MCC leaders insist that nondisclosure agreements are used only “a handful of times,” mainly to protect workers in volatile regions. But an analysis of 83 cases documented by MAST tells a very different story. NDAs appear far more frequently, applied mostly in Canada and the US—not war zones—and never as mutual protections. Our data show that NDAs function as tools of silence rather than safety. With dozens of leaders implicated and many stories still hidden, the pattern is unmistakable. MAST’s analysis exposes a systemic practice that demands transparency, accountability, and urgent external review.

The bottom line seems to be something like this: “If you see anything that seems to be wrong, you must report it, but only to us, and we won’t tell anyone, including you, or even MCC leaders, what we will do with your report. If you report concerns in any other way, you will be in violation of policy and could be fired.” HR Directors will know everything, and no one else will know anything.

How is this “having our theology, alternative dispute resolution processes and restorative justice principles help inform policies, procedures and organizational culture as we care for the people who serve with us”?

Who hurt Lena? A parable about harm by institutions.