weaknesses of the already present “conflict resolution procedures” among the staff of Liturgical Press? Do you think that Therese had any prior experience in conflict resolution in her rich background? Do you think that Abbot John asked about such things when he was vetting Therese? One can’t be sure. The only evidence we have in this area is how she responded to Aaron when he brought to her attention the abysmal conduct of Sandra Eiynck. Instead of reaching for “conflict resolution procedures,” Therese’s impulse was to silence the messenger by threatening him with a lawsuit. Do you think that Abbot John will do much better when Aaron comes knocking at his door? Let’s see.
#1 email sent to Abbot Klassen on 24 May 2023
Dear Abbot John Klassen,
Here is what I wrote to one of my colleagues:
I have made nine attempts[i] to contact Abbot John Klassen using his email address = jklassen@csbsju.edu. My purpose is to present evidence of financial irregularities, abusive conduct, and stonewalling on the part of two employees of Liturgical Press. At this point, I cannot be sure whether Abbot Klassen has inadvertently not opened my emails or whether he is deliberately avoiding having to deal with a messy affair that involves serious misbehaving.
Here is another email I have sent:
I am trying to assess Abbot Klassen’s record regarding misbehaving monks. Did he promptly inform the police? Or did he encourage misbehaving monks to turn themselves in? Did he encourage misbehaving monks to take steps to make restitution? Did any monks actually serve prison sentences? Why or why not?
I find it noteworthy that Abbot Klassen has not dismissed behaving monks but that they work out the consequences of their crimes while staying in their abbey.
Here is the testimony of one of the victims:
“It was time for someone to step up, and he did,” he said. Abuse victim Allen Vogel said the abbey rebuffed him when he told his story 12 years ago. But things went differently with Klassen. “He’s the leader St. John’s has been looking for for decades,” Vogel said.
I also want to applaud your investment of time and energy to enter into dialogue with the Native Americans whose children were incarcerated in learning institutions deliberately designed to give them a passport to the American dream by destroying their way of life, forbidding the use of their native languages, and indoctrinating them into becoming Roman Catholics (for the benefit of their immortal souls). The theme of turning enemies into friends and seeking restorative justice show up consistently in this setting. I honor your insightful and courageous endeavors in this arena.
[Notice that 85% of my first email is spent honoring Abbot John for his courageous efforts to reach out to the victims of horrendous crimes. This is deliberate on my part. I want to signal that his “turning enemies into friends and seeking restorative justice” gives me hope that he will extend to me this treatment as well.]
For all these reasons, I now ask you to come forward and begin the dialogue with me and with those others like me who have been sorely mistreated by two of your high-ranking and invaluable employees at Liturgical Press.
Your servant and Brother,
Aaron
Response to #1 email = total silence
As the days turned into weeks, Abbot John’s silence tightened my gut and gave me the sinking feeling that I am of no importance to him. I have installed software that indicates if and when Abbot John reads my email. So I am assured that I have his correct email address.
Why this silence? I am a “servant and Brother” reaching out to him. So how do I account for his cruel silence? Even my attempts to confirm his email address in the opening weeks of May were met with a total silence. Thus, I am forced to conclude that Abbot John was disposed to entirely ignore me even before he had received for me any details of the crimes committed by his cruel Sisters. I must presume therefore that Sandra Eiynck or Therese Ratliff had already poisoned his mind against me.
The poison had already blinded him. He was unable and unwilling to receive me either as a Brother or as a whistle-blower. All in all, I am dismissed without a hearing. I am a throw-away person of no consequence. Lazarus is my middle-name. Thus, I use Lazarus as the theme for my next email. I sent it to all three of them.
#2 email sent to Abbot Klassen and his cruel Sisters on 12 June 2023
Case of Lazarus (a midrash)
Poor Lazarus. His body is covered with sores. His health is in a rapid decline. No one will hire him now. So, what does he do? Each day, he gets up at the crack of dawn, and he parks his sorry ass in front of his former employers’ home. It turns out that he worked as a butler for twenty years for the three brothers who were prosperous and lived in their family home.
During an evening supper, the three brothers voiced their favorite opinions:
The older brother said,
“We dismissed Lazarus just in the nick of time. He was in good health when he left us; hence, no one is holding us responsible for those ugly sores that now cover his body.”
The second bother chimed in saying,
“Right you are, dear brother. As I see it, he brought his bad fortune upon himself. Had he consulted a doctor when the first sore showed up, he might have hoped to be cured. As it is now, his savings have run out and the poor guy cannot ever dream of finding a doctor willing to take him on as a charity case.”
The youngest brother broke into the discussion saying,
“Brothers, let’s stop all of this useless discussion regarding Lazarus. Each one of us has a God-given and God-approved calling. These are the things of consequence that the Lord will require of us on the Last Day. Lazarus is of no consequence. Hence, I refuse to cave in to his current silent protest in front of our home. The best way to deal with such trouble-makers is to entirely ignore them. Don’t even give them a greeting. Don’t even be willing to give them the time of day. To give them any notice, at this point in time, would only serve to encourage a host of other malcontents to begin imitating his example.”
After some heated discussion, all three brothers firmly concurred with the youngest brother’s assessment. Hence, from that moment forward, the brothers never spoke of Lazarus. They saw Lazarus as of no consequence whatsoever.
But Mary raised her Son to believe that God saw things differently and that those who are now seemingly “of no consequence” are indeed of first importance when it comes to God’s concerns. [For details, see Luke 1:52-55.]
Thus, Jesus continued his parable with a sober reminder of this:
16:22 The poor man died and was carried away by the angels to be with Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried.16:23 In Hades, where he was being tormented, he looked up and saw Abraham far away with Lazarus by his side.16:24 He called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in agony in these flames.’
Notice here that the eldest brother dies first and that he addresses Abraham as “father.” This is a habit formed during many years of being a pious Jew who relished reading the story of Abraham. Notice, too, that even in Hades, the eldest brother treats Lazarus as though he were still employed as his butler. But he is also aware that Abraham might not like him doing so. Hence, with his shrewdness still intact, he calls upon Abraham to bring him relief from his suffering by forcing Lazarus to again become his servant-boy.
16:25 But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that during your lifetime you received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in agony.
Notice here that Abraham honors the eldest brother by acknowledging him as his disciple. The translation fails to capture this by using the term “child.” But the eldest brother cannot be thought of as a literal “child.” Rather, he is a “spiritual child of his father Abraham.” The severe problem, however, is that the eldest brother relies upon establishing his ancestral kinship with Abraham as his advantage when, in fact, it is not (Luke 3:8).
Notice, too, that Abraham does not belittle the eldest brother, nor does he shame him for his past conduct. Rather, he simply draws attention to the great reversal in God’s way of judging things as expressed first by Mary in Luke’s Gospel and later by Jesus (Luke 16:15.). Those who are “of no consequence” are exalted while those who were formerly exalted are now humiliated by suffering (presumably due to their lifelong indifference to their suffering brothers and sisters).
16:26 Besides all this, between you and us a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who might want to pass from here to you cannot do so, and no one can cross from there to us.’16:27 He said, ‘Then, father, I beg you to send him to my father’s house‑16:28 for I have five [two] brothers‑‑that he may warn them, so that they will not also come into this place of torment.’16:29 Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; they should listen to them.’
Notice that, at this point of time, the parable of Jesus presumes that everyone will be carried by angels into Hades [not to be confused with the medieval “hell”]. In Hades, however, some are suffering and some are resting with Abraham. As of yet there is no provision for the saints to be “carried into Heaven” for the beatific vision. To explore how the nature of Hades shifts in the 2nd century and later gives rise to a geographic separation of the elect and the damned, see https://www.academia.edu/101467439/Whatever_Happened_to_Hell_and_Going_to_Heaven_Why_Churches_Promoting_
Going_to_Heaven_Are_Soon_to_Disappear
Notice that the elder brother does not give up easily—when Lazarus does not get sent to relieve his torments, then a new request is directed toward sending Lazarus to alert his two brothers who have no idea of the consequences of their way of life. Father Abraham replies to this second request by noting that “Moses and the prophets” have already delivered this message to the children of Abraham. Thus the slim hope is that the remaining brothers will reform their lives by reading and putting into practice what one finds in Moses and the prophets. The surmise, at this point, is that the message of Jesus does not significantly differ from what one finds in the message of Moses and the prophets. Catholic commentators can easily miss this.
A little while after this parable of Lazarus, Jesus is reported to be saying to his disciples:
17:3 Be on your guard! If another disciple sins, you must rebuke the offender, and if there is repentance, you must forgive.17:4 And if the same person sins against you seven times a day, and turns back to you seven times and says, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive.”
This is the message that the Lord addresses to me. I am ready to forgive. Are you ready to repent?
P.S.: My dear wife gently admonished me yesterday in words somewhat like this:
How can you threaten your three adversaries with jail sentences and steep fines? Is there not the danger that they will comply with the law because they are unwilling to suffer the shame of being incarcerated and of paying fines? Where is the power of the Gospel in all of this?
So I beg your pardon for not appealing to the Gospel first. This was my failing. I hope that my biblical reflections and midrash based on Jesus’ parable might provide the nourishment needed for your souls. Moreover, I hope that you would return to thinking of me and treating me as a cherished Brother who has suffered due to the shameful conduct accorded me during the last six months.
Response to #2 email = total silence
#3 email sent to Abbot John Klassen on 16 June 2023
Dear Abbot John Klassen,
Last June I pledged to you to do all in my power to lead Saint John’s monastic community through a period of healing and reconciliation, and all 183 of our confreres joined me in that pledge. Because you are an important and valued member of Saint John’s extended family, it is important to me and Fr. Gordon Tavis to keep you posted from time to time on our progress. . . .
Much of the groundwork for our work today was laid by Abbots Jerome Theisen and Timothy Kelly long before I became Abbot. They set in place a successful process to provide for assistance to victims of abuse, treatment for offenders and extensive education on related issues for all of our monks. As Formation Director during some of that time, I helped implement the changes and I can testify to their effectiveness. To my knowledge, not a single additional monk has offended since our monastic formation process was changed by the new policies and procedures.
The Abbey has had success responding to victims’ concerns. Last June attorney Jeffrey Anderson accepted our invitation to join in a mediation process to settle all of his firm’s cases alleging abuse without going through a judicial process that might be lengthy, uncertain, traumatic and more costly for survivors and for the Abbey. Assisted by mediators Margo Maris and Michael Ciresi, we met August 12-15 and reached a settlement that included compensation and non-compensation components. Mr. Anderson joined me in a press conference October 1 in the Abbey Chapter House to announce the settlement. I am grateful to Mr. Anderson for his assistance during the mediation process, and I was pleased by his public praise for the Abbey’s role in achieving a settlement that was agreeable to everyone involved.
I note likewise your determination to bring those first nation parents who saw their children violently captured and brutally indoctrinated by priests and sisters who violated the right of parents to raise their children according to their own faith and their own traditions. Your objective to turn these embittered parents into friends seems a step of vital transformation in this process of healing. The steps toward restitution are bold and unprecedented.
To whom much has been given, much is expected.
It pains me therefore to see how you are collaborating in the stonewalling and in the silences of Therese Ratliff and Sandra Eiynck. By collaborating with them, you sanction their grievances and their inability to listen to a brother in pain at the mistreatment received. Do not fail to miss this. Regardless of the merits of my grievances, I have not been treated as a thoughtful and respectful brother/scholar/collaborator calling them to take notice of some financial irregularities. I am the “Lazarus” that they treat shamelessly “as of no account.”
So, dear Brother, is the time of your silence nearly over? Are you ready to bring a new order of transparency and accountability to those whom you have entrusted the inner workings of Liturgical Press.
Fraternally in Christ,
PS: My own personal grievances do not stand in isolation. I was not the first to receive the rough treatment that Sandra Eiynck was able to dish out to those who disagree with her. Likewise, Therese Ratliff’s ability to overestimate the inconveniences that she suffered and her willingness to resort to having her legal “dogs” threaten me with further harm serves to reveal her propensity for mistreating anyone who calls into question the unsearchable ways of her employees. In brief, the two most powerful persons at Liturgical Press show themselves quite easily inclined to be authoritarian and brutal, not only to me but to all those others who, like me, have had and will have the audacity to question their hidden financial irregularities. In brief, we are dealing with systemic mismanagement.
Response to #3 email = total silence
#4 email sent to Abbot Klassen on 23 June 2023
23 June 2023
Dear Abbot John,
I am curious as to why you have not contacted me. Is this “hiding” a positive virtue on your part? Is there something in the Rule of St. Benedict that supports this practice? Is this the way to treat a Brother? What do you think?
Perhaps you think that “if I ignore him, he will go away.”
This was the strategy used by Sandra during the past five months. Sandra’s logic is the following: “If it’s not written into the contract, then I am under no obligation to take into account the devaluation of the dollar.” In saying this, she completely overlooks the fact that the contract requires that royalty payments be made in a timely fashion—once each year. She completely overlooks the fact that, year after year, the electronic transfers were returned. She knew this, but did nothing to correct it. She completely overlooks the fact that, when she switched from sending out paper checks to making electronic transfers, she had the obligation to make sure that the new system was working. There was a sure-fire way to insure that the bank numbers were correct, but Sandra failed to use it or, more probably, she was not even aware that there was such a simple sure-fire solution. So the failure of the system to deliver the annual royalties was due to her lack of knowhow and her lack of due diligence. Thus any investigation of the case of Aaron inevitably leads to a series of embarrassing errors and the absence of due diligence.
How does Sandra resolve this? Quite simply: she hides everything. Because I don’t agree with her twisted logic, she has nothing more to say to me. I am a person of no consequence. Thus, she refuses to read my emails. Quite possibly, she reroutes them into her junk email box. Everything is hidden. She boasts that she is a resourceful problem solver. I threaten her self-understanding. So she give me her silent treatment.
This reminds me of how Eve hid herself in the Garden. This reminds me of how some of your monks tried to hide their sexual abuse of minors. This reminds me of how the US Catholic bishops tried to recycle misbehaving priests into new parishes while concealing their former crimes. This reminds me of how the “good Sisters” running the tribal schools resorted to using progressive violence against recalcitrant children and how they diligently hid this from outsiders. Yet, in every one of these cases, the truth finally emerges in one way or the other. When it does emerge, the strategy of “hiding” and stonewalling shows itself to be an additional crime/sin that destroys personal integrity and erodes trust of those in authority.
So I am curious as to why you have not contacted me. Can you really justify this “hiding” as a positive and constructive virtue? Is this what St. Benedict practiced? Is this what your Board of Directors advised you? Or was it your lawyers? When the whole story becomes public knowledge, will your community members think more highly of you? Will the other authors give you high marks when they learn of your stonewalling? And, last but not least, what would Jesus, the Son of God, say to you?
[When I make contact with the Board of Trustees, I will be asking them whether Abbot Klassen’s inability or unwillingness to deal with the grievances of authors makes him unfit to be a member of the Board.]
Let the truth-telling begin,
Aaron
How would you rate (using a scale going from A+ to F) the conduct of Abbot John Klassen relative to his [ ] Christian civility and his [ ] pursuing justice? How would you rate (A+ to F) the conduct of Aaron relative to his [ ] Christian civility and his [ ] pursuing justice? Any reflections?
Q1. Can you suggest any course of action at this point that might win back Abbot John as my Brother?
Q2. Is there any prospect that I and other authors like me will find a fair hearing and restorative justice within Liturgical Press?
Q3. Joe advised me, “The US Bishops learned accountability only after they were being sued by their victims and their families. Within Liturgical Press, unfortunately, you are meeting the same patterns of denial and secrecy. Stop wasting your energy on them. Bring a court case against all three of the stonewallers. Only then will they begin to respect you as a person of consequence.” To what degree would you agree or disagree with Joe?
Authors who wish to contact me privately on this issue can reach me by writing to Milavec9@churchonfire.net Authors willing to share their own story of grief are especially welcome.
I have strong evidence to believe that Liturgical Press is underreporting sales of eBooks and is miscalculating the net price of such eBooks. This will effect the royalties for every author who is selling their eBooks with Liturgical Press. I don’t want to display my evidence here just yet because this is a research in progress. Authors who wish to contact me privately on this issue can reach me by writing to Milavec8b@churchonfire.net
To: Abbot John
From: Aaron M
Date: 29 June 2023
You can see what’s coming down the road for you. Your fame will be turned to infamy. The Board of Trustees will call you on the carpet. Your monks will snicker when they discover your dark side. When you give your next talk on “the role of justice in the rule of St. Benedict,” no one will think you have any right to talk about “justice.” Etc.
If you were a man of honor, you would do something like this:
-
Sit down and have a long talk with Therese. In preparation, ask her to rate the performances (A+ to F) as indicated above and to make comments as well in writing. Talk about her past experiences of justice and injustice. Talk about “Christian standards of civility” and “procedures to address grievances.” At the end of your exchange, ask her what would be her game-plan if she had a chance to do it all over again. Ask her to write this out and send it to you within seven days.
-
If Therese shows a capacity for self-reform, have a second talk with her that is directed toward having her evaluate the performance of Sandra in detail. Create a climate of trust by confessing to her one or two instances in which you acted unjustly. Then, once a climate of trust is present, encourage Therese to explore with you how and when Sandra might have acted with more civility and justice toward Aaron. Then, maintaining the climate of trust, encourage Therese to explore with you how and when she might have acted with more civility and justice toward Aaron. At the end of your exchange, ask her what would be her game-plan if she had a chance to do it all over again.
-
Prepare Therese to have an exchange with Sandra following the general lines of your initial talk with her in #1 above. If she feels hesitant to do this, appoint a trained facilitator to accompany her. If she still balks, then explore with her how her position as CEO requires her ability (a) to investigate possible financial irregularities and (b) to challenge and to “retrain” staff who have acted improperly. . . . Bend over backwards to offer her any help she might need to be able to perform in this capacity. If she is unable and unwilling to do this, then talk about redesigning her job description and conducting a search for a trained facilitator and trouble-shooter that would “clean up the mess” that Sandra has left behind. This might entail a pay reduction.
-
If Therese is ready and willing to interview Sandra, then let this take place with an audio and video recorder running “as part of my training to become a facilitator.” Near the end of this exchange, Therese will ask Sandra what might be her game-plan if she had a chance to do it all over again. Ask her to write this out and send it to you.
-
After the interview, have Therese walk through the interview with you paying attention to body language, to hesitations, to moments of discovery. If you feel incapable of effectively doing this, bring in a trained facilitator to help both of you to “see” and to “feel” the tacit components within the exchange. Examine Sandra’s game-plan together. What are the merits and deficiencies? Decide together how to go forward. . . .
-
Somewhere down the line, a full-day workshop on “conflict resolution” should be planned that would bring together all the staff significantly involved in person-to-person relations. The big three, Abbot John, Therese, and Sandra, would be ready to reenact their “initial responses” to the grievances reported by Aaron. A trained facilitator and an expert in “role playing reenactments” would be at hand.Sandra might well begin by describing her annoying emails from Aaron. Then she might explain how, at a certain point, she decided to ignore him completely. Then the facilitator would invite small-group analysis leading to a big-group reporting and consensus building. Sandra would then come forward saying, “I’m glad that you were able to see the serious flaws in my treatment of Aaron. Here are a few things that you didn’t notice. . . .” Then later, “Thanks to Therese, I was able to learn a style of conflict resolution that was much more humane and just. . . .”After a short recess, Therese would dramatize her earlier annoyances: “Aaron was bombarding me with emails asking whether this was my correct email address” & “Aaron (male privilege?) was badmouthing Sandra.” So I called our company lawyer and asked him to put “the fear of the Lord” into him. Here, on the screen, is what he sent. . . . Then the facilitator would invite small-group analysis leading to a big-group reporting and consensus building. Therese would then come forward saying, “I’m glad that you were able to see the serious flaws in my treatment of Aaron. Here are a few things that you didn’t notice. . . .” Then later, “Thanks to Abbot John, I was able to learn a style of conflict resolution that was much more humane and just. Let me tell you about this. . . .”
In the afternoon, you, Abbot John, might briefly explain how you responded to Aaron. “I didn’t know what to do or to say, so I did nothing and I said nothing.” “What do you think? Was this a successful strategy?” Then, after a few minutes, ask: “Why is Aaron coming to me? What does he want from me?” Project my first detailed letter of 24 May 2023 on a screen or have someone read it dramatically. “Here you can hear Aaron speaking for himself. Why is Aaron coming to me? What does he want from me?”
At some point, someone will say something more or less like this, “Aaron is in pain because his grievances have been ignored.” With this, the role-playing expert takes over. “Who here can feel Aaron’s pain?” “Stand up and come forward. Imagine a “pain intensity scale” on the floor here. On one end (go there), the pain is slight. Then it rises. At this end (go there), the pain is severe. Very quickly, place yourself on this scale.” Using this, the facilitator will thereby find the person ready to role-play Aaron. “Here is Aaron’s hat. Would you want to wear this as a symbol that you are speaking for Aaron?” In this way, the scene is set for someone to give voice to Aaron’s pain. “Here is the Abbot’s chair. It is empty. It is waiting for one of you to come forward and give a response to Aaron’s pain.” The facilitator will interrupt Abbot#1 after 20 seconds. Then a second chair for Abbot#2 is prepared. An alternative response is heard. “What do you think? Does Abbot#1 or Abbot#2 best connect with Aaron’s pain? Why so?” “Let’s ask Aaron.”
The upshot of the whole workshop will be (a) to create an atmosphere of communal safety wherein everyone’s contribution is valued; (b) to enable the big three to have an occasion to acknowledge their earlier short comings and to show off their new skills for “conflict resolution”; (c) to use role-playing as a dynamic and playful way to examine tough issues; (d) to move toward a community consensus as to what guidelines are to be used and expected in future instances of “conflict resolution”; and (e) to provide a forum wherein the use of “name calling,” “threatening,” “bullying,” etc. are seen and experienced as destructive in almost all situations.
The genius of this solution is that (a) your faith in broken people will be rekindled and (b) those who did the tearing down will become, with a little help, those who are building up. Think here of the case of Saul/Paul. He started by arresting Christians and turning them over to the temple police; he ended up being a promoter of the very movement that he formerly hated. This is a case of “restorative justice.”
The mercy in this solution is that the big three get a rare opportunity (a) to reflect on their bad conduct and (b) to design a game-plan that allows them to do it all over again – but this time with Christian love wedded to humility and investigative justice. Think here of an imaginative revision of the Jesus parable where Abraham says to the eldest brother, “O.K. I’m going to send you back to your brothers on Earth for two weeks. Let’s see how successful you can be in turning things around.”
So, following this imaginative retelling of the Lazarus parable, I’m going to give you two weeks to think through your options. You will either create for yourself a game-plan (a variation on my 6 points above) or you will immediately draft your letter of resignation to the Board of Trustees explaining that you are incapable and/or unwilling to carry through the investigations that would result in the rectification of the defective processes whereby royalties are calculated and distributed.
Send one or the other or both to me at Milavec7@churchonfire.net on or before 13 July 2023. Meanwhile send me immediately a few words indicating what future most attracts you.
After all the disappointments, I still believe in you,
Aaron, your Brother
to: Sandra Eiynck, Therese Ratliff, Abbot John Klassen, OSB
from: Aaron Milavec
date: 08 June 2023 (original); date today: 12 July 2023
re: wage theft ==== Your time is running out. Either move to open dialogue as befits Christians or face the consequences. . . .
From 17 Nov 2022 to the present, I have tried to encourage open dialogue and common-sense economics to demonstrate (a) that my royalties/wages were unlawfully withheld for one to six years and then, later, (b) that my wages were unlawfully underpaid because no account was taken of the devaluation of the dollar.
The US Department of Labor stipulates the following interest tables when calculating back pay:
-
Purpose and Rate of Interest. The purpose of applying interest on back pay awards is to compensate the victim(s) for the loss of the use and purchasing power of their income. Interest on back pay is calculated at the same percentage rate as the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) underpayment formula. Interest on back pay must be compounded quarterly under the laws OFCCP enforces.
-
Rate Adjustments. The IRS may adjust its rate on a quarterly basis. The interest rates applicable to various periods are available on the IRS website at https://apps.irs.gov/app/picklist/list/federalRates.html.
My efforts to come to a resolution in a just and charitable manner were met with stonewalling, misrepresentation, an abusive legal ploy, and stoney silences. Thus, you give me no option but to bring my grievances to the attention of persons that you will not be able to abuse and ignore. See Matt 5:24-26 and Luke 12:57-59.
Misdemeanor violations (amendments to Minn. Stat. § 177.32)
Under existing law, an employer found to have hindered or delayed the commissioner in the performance of duties required under the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act or the Prevailing Wage Act was guilty of a misdemeanor. The new Wage Theft Law adds that any employer hindering or delaying the commissioner in the performance of duties required under Minn. Stat. §§ 181.01 to 181.723 or 181.79 is also guilty of a misdemeanor (New).
New: Crime of “wage theft” and criminal sanctions for committing “wage theft” (amendments to Minn. Stat. § 609.52)
The crime of “wage theft” occurs when an employer, with intent to defraud:
• Fails to pay an employee all wages, salary, gratuities, earnings or commissions at the employee’s rate or rates of pay or at the rate or rates required by law, whichever is greater.
• Directly or indirectly causes any employee to give a receipt for wages for a greater amount than that actually
paid to the employee for services rendered.
• Directly or indirectly demands or receives from any employee any rebate or refund from the wages owed
the employee under contract of employment with the employer.
• Makes or attempts to make it appear in any manner the wages paid to any employee were greater than the
amount actually paid to the employee.
“Employer” is defined as “any individual, partnership, association, corporation, business trust, or any person or
group of persons acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee.”
“Employee” is defined as “any individual employed by an employer.”
“Wage theft” has been added to the criminal definition of theft under Minn. Stat. § 609.52, subd. 2(19), and
sanctions for committing wage theft are as follows:
• Imprisonment for not more than 20 years, payment of a fine of not more than $100,000 or both if the value
of the wages stolen is more than $35,000.
• Imprisonment for not more than 10 years, payment of a fine of not more than $20,000 or both if the value
of the wages stolen exceeds $5,000.
• Imprisonment for not more than five years, payment of a fine of not more than $10,000 or both if the value of wages stolen is more than $1,000 but not more than $5,000.
[Using the IRS interest rates, I compute my lost wages as $1021 as of 01 July 2023.]
• Imprisonment for not more than one year, payment of a fine of not more than $3,000 or both if the value of
the property or services stolen is more than $500 but not more than $1,000.
Having read all of the key emails that were exchanged in this case, what observations or judgments do you want to share in the comment box below? Your participation is appreciated.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~end note~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[i] My initial emails to Abbot John during the first half of the month of May were by way of confirming that jklassen@csbsju.edu was the email address that I should use to contact him regarding the misbehaving of two high-ranking members of Liturgical Press. Since Abbot John is President of the Board of Trustees, I assumed that he would want to be advised of the exact nature of their misbehaving. Sad to say, Abbot John has not acknowledged me as a Brother or as a whistle-blower. To date, he has not sent a single word to me.
Even my attempts to confirm his email address in the opening weeks of May were met with a total silence. Thus, I am forced to conclude that Abbot John was disposed to entirely ignore me even before he had received for me any details of the crimes committed against me. I must presume therefore that Sandra Eiynck or Therese Ratliff had already poisoned his mind against me.
Be that as it may, I still believed that Abbot John had a remarkable record of dealing with victims and their abusers found within his own abbey. With each of my emails, I expressed my hope in him at the same time that I offered him strong medicine to shake him out of his lethargy. I failed.
The poison had already blinded him. He was unable and unwilling to receive me either as a Brother or as a whistle-blower. All in all, I am dismissed without a hearing. I am a throw-away person of no consequence. Lazarus is my middle-name.
Archbishop O’Connor was seemingly horrified by the mountain of shoes that were removed from the feet of mothers and children destined for the furnaces of the extermination camps. Mesmerized by the infinite redemptive suffering of Christ, Archbishop O’Connor undoubtedly thought he was honoring the suffering within the Nazi concentration camps when he associated their sufferings as being redemptive in a way analogous to the sufferings of Jesus. Many survivors of the death camps and their relatives (see Jacobs: 52-55) were neither flattered nor consoled by the Archbishop’s crude attempt to extend a Christian atonement theology to cover the enormity of evil involved in their loss. The protesting Jews didn’t mind that Archbishop O’Connor wanted to sugar-coat the sufferings of one Jew (Jesus); but they were totally livid when he tried to take his warped Christian theology and to use it to sugar-coat the Nazi campaign that brought about the death of a million Jewish mothers.
