Toward the Future: The Lessons of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Report, and the Ways in Which We Can Protect All Children From Sex Abuse
By MARCI HAMILTON
----
Thursday, Dec. 27, 2007
Recently, the National Review Board for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops released the results of its five-year study evaluating how the hierarchy has handled clergy abuse since the public first learned of its scope and prevalence from the Boston Globe in 2002. The report is just what one would expect from any corporation undergoing a scandal; It details new programs, promises to do better in the future, and admits the problem is complex (which, translated, means that the Bishops have not put the problem behind them, not by a long shot).
As I read the report and reflected upon the last five years, I had very mixed feelings. On the one hand, every American (and even world citizen) should be grateful to Providence (as well as the Globe) for revealing the scope of child abuse and cover-up within the ranks of the Roman Catholic Church. We really did not know, let alone understand, the gravity and extent of the scourge of child sex abuse society-wide until we saw it entrenched in the one institution everyone had trusted - Catholic or not. This was the religious institution whose clergy every lawyer hoped would testify on their side, after all! The point could not have been made more clearly than by the scandal in the Church: Children are being sexually abused everywhere, and the ones not to trust are often the ones we trust the most.
There is another quite different lesson to be learned from the 2007 Bishops' Report, too, however: The bishops are not a terribly important element in the solution to society-wide child sex abuse. Yes, they have instituted programs to protect children, but it was well-known long ago in the public sphere that such programs are crucial. And they have created their Victims Assistance Programs and appointed Directors. Though victims and their families have not found these programs terribly helpful or supportive, at least they exist. Yet, it simply does not matter what program the hierarchy creates for the victims it has generated. Why? Because its victims count for such a small number of child sex abuse victims overall. Even perfect care for all of its victims puts barely a dent in the larger problem.
The Bishops might have been leaders in the national movement to right the laws that affect child sex abuse survivors, but they have chosen to take the opposite path. If public records are accurate, the New York Catholic Conference is paying well over $100,000 per year to lobbyists and public relations firms to defeat legislation that would make it easier for victims (both within and outside the Church) to get to court, by reducing the barriers created by the statute of limitations. That is just another signal that they are part of history on this problem, not the future..
The Bishops do not stand alone in proposing solutions that do not touch the vast majority of the problem. We have Megan's Law public reporting statutes, pedophile-free zones, and increased sentencing for molesters, but we still have not made the changes necessary to identify the many predators currently living among us. As I have discussed in previous columns such as this one, the statutes of limitation on child sex abuse must go. At the same time, there needs to be a concerted effort to turn the insights gleaned from the Church's clergy abuse problems into aggressive plans to stop the problem in the future.
Ultimately, It Will Take Private and Public Institutions and Legislatures, to Win the War Against Child Sex Abuse
We are at a promising turning point for our children. It will take the actions of private and public institutions as well as legislators to turn the tide on child sex abuse. The National Child Protection Training Center at Winona State University is one organization that holds out hope for the future. President Bush just signed legislation granting $1.22 million to the Center, which is engaged in groundbreaking work. Director Victor Vieth explained part of the Center's mission, which is centered around education and more education: "[W]e will provide training to over 10,000 child protection professionals, will assist dozens of universities in implementing model undergraduate or graduate child protection curricula, and will grow our forensic interview training program--a program that will positively impact a million children by the end of this decade." Vieth's vision includes a call to eliminate child sex abuse altogether in several generations, through programs and multi-tiered education. That is the clarion call needed to right the wrongs now so deeply embedded in the psyche of this society.
The Training Center is part of NAPSAC (the National Association to Prevent the Sexual Abuse of Children), of which I am a Board Member. NAPSAC also houses the National District Attorneys Association, a point that highlights another crucial element in making this world a safer place for children: We need prosecutors who are sensitized to these issues and inclined to protect the children, not the adults who ask them to keep their "dirty laundry" hidden.
With these private and public projects and legislators with the guts to roll back the statutes of limitations on child sex abuse so we can identify the perpetrators among us, we can become a country that is truly proud of its commitment to children. Words, reports, and individual institutions will never be enough; it will take passionate action on the part of many.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Bob Hoatson's Letter to the National Review Board
Judge Michael Mertz, Chairperson
National Review Board
Office of Child and Youth Protection
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
3211 Fourth St, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20017
Dear Judge Mertz and Members of the National Review Board:
As a priest, survivor of clergy sexual abuse, and advocate for hundreds of
survivors of clergy sexual abuse, I feel I must respond to your
recently-released
report to the Catholic Faithful of the United States regarding the
protection of children, teenagers, young adults, and vulnerable adults in
the American
Catholic Church. Unfortunately, I neither share your optimism nor agree
with your conclusions.
The overall tone of the report is of concern to me. There is no
acknowledgment of the "epidemic" of clergy sexual abuse that has been
exposed and
continues to be exposed to this day. The National Review Board was
established because the bishops of the country were incompetent to act
legally,
ethically, and morally toward those who were abused. My experience,
research, and immersion in the recoveries of survivors indicate that the
climate and
culture that created the problem in the beginning are still in place and
very much the prevailing practices. The Catholic bishops of the United
States, for the
most part, have never been held accountable for their illegal, immoral,
and unethical methods and practices.
It is understandable why you would be hesitant to confront your bosses.
Governor Frank Keating was "eliminated" as the first Chairperson of your
group, and
perhaps you fear the same response if you act wisely, independently, and
transparently. It is clear to me that you will never have the authority to
act as you
need to act.
As for the "diversity of the Board," which you noted in the second
paragraph of your report, there are no survivors or survivor-advocates on
the Board, there are
no "experts" in the field of clergy abuse survivors, such as Fr. Tom Doyle
or Dr. Richard Sipe, and there are no parents or family members of
survivors on the
Board. What do you mean by diversity; that there are men and women on the
Board? That does not equal diversity as it relates to the mission and
purpose
of the Board or the needs of survivors of clergy sexual abuse.
As for the accomplishments that you listed:
1) Safe environment programs are well and good. However, they do not
guarantee that bishops are not transferring criminal abusers around their
diocese and
inter-dioceses.
2) Diocesan procedures to respond promptly to allegations do not guarantee
that bishops treat survivors with care, compassion, and honesty. There
still is a
climate of secrecy, cover-up, and lack of transparency in diocesan
offices, especially that of the bishop.
3) Publishing reports of credible allegations is great, except it does
nothing for the vast majority of survivors who cannot report their abuse
because they have
had bad experiences with Church authorities, are too damaged to come
forward, or are thoroughly convinced (rightly so!) that the Church is
similar to a Mafia
-like organization that simply protects its own.
The Board has not reached out in any way, shape, or form to survivors to
ask them what they think, feel, and believe about the Church's attempts to
clean up
its act. Survivors' advocacy groups, such as Road to Recovery, Inc., SNAP,
and others are not included in your deliberations or those of the bishops.
As for the research projects that have been conducted or are currently
being conducted:
1) The current study, Causes and Contexts, has been carefully nuanced to
avoid an analysis of what needs to be known. It was made clear to me at a
Voice
of the Faithful Conference workshop that this study has eliminated the
most important focus groups: survivors, survivor families, and survivor
experts and
advocates. It also will not include a key group that can provide
invaluable information; namely, priest-survivors who have lived in the
seminary system, been
abused in the seminary or clerical system, and know the "inner workings of
the system."
2) It is clear to me that the Causes and Contexts study will not expose
the clerical culture and sexual dysfunctionalism of the seminary/rectory
system;
rather, it will skirt (again!) what has to be uncovered if the Church is
going to recover from its addiction to power, authority, sex, and
clericalism.
3) Please do not spend time on perpetuating the "pity party for priests."
You seem to want to give deference in research reports to priests who
covered up,
remained silent, and very often saw the sexual abuse of children taking
place. My experience in the religious life and priesthood leads me to
conclude that
almost no religious brother, sister, priest, or deacon is immune from the
knowledge of, participation in, or looking the other way from the sexual
abuse of
children.
4) Your report apparently ignores (again!) the ongoing needs of survivors.
I work with over 200 survivors of clergy sexual abuse. Many are not
healed, will not
be healed, and cannot access treatment because of unreliable or
non-existent policies and programs of dioceses. For example, one survivor
met privately
with a bishop who promised the survivor that he would finally get the
house he has wanted for his family and him. The bishop promised him a
substantial
settlement, separate from the "mass settlement" that was being negotiated.
When the survivor went to his "settlement meeting," he was told he was
part of
the mass settlement and that he was scheduled to receive a settlement much
lower than he was promised. Because he felt betrayed, this man's PTSD was
triggered, the pain returned, and he spent his entire settlement on drugs!
5) In New Hampshire at the beginning of December, clergy abuse survivor
Leeland Eisenberg held hostages at the campaign headquarters of Hillary
Clinton.
During the previous months, he phoned every psychiatrist in New Hampshire
looking for a therapist who would accept third-party payments from the
Archdiocese of Boston. None would accept the payments! So, Lee took to
drinking and drugging to help his head stop spinning, and ended up in
Hillary
Clinton's headquarters to bring attention to the state of mental health
care in his State.
Your report said nothing about the ongoing needs of survivors, such as
housing, food, mental health care, and a host of other needs. If you ask
some of us
who are "in the trenches," we will tell you what needs to be done.
While I am not confident that you will respond to this letter in any
meaningful way, it is my hope that "something will get through"
eventually, so effective
change can take place in the midst of the evil and corruption.
Sincerely,
Rev. Robert M. Hoatson, Ph.D.
Founder and President
CC: Members of the National Review Board
Teresa Kettelkamp, Director of the USCCB Office of Child and Youth
Protection
Members of the Bishops' Committee on Child and Youth Protection
National Review Board
Office of Child and Youth Protection
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
3211 Fourth St, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20017
Dear Judge Mertz and Members of the National Review Board:
As a priest, survivor of clergy sexual abuse, and advocate for hundreds of
survivors of clergy sexual abuse, I feel I must respond to your
recently-released
report to the Catholic Faithful of the United States regarding the
protection of children, teenagers, young adults, and vulnerable adults in
the American
Catholic Church. Unfortunately, I neither share your optimism nor agree
with your conclusions.
The overall tone of the report is of concern to me. There is no
acknowledgment of the "epidemic" of clergy sexual abuse that has been
exposed and
continues to be exposed to this day. The National Review Board was
established because the bishops of the country were incompetent to act
legally,
ethically, and morally toward those who were abused. My experience,
research, and immersion in the recoveries of survivors indicate that the
climate and
culture that created the problem in the beginning are still in place and
very much the prevailing practices. The Catholic bishops of the United
States, for the
most part, have never been held accountable for their illegal, immoral,
and unethical methods and practices.
It is understandable why you would be hesitant to confront your bosses.
Governor Frank Keating was "eliminated" as the first Chairperson of your
group, and
perhaps you fear the same response if you act wisely, independently, and
transparently. It is clear to me that you will never have the authority to
act as you
need to act.
As for the "diversity of the Board," which you noted in the second
paragraph of your report, there are no survivors or survivor-advocates on
the Board, there are
no "experts" in the field of clergy abuse survivors, such as Fr. Tom Doyle
or Dr. Richard Sipe, and there are no parents or family members of
survivors on the
Board. What do you mean by diversity; that there are men and women on the
Board? That does not equal diversity as it relates to the mission and
purpose
of the Board or the needs of survivors of clergy sexual abuse.
As for the accomplishments that you listed:
1) Safe environment programs are well and good. However, they do not
guarantee that bishops are not transferring criminal abusers around their
diocese and
inter-dioceses.
2) Diocesan procedures to respond promptly to allegations do not guarantee
that bishops treat survivors with care, compassion, and honesty. There
still is a
climate of secrecy, cover-up, and lack of transparency in diocesan
offices, especially that of the bishop.
3) Publishing reports of credible allegations is great, except it does
nothing for the vast majority of survivors who cannot report their abuse
because they have
had bad experiences with Church authorities, are too damaged to come
forward, or are thoroughly convinced (rightly so!) that the Church is
similar to a Mafia
-like organization that simply protects its own.
The Board has not reached out in any way, shape, or form to survivors to
ask them what they think, feel, and believe about the Church's attempts to
clean up
its act. Survivors' advocacy groups, such as Road to Recovery, Inc., SNAP,
and others are not included in your deliberations or those of the bishops.
As for the research projects that have been conducted or are currently
being conducted:
1) The current study, Causes and Contexts, has been carefully nuanced to
avoid an analysis of what needs to be known. It was made clear to me at a
Voice
of the Faithful Conference workshop that this study has eliminated the
most important focus groups: survivors, survivor families, and survivor
experts and
advocates. It also will not include a key group that can provide
invaluable information; namely, priest-survivors who have lived in the
seminary system, been
abused in the seminary or clerical system, and know the "inner workings of
the system."
2) It is clear to me that the Causes and Contexts study will not expose
the clerical culture and sexual dysfunctionalism of the seminary/rectory
system;
rather, it will skirt (again!) what has to be uncovered if the Church is
going to recover from its addiction to power, authority, sex, and
clericalism.
3) Please do not spend time on perpetuating the "pity party for priests."
You seem to want to give deference in research reports to priests who
covered up,
remained silent, and very often saw the sexual abuse of children taking
place. My experience in the religious life and priesthood leads me to
conclude that
almost no religious brother, sister, priest, or deacon is immune from the
knowledge of, participation in, or looking the other way from the sexual
abuse of
children.
4) Your report apparently ignores (again!) the ongoing needs of survivors.
I work with over 200 survivors of clergy sexual abuse. Many are not
healed, will not
be healed, and cannot access treatment because of unreliable or
non-existent policies and programs of dioceses. For example, one survivor
met privately
with a bishop who promised the survivor that he would finally get the
house he has wanted for his family and him. The bishop promised him a
substantial
settlement, separate from the "mass settlement" that was being negotiated.
When the survivor went to his "settlement meeting," he was told he was
part of
the mass settlement and that he was scheduled to receive a settlement much
lower than he was promised. Because he felt betrayed, this man's PTSD was
triggered, the pain returned, and he spent his entire settlement on drugs!
5) In New Hampshire at the beginning of December, clergy abuse survivor
Leeland Eisenberg held hostages at the campaign headquarters of Hillary
Clinton.
During the previous months, he phoned every psychiatrist in New Hampshire
looking for a therapist who would accept third-party payments from the
Archdiocese of Boston. None would accept the payments! So, Lee took to
drinking and drugging to help his head stop spinning, and ended up in
Hillary
Clinton's headquarters to bring attention to the state of mental health
care in his State.
Your report said nothing about the ongoing needs of survivors, such as
housing, food, mental health care, and a host of other needs. If you ask
some of us
who are "in the trenches," we will tell you what needs to be done.
While I am not confident that you will respond to this letter in any
meaningful way, it is my hope that "something will get through"
eventually, so effective
change can take place in the midst of the evil and corruption.
Sincerely,
Rev. Robert M. Hoatson, Ph.D.
Founder and President
CC: Members of the National Review Board
Teresa Kettelkamp, Director of the USCCB Office of Child and Youth
Protection
Members of the Bishops' Committee on Child and Youth Protection
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Priests Accused of taking children out of class to abuse them when they were children.
Saturday, Dec 22, 2007
Posted on Thu, Dec. 20, 2007
Two men allege molestation in lawsuit against former priest, Catholic diocese
By JOE LAMBE
The Kansas City Star
Two men sued a former Roman Catholic priest and the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph on Thursday for alleged molestation when the men were altar boys.
John Doe B.B. of Kansas, 52, contends that the Rev. Thomas Reardon sexually abused him in 1968 in the St. Elizabeth rectory in Kansas City after his mother asked the priest to explain “the facts of life” to the 12-year-old boy.
John Doe M.D., 46, of Missouri and his wife contend that Reardon, now 65, abused him at St. Gabriel’s parish in Kansas City when Doe was in the fifth to eighth grades.
According to the lawsuits, Reardon kept the boys quiet by persuading them that the acts were a normal part of life or even beneficial.
Reardon, who has 14 other abuse-related lawsuits pending against him in Jackson County, has denied ever abusing children. He declined to comment Thursday. His attorney did not return phone calls.
The lawsuits allege that the diocese was at fault in part for negligent supervision, including covering up Reardon’s actions for years. The church also committed fraud and intentionally inflicted distress by portraying Reardon as a responsible priest, the suits contend.
The diocese has not seen the lawsuits, has not learned the plaintiffs’ names and is not in a position to comment, a spokeswoman said in a written response. Reardon has not worked as a priest since 1989, she said.
David Biersmith of Kansas City, president of Voice of the Faithful, a church reform group, read statements from the two plaintiffs at a news conference announcing the lawsuits. Describing himself as a former close friend of Reardon’s, he said he attended seminary with him many years ago. Reardon, he said, was a charming man who could easily manipulate children.
Doe M.D. wrote that he felt he had been violated, lost his innocence and more: “I lost my faith, I lost respect for myself as well as others,” Biersmith read. “I feel I have lost a part of my life.”
According to Doe M.D.’s lawsuit:
Reardon first abused him in the St. Gabriel’s rectory after calling him out of grief counseling class when the boy was in the fifth grade. Reardon kept calling him out of classes for more abuse in the rectory and sometimes gave him money and alcohol. He also molested him in the sacristy before the start of Mass.
Doe B.B.’s written statement said that he did not tell anyone of his abuse at age 12 because he was too scared. He now understands that to end such sexual abuse in the church, people must come forward.
David Clohessy, director of the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests, urged other abuse victims to do the same. He said one of these plaintiffs finally came forward after a recent media account about Reardon and another priest.
Last month, The Kansas City Star revealed widespread allegations of abuse against Reardon and Monsignor Thomas O’Brien, whom many adolescent boys called the “party priests.”
Other lawsuits against both men detail accusations of rape, sodomy, oral sex and masturbatory acts. The lawsuits allege a pattern of molestation that began in the early 1960s with O’Brien and continued with Reardon through the 1980s.
The lawsuits contend that the priests used their positions of power to prey on youngsters, plying them with alcohol, groping them and sometimes offering money for sex.
Since 2004, a dozen men have sued O’Brien, 81, who denies all the allegations. Those and the 16 lawsuits against Reardon make up the bulk of at least 32 pending Jackson County lawsuits against priests or former priests.
As of last month, priest sex abuse cases nationwide had cost the Roman Catholic Church at least $2.3 billion since 1950.
Thursday, Clohessy said that the church needed to take stronger action against the priests’ co-workers and supervisors — “the people who drove the getaway car.”
A diocese statement issued Thursday says that every suspicion or report of abuse is now taken seriously and reported to the state. Any credible accusation against a priest or any other church worker means that person is dismissed, it said.
“The ongoing goal of the diocese is simple but clear: to do everything humanly possible to address past acts of sexual abuse and to protect children and young people in the future,” the release said.
Clohessy called the reforms too weak and said they did not hold high church officials accountable for past acts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@ Go to KansasCity.com for video of attorneys for two men whose lawsuits claim they were sexually abused.
Posted on Thu, Dec. 20, 2007
Two men allege molestation in lawsuit against former priest, Catholic diocese
By JOE LAMBE
The Kansas City Star
Two men sued a former Roman Catholic priest and the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph on Thursday for alleged molestation when the men were altar boys.
John Doe B.B. of Kansas, 52, contends that the Rev. Thomas Reardon sexually abused him in 1968 in the St. Elizabeth rectory in Kansas City after his mother asked the priest to explain “the facts of life” to the 12-year-old boy.
John Doe M.D., 46, of Missouri and his wife contend that Reardon, now 65, abused him at St. Gabriel’s parish in Kansas City when Doe was in the fifth to eighth grades.
According to the lawsuits, Reardon kept the boys quiet by persuading them that the acts were a normal part of life or even beneficial.
Reardon, who has 14 other abuse-related lawsuits pending against him in Jackson County, has denied ever abusing children. He declined to comment Thursday. His attorney did not return phone calls.
The lawsuits allege that the diocese was at fault in part for negligent supervision, including covering up Reardon’s actions for years. The church also committed fraud and intentionally inflicted distress by portraying Reardon as a responsible priest, the suits contend.
The diocese has not seen the lawsuits, has not learned the plaintiffs’ names and is not in a position to comment, a spokeswoman said in a written response. Reardon has not worked as a priest since 1989, she said.
David Biersmith of Kansas City, president of Voice of the Faithful, a church reform group, read statements from the two plaintiffs at a news conference announcing the lawsuits. Describing himself as a former close friend of Reardon’s, he said he attended seminary with him many years ago. Reardon, he said, was a charming man who could easily manipulate children.
Doe M.D. wrote that he felt he had been violated, lost his innocence and more: “I lost my faith, I lost respect for myself as well as others,” Biersmith read. “I feel I have lost a part of my life.”
According to Doe M.D.’s lawsuit:
Reardon first abused him in the St. Gabriel’s rectory after calling him out of grief counseling class when the boy was in the fifth grade. Reardon kept calling him out of classes for more abuse in the rectory and sometimes gave him money and alcohol. He also molested him in the sacristy before the start of Mass.
Doe B.B.’s written statement said that he did not tell anyone of his abuse at age 12 because he was too scared. He now understands that to end such sexual abuse in the church, people must come forward.
David Clohessy, director of the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests, urged other abuse victims to do the same. He said one of these plaintiffs finally came forward after a recent media account about Reardon and another priest.
Last month, The Kansas City Star revealed widespread allegations of abuse against Reardon and Monsignor Thomas O’Brien, whom many adolescent boys called the “party priests.”
Other lawsuits against both men detail accusations of rape, sodomy, oral sex and masturbatory acts. The lawsuits allege a pattern of molestation that began in the early 1960s with O’Brien and continued with Reardon through the 1980s.
The lawsuits contend that the priests used their positions of power to prey on youngsters, plying them with alcohol, groping them and sometimes offering money for sex.
Since 2004, a dozen men have sued O’Brien, 81, who denies all the allegations. Those and the 16 lawsuits against Reardon make up the bulk of at least 32 pending Jackson County lawsuits against priests or former priests.
As of last month, priest sex abuse cases nationwide had cost the Roman Catholic Church at least $2.3 billion since 1950.
Thursday, Clohessy said that the church needed to take stronger action against the priests’ co-workers and supervisors — “the people who drove the getaway car.”
A diocese statement issued Thursday says that every suspicion or report of abuse is now taken seriously and reported to the state. Any credible accusation against a priest or any other church worker means that person is dismissed, it said.
“The ongoing goal of the diocese is simple but clear: to do everything humanly possible to address past acts of sexual abuse and to protect children and young people in the future,” the release said.
Clohessy called the reforms too weak and said they did not hold high church officials accountable for past acts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@ Go to KansasCity.com for video of attorneys for two men whose lawsuits claim they were sexually abused.
Votf Response to the National Review Board Report
VOTF Response to National Review Board Report
December 13, 2007 - Voice of the Faithful (VOTF) supports the work of the National Review Board (NRB) as detailed in the report they presented Dec. 13 to the "Catholic Faithful of the United States”. Their report highlights that the clergy abuse crisis is far from over and that much still needs to be accomplished. We are anxious to see the results of the recently initiated on-site audits being conducted by the Gavin Group. These independent audits will be a better indicator of exactly what progress is being made by the bishops. In addition we need to audit the safe environment program at the parish level to be truly effective.
“The report correctly points out the need for: a greater understanding of victimization and its consequences, due process for priests, and an appropriate role for the Church in the supervision of offenders,” said Mary Pat Fox, VOTF President. “We await the issuance of the Causes and Context Study by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice and we urge the Bishops to cooperate fully with the researchers. We ask the NRB to push for a quicker resolution to all allegations of abuse. At present it takes upwards of four years for the Church to make a decision as to the truth of an accusation. We must speed up this process so that all victims and priests may receive swift justice,” said Fox.
December 13, 2007 - Voice of the Faithful (VOTF) supports the work of the National Review Board (NRB) as detailed in the report they presented Dec. 13 to the "Catholic Faithful of the United States”. Their report highlights that the clergy abuse crisis is far from over and that much still needs to be accomplished. We are anxious to see the results of the recently initiated on-site audits being conducted by the Gavin Group. These independent audits will be a better indicator of exactly what progress is being made by the bishops. In addition we need to audit the safe environment program at the parish level to be truly effective.
“The report correctly points out the need for: a greater understanding of victimization and its consequences, due process for priests, and an appropriate role for the Church in the supervision of offenders,” said Mary Pat Fox, VOTF President. “We await the issuance of the Causes and Context Study by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice and we urge the Bishops to cooperate fully with the researchers. We ask the NRB to push for a quicker resolution to all allegations of abuse. At present it takes upwards of four years for the Church to make a decision as to the truth of an accusation. We must speed up this process so that all victims and priests may receive swift justice,” said Fox.
Monday, December 17, 2007
National Review Board issues Five-year Report on Church Handling of clergy sex abuse of Minors. Frank Douglas comments.
From PRNewswire-USNewswire, 12.13.2007.
My comments are in red. [brackets]
* * *
National Review Board Issues Five-Year Report on Church Handling of Clergy Sex Abuse of Minors
WASHINGTON, Dec. 13 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The National Review
Board (NRB), a lay body appointed by the president of the United States
Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) to review the church’s handling of
the sexual abuse of minors by clerics, cited accomplishments and challenges
in a five-year report made public December 13.
Judge Michael R. Merz, NRB chair, commended church efforts to date, but
said the problem is complex.
[You can be sure that if Judge Merz didn’t commend the bishops’ effort to date, the bishops would replace him in a New York minute.]
“Church efforts for prevention, healing, and vigilance will be demanded
for the rest of our days,” Judge Merz said. “The price of this crime is
steep both in the pain felt by victims and the shadow cast on the
reputation of innocent Catholic priests. Most priests never have abused a
child or even someone’s trust in them, but they bear shame by association.
It’s not right, but that’s the fact.”
“Bishops have taken a strong approach to dealing with this crisis,”
Judge Merz said. “Sexual abuse of children is not a problem in the church
alone, but bishops as moral leaders must stand in the forefront of
protecting children. The NRB is proud to collaborate with the bishops in
the protection of children and young people.”
[The judge repeats the bishops’ sickening argument that “everybody does it.”
It is patently untrue that the bishops have taken a strong approach. The vast majority of them have not published the names of perpetrators and those credibly accused on diocesan websites. The vast majority have not visited parishes where abuse has taken place. The bishops have made no attempt to bring religious orders (Jesuits, Dominicans, Salesians, etc.) under the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, inadequate though it may be.]
The report is addressed to the U.S. Catholic faithful and is “a record
of accomplishments, unfinished work, and challenges that lie ahead,” it
said. The report praised the USCCB audit process by which “dioceses and
eparchies have been audited to assure the implementation and maintenance of
the standards established” in the Charter for the Protection of Children
and Young People, which the bishops created in 2002.
“Those audits provide substantial evidence of the bishops’ efforts to
protect children and respond to the abuses of the past and present. As of
2006, 98 percent of the dioceses and eparchies are participating in the
audits. Those audited are in full compliance with the standards” set for
the audits, the report said.
[The audits are a sham. They are managed and controlled by the bishops. If the bishops were really serious about protecting children, they would allow audits by an independent agency. The audits are a tool of the bishops to continue the cover up.]
The report also noted that “over six million children have participated
in educational programs and over 1.6 million background investigations have
taken place” as part of diocesan safe environment programs.
[The focus should not be on children, but on priests, bishops, and seminarians. Why have we heard nothing from the NRB about sexually active priests and bishops? Why have we heard nothing about what is being done in seminaries, particularly in the “purple palaces” where many have reported overt and extensive sexual activity taking place among seminarians with participation by some seminary faculty?]
However, the NRB urged an expansion of the audits to measure “the
quality of the work that the dioceses and parishes are doing.”
“The Board is encouraging the USCCB to do random audits of the parishes
and to work toward establishing best practices in educational programs,
victim care, background checks, and investigation of allegations,” the
report said. “During 2007, to provide a model to study for the future, a
number of dioceses volunteered to pilot audits at the parish level. The NRB
fully supports and encourages these parish audits.”
The report cited six challenges which the Board said “are not easily
resolved since they involve extremely complex issues.”
“One of the most significant issues is the need for a greater
understanding of victimization and its consequences. Discussions with
victims provide evidence of serious needs that still must be addressed in
order for the victims and their families to find the healing that they
need,” the report said.
“Another set of issues relates to the relationship of the Church to its
priests, the vast majority of whom are not involved in the scandal, but
many of whom feel alienated from both the bishops and the laity.” In
addition, “there is a particular need to provide appropriate protection and
restoration for those accused but later found innocent.”
[Is it really true that the vast majority of them were not involved in the scandal? How many priests knew of brother priests who spent inordinate time with young boys? How many knew of brother priests who habitually brought young boys to their rooms in the rectory?]
The board called for “greater speed in the process of determining
credibility of allegations and consequent responses, as well as
determination of an appropriate role for the Church in the supervision of
offenders.”
[Offenders are criminals. Why is there no mention here of the proper and appropriate involvement of the police and other appropriate law enforcement agencies?]
It also noted that parishes “also become victims of sexual abuse.
Members of parishes experience both a sense of betrayal or outrage over
accusations that lead to the removal of a pastor or associate. Often
parishioners do not know how to respond to victims and their families and
agonize over the lengthy process of determining appropriate responses. This
is an area that needs much more attention.”
[The outrage and sense of betrayal should be over the criminal acts of the perpetrators, not removal of the perpetrator from a parish.]
The NRB also cited the need to keep church members better informed on
the positive responses the Bishops have made and more active observers of
the programs and processes in their parishes and dioceses.
“Such communication is vitally important since the work of the National
Review Board is strengthened by vigilant parents and parishioners who
investigate the presence and quality of the programs in their parishes and
dioceses,” the report said. “The obligation to provide safe environments
that prevent damage to children, young people, families, parishes,
dioceses, and the Church rests with all Catholics.”
[The obligation to provide safe environments will rest with all Catholics when all Catholics have access to information about allegations of sexual abuse against priests, bishops, and seminarians. Currently only bishops have such access. Thus in the secrecy-obsessed culture of the hierarchy the obligation rests only with the bishops. Experience has shown that the bishops, their counterparts in the religious orders (the religious superiors; the provincials) AND THE POPE CANNOT BE TRUSTED.]
The full report can be found on the Web at
http://www.usccb.org/nrb/nrbreport2007.pdf.
SOURCE U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops
My comments are in red. [brackets]
* * *
National Review Board Issues Five-Year Report on Church Handling of Clergy Sex Abuse of Minors
WASHINGTON, Dec. 13 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The National Review
Board (NRB), a lay body appointed by the president of the United States
Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) to review the church’s handling of
the sexual abuse of minors by clerics, cited accomplishments and challenges
in a five-year report made public December 13.
Judge Michael R. Merz, NRB chair, commended church efforts to date, but
said the problem is complex.
[You can be sure that if Judge Merz didn’t commend the bishops’ effort to date, the bishops would replace him in a New York minute.]
“Church efforts for prevention, healing, and vigilance will be demanded
for the rest of our days,” Judge Merz said. “The price of this crime is
steep both in the pain felt by victims and the shadow cast on the
reputation of innocent Catholic priests. Most priests never have abused a
child or even someone’s trust in them, but they bear shame by association.
It’s not right, but that’s the fact.”
“Bishops have taken a strong approach to dealing with this crisis,”
Judge Merz said. “Sexual abuse of children is not a problem in the church
alone, but bishops as moral leaders must stand in the forefront of
protecting children. The NRB is proud to collaborate with the bishops in
the protection of children and young people.”
[The judge repeats the bishops’ sickening argument that “everybody does it.”
It is patently untrue that the bishops have taken a strong approach. The vast majority of them have not published the names of perpetrators and those credibly accused on diocesan websites. The vast majority have not visited parishes where abuse has taken place. The bishops have made no attempt to bring religious orders (Jesuits, Dominicans, Salesians, etc.) under the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, inadequate though it may be.]
The report is addressed to the U.S. Catholic faithful and is “a record
of accomplishments, unfinished work, and challenges that lie ahead,” it
said. The report praised the USCCB audit process by which “dioceses and
eparchies have been audited to assure the implementation and maintenance of
the standards established” in the Charter for the Protection of Children
and Young People, which the bishops created in 2002.
“Those audits provide substantial evidence of the bishops’ efforts to
protect children and respond to the abuses of the past and present. As of
2006, 98 percent of the dioceses and eparchies are participating in the
audits. Those audited are in full compliance with the standards” set for
the audits, the report said.
[The audits are a sham. They are managed and controlled by the bishops. If the bishops were really serious about protecting children, they would allow audits by an independent agency. The audits are a tool of the bishops to continue the cover up.]
The report also noted that “over six million children have participated
in educational programs and over 1.6 million background investigations have
taken place” as part of diocesan safe environment programs.
[The focus should not be on children, but on priests, bishops, and seminarians. Why have we heard nothing from the NRB about sexually active priests and bishops? Why have we heard nothing about what is being done in seminaries, particularly in the “purple palaces” where many have reported overt and extensive sexual activity taking place among seminarians with participation by some seminary faculty?]
However, the NRB urged an expansion of the audits to measure “the
quality of the work that the dioceses and parishes are doing.”
“The Board is encouraging the USCCB to do random audits of the parishes
and to work toward establishing best practices in educational programs,
victim care, background checks, and investigation of allegations,” the
report said. “During 2007, to provide a model to study for the future, a
number of dioceses volunteered to pilot audits at the parish level. The NRB
fully supports and encourages these parish audits.”
The report cited six challenges which the Board said “are not easily
resolved since they involve extremely complex issues.”
“One of the most significant issues is the need for a greater
understanding of victimization and its consequences. Discussions with
victims provide evidence of serious needs that still must be addressed in
order for the victims and their families to find the healing that they
need,” the report said.
“Another set of issues relates to the relationship of the Church to its
priests, the vast majority of whom are not involved in the scandal, but
many of whom feel alienated from both the bishops and the laity.” In
addition, “there is a particular need to provide appropriate protection and
restoration for those accused but later found innocent.”
[Is it really true that the vast majority of them were not involved in the scandal? How many priests knew of brother priests who spent inordinate time with young boys? How many knew of brother priests who habitually brought young boys to their rooms in the rectory?]
The board called for “greater speed in the process of determining
credibility of allegations and consequent responses, as well as
determination of an appropriate role for the Church in the supervision of
offenders.”
[Offenders are criminals. Why is there no mention here of the proper and appropriate involvement of the police and other appropriate law enforcement agencies?]
It also noted that parishes “also become victims of sexual abuse.
Members of parishes experience both a sense of betrayal or outrage over
accusations that lead to the removal of a pastor or associate. Often
parishioners do not know how to respond to victims and their families and
agonize over the lengthy process of determining appropriate responses. This
is an area that needs much more attention.”
[The outrage and sense of betrayal should be over the criminal acts of the perpetrators, not removal of the perpetrator from a parish.]
The NRB also cited the need to keep church members better informed on
the positive responses the Bishops have made and more active observers of
the programs and processes in their parishes and dioceses.
“Such communication is vitally important since the work of the National
Review Board is strengthened by vigilant parents and parishioners who
investigate the presence and quality of the programs in their parishes and
dioceses,” the report said. “The obligation to provide safe environments
that prevent damage to children, young people, families, parishes,
dioceses, and the Church rests with all Catholics.”
[The obligation to provide safe environments will rest with all Catholics when all Catholics have access to information about allegations of sexual abuse against priests, bishops, and seminarians. Currently only bishops have such access. Thus in the secrecy-obsessed culture of the hierarchy the obligation rests only with the bishops. Experience has shown that the bishops, their counterparts in the religious orders (the religious superiors; the provincials) AND THE POPE CANNOT BE TRUSTED.]
The full report can be found on the Web at
http://www.usccb.org/nrb/nrbreport2007.pdf.
SOURCE U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Chaplains, sexual abuse and what the military knows.
Ensign P. recalls struggling during his third year at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md. His mother was dying of an illness back home, and his grades dropped so low in 2004 he was put on academic probation. Raised a Roman Catholic, the 20-year-old cadet started counseling with a military chaplain, Navy Lt. Cmdr. John Thomas Mathew Lee. When Lee invited him to dinner off campus, Ensign P. thought it was an honor—officers don't usually socialize with Academy students. In fact, it was an ambush. Lee took the cadet to his apartment after dinner, poured him rounds of beer and Scotch, then began undoing the man's pants. Testifying softly in a military court earlier this month, Ensign P. said the chaplain engaged him in oral sex. Though he asked Lee to stop, for a few dreadful moments he felt too stunned to move: "This is a guy who knows all my darkest secrets."
More than 2,700 military chaplains minister to U.S. servicemen and cadets on bases around the world. Like that between psychologists and their patients, the dynamic between chaplains and the men and women they counsel tends to be marked by an imbalance of power. Chaplains often outrank the people who go to them for help and exert a spiritual authority that, as in Lee's case, can be exploited. During 11 years in the military, Lee sexually abused at least three men, according to his own admission (all three were identified in court only by their ranks and an initial). A judge at Marine Base Quantico in Virginia this month sentenced him to 12 years in prison and discharge without pay or benefits (under a plea agreement, he will serve only two years). In a disturbing twist, Lee is HIV-positive and admits to withholding that information even from men with whom he had consensual sex.
But while the vast majority of chaplains minister dutifully, Lee isn't the only sinner. According to court filings and an archive recently published by the group Bishop Accountability, up to 60 military chaplains have been convicted or at least are strongly suspected of committing sexual abuse over the past four decades, sometimes against the kids of military personnel. Their cases are a side act to the broader scandal of sex-abusing priests in the Catholic Church. But there may be a correlation. In a number of the cases reviewed by NEWSWEEK involving Catholic chaplains, complaints of sexual abuse were made to their churches well before they joined the military, but were never brought to the military's attention. "I've seen many instances where men were encouraged or allowed to go into the military and their own bishop did not disclose that they had something suspicious in their past," says Thomas Doyle, a Dominican priest and former Air Force chaplain.
Doyle might be the country's most knowledgeable source on the priest sex scandals. In the mid-1980s, he coauthored an internal report for the church on its molestation problem, and has since served as an expert witness in dozens of cases, including that of Michael Miglini of Dallas. Miglini describes being raped when he was just 14 by a military chaplain who had previously served as the pastor in his church and remained friends with the family. After getting therapy in college, Miglini brought a civil suit that was ultimately settled against the Dallas Diocese, the Military Vicariate and the chaplain. In the process, his lawyer uncovered complaints made against the chaplain by other church members that the military says it never saw.
For some victims, it can take years to realize they were exploited. Susan Loomans was a troubled cadet at the Air Force Academy in Colorado when she sought help from a Catholic chaplain. In their first session in 1985, he had her sit on his lap. (Loomans and Miglini are among only a few victims who talk publicly about their ordeals; most aren't named in court filings.) Within weeks, she says, he'd compelled her to engage in a sexual relationship that lasted nearly two years. Most of the time, Loomans thought what they were having was an illicit relationship. It wasn't until she returned to the Academy as faculty, and saw how vulnerable first-year cadets are, that she realized he'd manipulated the power differential.
So far, there's no suggestion that Lee, 42, engaged in sexual abuse before going on active duty in 1996. Susan Gibbs, a spokeswoman for the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C., where he served as an associate pastor, says no church would knowingly refer sexual abusers to the military. "Under the policies of virtually every diocese, they would have to attest that someone is in good standing and can serve as a priest," Gibbs tells NEWSWEEK. In court, Lee said little about his past but explained why one of his victims, Cpl. M., succumbed to his advances. "He felt intimidated by my rank and position," the chaplain said. But Cpl. M. also felt mad. Within weeks, he reported the incident to officers at Quantico, who carted Lee to jail.
© 2007 Newsweek, Inc.
More than 2,700 military chaplains minister to U.S. servicemen and cadets on bases around the world. Like that between psychologists and their patients, the dynamic between chaplains and the men and women they counsel tends to be marked by an imbalance of power. Chaplains often outrank the people who go to them for help and exert a spiritual authority that, as in Lee's case, can be exploited. During 11 years in the military, Lee sexually abused at least three men, according to his own admission (all three were identified in court only by their ranks and an initial). A judge at Marine Base Quantico in Virginia this month sentenced him to 12 years in prison and discharge without pay or benefits (under a plea agreement, he will serve only two years). In a disturbing twist, Lee is HIV-positive and admits to withholding that information even from men with whom he had consensual sex.
But while the vast majority of chaplains minister dutifully, Lee isn't the only sinner. According to court filings and an archive recently published by the group Bishop Accountability, up to 60 military chaplains have been convicted or at least are strongly suspected of committing sexual abuse over the past four decades, sometimes against the kids of military personnel. Their cases are a side act to the broader scandal of sex-abusing priests in the Catholic Church. But there may be a correlation. In a number of the cases reviewed by NEWSWEEK involving Catholic chaplains, complaints of sexual abuse were made to their churches well before they joined the military, but were never brought to the military's attention. "I've seen many instances where men were encouraged or allowed to go into the military and their own bishop did not disclose that they had something suspicious in their past," says Thomas Doyle, a Dominican priest and former Air Force chaplain.
Doyle might be the country's most knowledgeable source on the priest sex scandals. In the mid-1980s, he coauthored an internal report for the church on its molestation problem, and has since served as an expert witness in dozens of cases, including that of Michael Miglini of Dallas. Miglini describes being raped when he was just 14 by a military chaplain who had previously served as the pastor in his church and remained friends with the family. After getting therapy in college, Miglini brought a civil suit that was ultimately settled against the Dallas Diocese, the Military Vicariate and the chaplain. In the process, his lawyer uncovered complaints made against the chaplain by other church members that the military says it never saw.
For some victims, it can take years to realize they were exploited. Susan Loomans was a troubled cadet at the Air Force Academy in Colorado when she sought help from a Catholic chaplain. In their first session in 1985, he had her sit on his lap. (Loomans and Miglini are among only a few victims who talk publicly about their ordeals; most aren't named in court filings.) Within weeks, she says, he'd compelled her to engage in a sexual relationship that lasted nearly two years. Most of the time, Loomans thought what they were having was an illicit relationship. It wasn't until she returned to the Academy as faculty, and saw how vulnerable first-year cadets are, that she realized he'd manipulated the power differential.
So far, there's no suggestion that Lee, 42, engaged in sexual abuse before going on active duty in 1996. Susan Gibbs, a spokeswoman for the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C., where he served as an associate pastor, says no church would knowingly refer sexual abusers to the military. "Under the policies of virtually every diocese, they would have to attest that someone is in good standing and can serve as a priest," Gibbs tells NEWSWEEK. In court, Lee said little about his past but explained why one of his victims, Cpl. M., succumbed to his advances. "He felt intimidated by my rank and position," the chaplain said. But Cpl. M. also felt mad. Within weeks, he reported the incident to officers at Quantico, who carted Lee to jail.
© 2007 Newsweek, Inc.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Abuse in Indianopolis Diocese recalled in deposition.
Ex-priest admits abusing boys
In deposition, Harry Monroe describes using drugs, playing sex games while serving in Indianapolis Archdiocese
By Robert King
robert.king@indystar.com
December 14, 2007
A former Catholic priest has admitted to lewd behavior or sex acts with at least five boys during his tenure with the Archdiocese of Indianapolis, according to records filed this week in a case that goes to court Monday.
Harry Monroe, the subject of 13 sexual abuse lawsuits that name him and the archdiocese as co-defendants, said he no longer contests the allegations against him but can't remember specifics about all the incidents, alleged to have taken place from 1974 to 1984.
Yet the cases may never move to trial.
In a hearing scheduled for Monday in Marion Superior Court, Judge David A. Shaheed will consider the archdiocese's request to dismiss one of the first lawsuits filed. The church argues that, like the statutory limit for criminal charges in the cases, the statute of limitations for lawsuits has expired.
Pat Noaker, the attorney representing all 13 plaintiffs, said the statute shouldn't apply in the case to be heard Monday because his client learned only recently that the church knew of Monroe's predatory habits early on.
The attorney for the archdiocese, Jay Mercer, could not be reached Thursday. Archdiocesan spokesman Greg Otolski said he could not comment on the litigation and had not seen Monroe's pretrial deposition.
In that deposition, Monroe gave his first formal response to the allegations. He described his decade as a priest as a time filled with drugs, alcohol, pornography and sex games with adolescent boys at parishes in Indianapolis, Terre Haute and Tell City.
According to the deposition, Monroe said church officials knew he was taking boys into his private parish living quarters and on overnight camping trips. He also said church officials heard a recording of him having a lewd conversation with a boy during one of his first parish assignments in Indianapolis.
The Indianapolis Star reported on the case last year and included interviews with several of the men who said Monroe abused them. Many of their accounts are corroborated by Monroe's deposition. Some of the victims and their families told The Star they complained to the archdiocese about Monroe as early as 1981.
A letter filed with Monroe's deposition seemed to show that the archdiocese kept giving Monroe parish assignments with access to children after it recognized his conduct was a problem.
The 1982 letter from then-Indianapolis Archbishop Edward T. O'Meara assigned Monroe to his final priestly appointment, in Tell City. The address for Monroe listed on the letter is at the House of Affirmation, a California center that attempted to rehabilitate sexually abusive priests.
Monroe said that to his knowledge, no one in the archdiocese ever called police to report his abuse.
Each time Monroe was transferred, Noaker said, the archdiocese failed to warn his new parish of his abusive nature.
Nothing to lose
In June, Monroe, who spent seven hours under oath answering questions about his past, said he was broke, in poor health and living with his domestic partner in Nashville, Tenn. He said he can no longer afford an attorney. Now 59, Monroe said there was much in his life that he regrets, particularly his behavior with young boys, and that he had "nothing else to lose" by answering the questions.
"I'm trying to be as honest with you as I know how to be," Monroe said during the deposition. "I just want to get this past me."
He blamed much of his behavior on his use of alcohol, marijuana and powerful drugs such as Valium that led him to behave erratically, including riding a motorcycle naked on Southern Indiana roads. He said it also factored into his actions with boys.
He said he remembered playing games with two boys from St. Catherine's in Indianapolis, including "running around naked, putting shaving cream on people's privates and stuff like that." He said they later blackmailed him, asking for money to keep the abuse quiet, an allegation the plaintiffs' attorney denies. The payoff Monroe said the two boys demanded: less than $50.
Monroe made the payment but said he remembers feeling "crushed" by this early rejection.
"I thought we were close," he said.
In another instance during the deposition, Monroe said he made an agreement to give a boy a hunting knife if the boy would allow Monroe to perform oral sex on him. He admits to having sexual contact with another boy at St. Catherine's that amounted to "probably just touching."
Frequently struggling with his memory, Monroe said he probably had engaged several other boys in sexual horseplay. But he issued the caveat that his heart problems and bypass surgery had left holes in his long-term memory. Handed photographs and copies of his parish assignment letters, some of the details came back to him.
At some moments during the deposition, Monroe expressed remorse. He said his mother died from knowing the grief her son had caused. Yet he also said his behavior was a byproduct of his substance abuse and his own immaturity, saying he never intended to hurt anyone.
"When I would drink and use drugs, I kind of reverted to adolescence myself," he said. "I never thought of myself as an adult, which is just tragic for them."
At one point in the questioning, Monroe said he recognized that, in a room with attorneys for the archdiocese and the plaintiffs, no one else was on his side. "Everyone here is covering someone else's rear end, and I'm covering mine," he said. "If I drop dead right now, it would probably benefit everyone."
Removed from priesthood
Archdiocesan officials say they dismissed Monroe from the priesthood in 1984 because of sexual misconduct allegations. Monroe testified in June that he was never laicized, or formally returned to being a layperson. Shortly after his dismissal, he sought work with the Catholic Diocese of Nashville but was turned down.
Monroe said he bounced around several jobs, including one as an overnight desk clerk on a psychiatric ward serving adolescent patients at St. Thomas Hospital in Nashville. Then, he said, he spent 15 years doing crisis intervention for adults at the Parthenon Pavilion, a Nashville psychiatric hospital.
Monroe could not be reached Thursday. The Nashville phone number he gave at his deposition was disconnected. A man who answered the number Monroe gave for his domestic partner said he did not know Monroe.
Asked during his deposition whether he ever recognized how destructive it might be for the adolescent boys to be having sexual contact with an adult male, Monroe said he did. But at the time, he said, he didn't recognize it as taking advantage of them.
"If I could take my life and turn it around," he said, "I would do it in a heartbeat."
In deposition, Harry Monroe describes using drugs, playing sex games while serving in Indianapolis Archdiocese
By Robert King
robert.king@indystar.com
December 14, 2007
A former Catholic priest has admitted to lewd behavior or sex acts with at least five boys during his tenure with the Archdiocese of Indianapolis, according to records filed this week in a case that goes to court Monday.
Harry Monroe, the subject of 13 sexual abuse lawsuits that name him and the archdiocese as co-defendants, said he no longer contests the allegations against him but can't remember specifics about all the incidents, alleged to have taken place from 1974 to 1984.
Yet the cases may never move to trial.
In a hearing scheduled for Monday in Marion Superior Court, Judge David A. Shaheed will consider the archdiocese's request to dismiss one of the first lawsuits filed. The church argues that, like the statutory limit for criminal charges in the cases, the statute of limitations for lawsuits has expired.
Pat Noaker, the attorney representing all 13 plaintiffs, said the statute shouldn't apply in the case to be heard Monday because his client learned only recently that the church knew of Monroe's predatory habits early on.
The attorney for the archdiocese, Jay Mercer, could not be reached Thursday. Archdiocesan spokesman Greg Otolski said he could not comment on the litigation and had not seen Monroe's pretrial deposition.
In that deposition, Monroe gave his first formal response to the allegations. He described his decade as a priest as a time filled with drugs, alcohol, pornography and sex games with adolescent boys at parishes in Indianapolis, Terre Haute and Tell City.
According to the deposition, Monroe said church officials knew he was taking boys into his private parish living quarters and on overnight camping trips. He also said church officials heard a recording of him having a lewd conversation with a boy during one of his first parish assignments in Indianapolis.
The Indianapolis Star reported on the case last year and included interviews with several of the men who said Monroe abused them. Many of their accounts are corroborated by Monroe's deposition. Some of the victims and their families told The Star they complained to the archdiocese about Monroe as early as 1981.
A letter filed with Monroe's deposition seemed to show that the archdiocese kept giving Monroe parish assignments with access to children after it recognized his conduct was a problem.
The 1982 letter from then-Indianapolis Archbishop Edward T. O'Meara assigned Monroe to his final priestly appointment, in Tell City. The address for Monroe listed on the letter is at the House of Affirmation, a California center that attempted to rehabilitate sexually abusive priests.
Monroe said that to his knowledge, no one in the archdiocese ever called police to report his abuse.
Each time Monroe was transferred, Noaker said, the archdiocese failed to warn his new parish of his abusive nature.
Nothing to lose
In June, Monroe, who spent seven hours under oath answering questions about his past, said he was broke, in poor health and living with his domestic partner in Nashville, Tenn. He said he can no longer afford an attorney. Now 59, Monroe said there was much in his life that he regrets, particularly his behavior with young boys, and that he had "nothing else to lose" by answering the questions.
"I'm trying to be as honest with you as I know how to be," Monroe said during the deposition. "I just want to get this past me."
He blamed much of his behavior on his use of alcohol, marijuana and powerful drugs such as Valium that led him to behave erratically, including riding a motorcycle naked on Southern Indiana roads. He said it also factored into his actions with boys.
He said he remembered playing games with two boys from St. Catherine's in Indianapolis, including "running around naked, putting shaving cream on people's privates and stuff like that." He said they later blackmailed him, asking for money to keep the abuse quiet, an allegation the plaintiffs' attorney denies. The payoff Monroe said the two boys demanded: less than $50.
Monroe made the payment but said he remembers feeling "crushed" by this early rejection.
"I thought we were close," he said.
In another instance during the deposition, Monroe said he made an agreement to give a boy a hunting knife if the boy would allow Monroe to perform oral sex on him. He admits to having sexual contact with another boy at St. Catherine's that amounted to "probably just touching."
Frequently struggling with his memory, Monroe said he probably had engaged several other boys in sexual horseplay. But he issued the caveat that his heart problems and bypass surgery had left holes in his long-term memory. Handed photographs and copies of his parish assignment letters, some of the details came back to him.
At some moments during the deposition, Monroe expressed remorse. He said his mother died from knowing the grief her son had caused. Yet he also said his behavior was a byproduct of his substance abuse and his own immaturity, saying he never intended to hurt anyone.
"When I would drink and use drugs, I kind of reverted to adolescence myself," he said. "I never thought of myself as an adult, which is just tragic for them."
At one point in the questioning, Monroe said he recognized that, in a room with attorneys for the archdiocese and the plaintiffs, no one else was on his side. "Everyone here is covering someone else's rear end, and I'm covering mine," he said. "If I drop dead right now, it would probably benefit everyone."
Removed from priesthood
Archdiocesan officials say they dismissed Monroe from the priesthood in 1984 because of sexual misconduct allegations. Monroe testified in June that he was never laicized, or formally returned to being a layperson. Shortly after his dismissal, he sought work with the Catholic Diocese of Nashville but was turned down.
Monroe said he bounced around several jobs, including one as an overnight desk clerk on a psychiatric ward serving adolescent patients at St. Thomas Hospital in Nashville. Then, he said, he spent 15 years doing crisis intervention for adults at the Parthenon Pavilion, a Nashville psychiatric hospital.
Monroe could not be reached Thursday. The Nashville phone number he gave at his deposition was disconnected. A man who answered the number Monroe gave for his domestic partner said he did not know Monroe.
Asked during his deposition whether he ever recognized how destructive it might be for the adolescent boys to be having sexual contact with an adult male, Monroe said he did. But at the time, he said, he didn't recognize it as taking advantage of them.
"If I could take my life and turn it around," he said, "I would do it in a heartbeat."
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Attention should also be focused on Women abused as youths by priests.
Women abused as youths by priests deserve equity
By PAT KINNEY, Courier Business Editor
WATERLOO --- A victim of child sex abuse by clergy in the Roman Catholic Church says women in her position deserve as much attention as their male counterparts.
Rosalyn Zieser believes society tends to focus on male victims of clergy sex abuse --- possibly because such reports have been more prevalent. She also thinks some may consider the thought of male priests abusing boys more aberrant than priests abusing girls.
Zieser was born in Iowa but lives in Unity, Wis. She said she is glad she went through the claim and settlement process in her own case.
"I gained through it. I wouldn't have otherwise. It helped me think things through. I remembered a lot more things."
Zieser, an author in her early 70s with six grown children, has lived in Wisconsin since 1976. She said she was abused at age 10 by the Rev. Patrick McElliott in the late 1940s when he was at St. Patrick Catholic Church in Monti in Buchanan County.
After leaving that congregation, McElliott served as pastor of St. John's Catholic Church in Waterloo from 1954 to 1963. More recently, he has been the subject of suits alleging abuse during his tenure there, many of which were settled over the past two years. McElliott died in Waterloo in 1987.
"I know I did all I could to fix this for myself," Zieser said following her settlement last spring.
"I hope it'll give some courage to others. It opened up all the old wounds. But now, they'll heal better."
Having gone through therapy provided by the Archdiocese of Dubuque as part of her settlement, and looking back, Zieser believes women may be able to take additional steps to make the process less difficult.
"I would not go through the litigation process again without having been in therapy already and remaining in therapy during the process," she said.
Some women also may feel more comfortable having a female therapist, attorney or other professional help.
"Maybe not all women would feel they need that," Zieser said.
Attorneys
Two Waterloo attorneys who worked for many people making claims within the Dubuque archdiocese said they helped draw attention to the suffering of female as well as male abuse victims.
Tom Staack and Chad Swanson represented a comparatively high proportion of female clients in two sizable settlements. By comparison, in other regions of the country an overwhelming portion of cases reportedly involved male victims.
"I think we did a lot to change the perception, in this area, that the problem was just one that dealt with boys. From that perspective, I thought we were doing a good thing," Staack said.
Swanson said 12 of the 29 victims involved in the two settlements were women.
"In our first settlement we had eight females and in the second group we had four," he said.
Swanson said he and Staack are pursuing additional abuse claims with male and female clients.
"We do recognize the individual needs that can be specific to a person's sex," Swanson said.
The portion of abuse cases reported by women in the Dubuque archdiocese is significantly higher that even an adjoining diocese.
Attorney Craig Levien in the Quad Cities has represented victims in a number of abuse cases in the Davenport diocese and was involved in a major settlement recently. He said the overwhelming majority of the nearly 100 individuals he worked with are men.
In the area of clergy sex abuse in general, Levien said, the victimization of women has been "even more underreported" than abuse of men.
"And it's been significantly underreported by men," he said.
Other views
Others say women deserve attention.
"Every other female victim I've spoken to indicated there is a definite difference in the way female victims are treated in comparison to male victims," said Heather Smith of Waterloo, co-founder of the Northeast Iowa chapter of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, or SNAP.
Her conversations have been with victims involved in other settlements in other states. Her own abuse occurred in another state.
"I think society as a whole, whether it's clergy abuse, whether it's by incest, or whether it's by rape, it's perceived as more horrific if it's a male victim," Smith said.
Despite that perception on a wider scale, officials within the Archdiocese of Dubuque say they have not heard other clergy sex abuse survivors here complain of disparate treatment based on gender. Those officials also note Dubuque Archbishop Jerome Hanus has had a policy of appointing women to leadership positions on the issue. The archdiocese has male and female victim assistance coordinators; the two directors of archdiocesan Office for the Protection of Children have been women; and six of the 12 members of the Archdiocesan Review Board on clergy child sex abuse are women, including its chair.
Archdiocesan officials point out victims pursuing claims always have the option of choosing their own attorney, male or female. They also noted psychologists used for testing and evaluating victims as part of the claims process are cleared with victims' attorneys.
Three nationally recognized figures on clergy sex abuse can't pinpoint whether clergy sex abuse victims of one gender are systematically treated better than the other. But they acknowledge differences exist in the circumstances and handling of cases with male and female victims.
"I'm not sure about disparate treatment in the judicial system, but there's certainly the feeling that female clergy sex abuse victims tend to get considerably less attention than males," said Dave Clohessy, national director of SNAP.
"I think male-on-male sex crimes are viewed as inherently more salacious, titillating, outrageous. I'm not saying they are. I'm saying they're viewed that way."
Tahira Khan Merritt, an attorney in Dallas, says the majority of cases involve male victims. She has represented a number of clergy sex abuse victims and also served as a special prosecutor in a major criminal proceeding against a priest.
"I would say 90 percent of them are male victims," she said, though she doesn't think they are handled particularly differently.
Merritt, though, notes "jury bias in every case," which may reflect society as a whole.
For example, Merritt said she is representing one of several teenage victims impregnated by a priest and must overcome biases in that case.
"It's kind of like, did they seduce him? All those kinds of things you don't have to deal with if it's male-on-male," she said.
Meanwhile, Merritt said homosexual abuse may be considered more of a taboo and more terrible, especially in the view of different ethnic cultures.
Gender issues
Dave Lewcon, a clergy sex abuse survivor from Massachusetts, provides counseling and support as a victim advocate with Merritt's clients. He says support group meeting attendance indicates the number of actual abuse incidents may be more evenly divided by gender than actual suits indicate.
"I would say the overwhelming majority of those attending were women, definitely," Lewcon said.
Clohessy reports in his group a 50-50 split between male and female victims.
"The bishops claim it's 80 percent boys, but I think those figures are highly suspect," Clohessy said.
"I think, among some older Catholic parents, if Sally has been assaulted by a priest as a girl, dad puts his arm around her and says, 'I'm sorry,'" Clohessy said.
"If Johnny is sexually assaulted, there's a slightly higher chance that the dad puts his arm around Johnny and says, 'We're going to do something about this.'"
Some pastors receiving abuse reports may have acted similarly, Clohessy suggests. He also notes that, nationally, male victims have received some of the larger settlements.
The settlements are "all fundamentally far from perfect" and can be judged with a variety of standards, Clohessy said.
Smith, with the Survivors Network in Northeast Iowa, said how damages are determined in group settlements can raise difficult questions.
"How can they walk a mile in my shoes? How can they live with devastation, and the changes in personality, and the effect it has on my daily life?" she asks.
"No one else can know that. And how can they say what happens to me is less damaging than what happens to whomever?"
Similarly, Smith suggests a perception exists that women in general can be victims, but not abusers --- despite the fact many boys were abused by nuns.
"Whether the victim is male or female, the effects on males and females are just as devastating," Smith said.
Contact Pat Kinney at (319) 291-1484 or pat.kinney@wcfcourier.com.
By PAT KINNEY, Courier Business Editor
WATERLOO --- A victim of child sex abuse by clergy in the Roman Catholic Church says women in her position deserve as much attention as their male counterparts.
Rosalyn Zieser believes society tends to focus on male victims of clergy sex abuse --- possibly because such reports have been more prevalent. She also thinks some may consider the thought of male priests abusing boys more aberrant than priests abusing girls.
Zieser was born in Iowa but lives in Unity, Wis. She said she is glad she went through the claim and settlement process in her own case.
"I gained through it. I wouldn't have otherwise. It helped me think things through. I remembered a lot more things."
Zieser, an author in her early 70s with six grown children, has lived in Wisconsin since 1976. She said she was abused at age 10 by the Rev. Patrick McElliott in the late 1940s when he was at St. Patrick Catholic Church in Monti in Buchanan County.
After leaving that congregation, McElliott served as pastor of St. John's Catholic Church in Waterloo from 1954 to 1963. More recently, he has been the subject of suits alleging abuse during his tenure there, many of which were settled over the past two years. McElliott died in Waterloo in 1987.
"I know I did all I could to fix this for myself," Zieser said following her settlement last spring.
"I hope it'll give some courage to others. It opened up all the old wounds. But now, they'll heal better."
Having gone through therapy provided by the Archdiocese of Dubuque as part of her settlement, and looking back, Zieser believes women may be able to take additional steps to make the process less difficult.
"I would not go through the litigation process again without having been in therapy already and remaining in therapy during the process," she said.
Some women also may feel more comfortable having a female therapist, attorney or other professional help.
"Maybe not all women would feel they need that," Zieser said.
Attorneys
Two Waterloo attorneys who worked for many people making claims within the Dubuque archdiocese said they helped draw attention to the suffering of female as well as male abuse victims.
Tom Staack and Chad Swanson represented a comparatively high proportion of female clients in two sizable settlements. By comparison, in other regions of the country an overwhelming portion of cases reportedly involved male victims.
"I think we did a lot to change the perception, in this area, that the problem was just one that dealt with boys. From that perspective, I thought we were doing a good thing," Staack said.
Swanson said 12 of the 29 victims involved in the two settlements were women.
"In our first settlement we had eight females and in the second group we had four," he said.
Swanson said he and Staack are pursuing additional abuse claims with male and female clients.
"We do recognize the individual needs that can be specific to a person's sex," Swanson said.
The portion of abuse cases reported by women in the Dubuque archdiocese is significantly higher that even an adjoining diocese.
Attorney Craig Levien in the Quad Cities has represented victims in a number of abuse cases in the Davenport diocese and was involved in a major settlement recently. He said the overwhelming majority of the nearly 100 individuals he worked with are men.
In the area of clergy sex abuse in general, Levien said, the victimization of women has been "even more underreported" than abuse of men.
"And it's been significantly underreported by men," he said.
Other views
Others say women deserve attention.
"Every other female victim I've spoken to indicated there is a definite difference in the way female victims are treated in comparison to male victims," said Heather Smith of Waterloo, co-founder of the Northeast Iowa chapter of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, or SNAP.
Her conversations have been with victims involved in other settlements in other states. Her own abuse occurred in another state.
"I think society as a whole, whether it's clergy abuse, whether it's by incest, or whether it's by rape, it's perceived as more horrific if it's a male victim," Smith said.
Despite that perception on a wider scale, officials within the Archdiocese of Dubuque say they have not heard other clergy sex abuse survivors here complain of disparate treatment based on gender. Those officials also note Dubuque Archbishop Jerome Hanus has had a policy of appointing women to leadership positions on the issue. The archdiocese has male and female victim assistance coordinators; the two directors of archdiocesan Office for the Protection of Children have been women; and six of the 12 members of the Archdiocesan Review Board on clergy child sex abuse are women, including its chair.
Archdiocesan officials point out victims pursuing claims always have the option of choosing their own attorney, male or female. They also noted psychologists used for testing and evaluating victims as part of the claims process are cleared with victims' attorneys.
Three nationally recognized figures on clergy sex abuse can't pinpoint whether clergy sex abuse victims of one gender are systematically treated better than the other. But they acknowledge differences exist in the circumstances and handling of cases with male and female victims.
"I'm not sure about disparate treatment in the judicial system, but there's certainly the feeling that female clergy sex abuse victims tend to get considerably less attention than males," said Dave Clohessy, national director of SNAP.
"I think male-on-male sex crimes are viewed as inherently more salacious, titillating, outrageous. I'm not saying they are. I'm saying they're viewed that way."
Tahira Khan Merritt, an attorney in Dallas, says the majority of cases involve male victims. She has represented a number of clergy sex abuse victims and also served as a special prosecutor in a major criminal proceeding against a priest.
"I would say 90 percent of them are male victims," she said, though she doesn't think they are handled particularly differently.
Merritt, though, notes "jury bias in every case," which may reflect society as a whole.
For example, Merritt said she is representing one of several teenage victims impregnated by a priest and must overcome biases in that case.
"It's kind of like, did they seduce him? All those kinds of things you don't have to deal with if it's male-on-male," she said.
Meanwhile, Merritt said homosexual abuse may be considered more of a taboo and more terrible, especially in the view of different ethnic cultures.
Gender issues
Dave Lewcon, a clergy sex abuse survivor from Massachusetts, provides counseling and support as a victim advocate with Merritt's clients. He says support group meeting attendance indicates the number of actual abuse incidents may be more evenly divided by gender than actual suits indicate.
"I would say the overwhelming majority of those attending were women, definitely," Lewcon said.
Clohessy reports in his group a 50-50 split between male and female victims.
"The bishops claim it's 80 percent boys, but I think those figures are highly suspect," Clohessy said.
"I think, among some older Catholic parents, if Sally has been assaulted by a priest as a girl, dad puts his arm around her and says, 'I'm sorry,'" Clohessy said.
"If Johnny is sexually assaulted, there's a slightly higher chance that the dad puts his arm around Johnny and says, 'We're going to do something about this.'"
Some pastors receiving abuse reports may have acted similarly, Clohessy suggests. He also notes that, nationally, male victims have received some of the larger settlements.
The settlements are "all fundamentally far from perfect" and can be judged with a variety of standards, Clohessy said.
Smith, with the Survivors Network in Northeast Iowa, said how damages are determined in group settlements can raise difficult questions.
"How can they walk a mile in my shoes? How can they live with devastation, and the changes in personality, and the effect it has on my daily life?" she asks.
"No one else can know that. And how can they say what happens to me is less damaging than what happens to whomever?"
Similarly, Smith suggests a perception exists that women in general can be victims, but not abusers --- despite the fact many boys were abused by nuns.
"Whether the victim is male or female, the effects on males and females are just as devastating," Smith said.
Contact Pat Kinney at (319) 291-1484 or pat.kinney@wcfcourier.com.
Friday, December 7, 2007
From the Commonweal Blog on Cardinal Law
Posted by Barbara
on December 7th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
What is or ought to be the bitterest irony is that the Church was forced to conform its conduct to the law, and really, its own teaching by none other than the “dictatorship of relativism” that the Church so loves to sneer at. If Law had been the superintendent of the Boston school system he would be in jail — or more likely, and to what ought to be our greater sorrow, he would have acted differently.
And next in line for repulsiveness is the fact that the Church was granted a good faith exemption by the state from child abuse reporting laws in order to protect priests from being forced to break their vows of confessional secrecy, and that exemption was used to hide the sins of the confessors and protect them from the consequences of their crimes against some of their most vulnerable sheep.
And yet, the irony of this, and its impact on the credibility and authority of the Church is simply lost on many in the Church, who to this day reserve their greatest moral outrage for the Boston Globe.
on December 7th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
What is or ought to be the bitterest irony is that the Church was forced to conform its conduct to the law, and really, its own teaching by none other than the “dictatorship of relativism” that the Church so loves to sneer at. If Law had been the superintendent of the Boston school system he would be in jail — or more likely, and to what ought to be our greater sorrow, he would have acted differently.
And next in line for repulsiveness is the fact that the Church was granted a good faith exemption by the state from child abuse reporting laws in order to protect priests from being forced to break their vows of confessional secrecy, and that exemption was used to hide the sins of the confessors and protect them from the consequences of their crimes against some of their most vulnerable sheep.
And yet, the irony of this, and its impact on the credibility and authority of the Church is simply lost on many in the Church, who to this day reserve their greatest moral outrage for the Boston Globe.
The Heat is Still on in LA
LOS ANGELES (CA)
The District Weekly
THE MICHAEL BAKER TIMELINE: A FEW DETAILS
Rachel Powers
Thu. December 06
On Monday, when Will Swaim and I first wrote about admitted child molester
Michael Baker and his plea deal, we knew relatively little about his
personal
history: simply that he had done terrible things, that some of those
things had taken place in Long Beach, and that church officials had
allowed him to retain
everything that he had ever needed to abuse children (chiefly clerical
authority, access to minors, and a succession of positions throughout the
southland.)
There are still a lot of gaps, but we've learned a few things:
In December of 1986, 21 years ago, Baker met with Cardinal Mahoney and
confessed to his attraction to children, and to his abusive relationships
with two
different boys over a 7 year period. (Baker later described Mahoney as
having been "very solicitous and understanding" during the meeting.) After
a 5-month
stay at a residential treatment facility for priests with such
difficulties, and with orders to avoid minors, Baker went back to work.
Over the next 14 years he
served in at least 7 different parishes.
In 2000, after the church was forced to make a confidential $1.3 million
payout to the family of two boys who had been victimized by Baker at the
ages of 5
and 7, Mahoney gave up. Baker was "laicized"-defrocked-and sent on his
way.
Criminal charges were brought against Baker and dozens of other priests in
2002, then dismissed in 2003 due to the Supreme Court's reinstatement of
the
statute of limitations. We'll know more about those charges and how Baker
came to the attention of prosecutors soon.
There are reports that in 2003 Mahoney finally notified the police of
Baker's crimes. But at the same time the Archdiocese, directed by Mahoney,
began to
vigorously fight subpoenas of clerical personnel files.
Baker wasn't arrested again until January of 2006.
Just a few of the lingering questions: Did Mahoney actually report the
abuse, and if so, why did he wait for three years? What brought on the
crisis of
conscience? And doesn't the law (never mind personal morality) require
that church officials alert the authorities to violent, habitual
offenders? Does the
record support the church's claim that it was hoodwinked by Baker's
alleged insistence that he was on good behavior?
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Archdiocese of New York Coloring Book on Predators
Of Interest...
Thursday December 6, 2007
from the New York Post
December 4, 2007—A new coloring book being distributed by the Archdiocese of New York teaches children to protect themselves from adults – including, apparently, priests – who cannot stay within the lines.
Although priests are never explicitly the villains of “Being Friends, Being Safe, Being Catholic,” the female guardian angel who narrates the morality tale warns on one page that an altar boy should never remain alone in a room with any adult unless the door is open.
“If a child and an adult happen to be alone, someone should know where they are, and the door should be open or have a big window in it,” the smiling angel says in the panel as she floats above an altar boy donning his church smock, apparently in a church sacristy, as a man who seems to be a priest looks at him.
The coloring books have been distributed to 300 schools and 400 religious groups.
Edward Mechmann, director of the archdiocese’s Safe Environment program, which commissioned the books, said church officials were wary of targeting priests directly.
“We are in the business of dealing with kids, and we don’t want to rob them of their innocence,” he said. “We wanted to be fair to the priests so we weren’t stigmatizing them.”
But advocates of those who have been abused by priests complain that the church must more clearly point the finger at the most likely perpetrators preying on children.
“Too much is made of the creepy stranger, when predators are actually most often the adults we have taught kids are trustworthy,” said David Clohessy, national director of the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests (SNAP). “It does seem as though church officials are still reluctant to admit that, in fact, their own clergy can be – and are – predators.”
In the book, after a series of dire warnings about strangers bearing gifts and online predators wishing to meet children, priests are finally mentioned – but as part of a word search for a list of adults that can be trusted.
Even a comic book aimed at older kids avoids a clear indictment of a member of the clergy. In that story, a parent at the school preys on female students.
Advocates said they were not questioning the motives of the archdiocese, headed by Edward Cardinal Egan, but said that church officials were so careful, they missed the heart of the matter.
“No matter how you try to teach children about child sex abuse, if you don’t point out that it is the priest, the teacher, the Boy Scout leader, who have a position of real power and trust over children, you have missed the point,” said Michael Dowd, a lawyer who has represented hundreds of victims of child sexual abuse.
The coloring book was first reported in Newsweek magazine.
jeremy.olshan@nypost.com
Thursday December 6, 2007
from the New York Post
December 4, 2007—A new coloring book being distributed by the Archdiocese of New York teaches children to protect themselves from adults – including, apparently, priests – who cannot stay within the lines.
Although priests are never explicitly the villains of “Being Friends, Being Safe, Being Catholic,” the female guardian angel who narrates the morality tale warns on one page that an altar boy should never remain alone in a room with any adult unless the door is open.
“If a child and an adult happen to be alone, someone should know where they are, and the door should be open or have a big window in it,” the smiling angel says in the panel as she floats above an altar boy donning his church smock, apparently in a church sacristy, as a man who seems to be a priest looks at him.
The coloring books have been distributed to 300 schools and 400 religious groups.
Edward Mechmann, director of the archdiocese’s Safe Environment program, which commissioned the books, said church officials were wary of targeting priests directly.
“We are in the business of dealing with kids, and we don’t want to rob them of their innocence,” he said. “We wanted to be fair to the priests so we weren’t stigmatizing them.”
But advocates of those who have been abused by priests complain that the church must more clearly point the finger at the most likely perpetrators preying on children.
“Too much is made of the creepy stranger, when predators are actually most often the adults we have taught kids are trustworthy,” said David Clohessy, national director of the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests (SNAP). “It does seem as though church officials are still reluctant to admit that, in fact, their own clergy can be – and are – predators.”
In the book, after a series of dire warnings about strangers bearing gifts and online predators wishing to meet children, priests are finally mentioned – but as part of a word search for a list of adults that can be trusted.
Even a comic book aimed at older kids avoids a clear indictment of a member of the clergy. In that story, a parent at the school preys on female students.
Advocates said they were not questioning the motives of the archdiocese, headed by Edward Cardinal Egan, but said that church officials were so careful, they missed the heart of the matter.
“No matter how you try to teach children about child sex abuse, if you don’t point out that it is the priest, the teacher, the Boy Scout leader, who have a position of real power and trust over children, you have missed the point,” said Michael Dowd, a lawyer who has represented hundreds of victims of child sexual abuse.
The coloring book was first reported in Newsweek magazine.
jeremy.olshan@nypost.com
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Rudy's Friend: The Accused Pedophile Priest
December 4, 2007 by Michael Clancy
Many Voice readers may be aware of Rudy Giuliani's longtime friendship with Msgr. Alan Placa, a priest accused of not only molesting four minors on Long Island but covering up other child abuse cases that he was supposed to investigate for the Catholic Church. Wayne Barrett wrote about Giuliani and Placa in June in a larger article about Rudy's campaign on his supposed Catholic record.
Special grand jury reports from the Suffolk County Supreme Court, which were released in 2003, shed more light on Placa's alleged misdeeds with little boys.
A little background on Placa from the Barrett story:
Alan Placa is not just a major figure in Giuliani's marital life: He baptized both of Giuliani's children, and though already stripped of his priestly powers, he was given special dispensation from his bishop in Long Island to preside at Helen Giuliani's September 2002 funeral. A month earlier—despite still-pending allegations that he'd groped four minors in Long Island's Diocese of Rockville Center—he was hired as a three-day-a-week consultant at Giuliani Partners, where he remains today. Michael Hess, the managing partner of Giuliani's firm and the city's former top lawyer, represents Placa in the ongoing cases. When first reached by a reporter at Giuliani Partners, Placa claimed that he was only visiting—a falsehood quickly reversed by a firm spokeswoman....Indeed, even if one assumes that America won't be offended by the contradiction between Giuliani's marital choices and his professed Catholicism, that will almost certainly change as the country learns more about his best friend, business associate, and lifelong link to the church. New York papers have reported some devastating details, drawn largely from a Suffolk County grand jury report issued in 2003
.
Placa was the Catholic clergyman identified as "Priest F" in the grand jury report, according to Richard Tollner, one of his accusers who testified before the grand jury, and various media accounts.
The three-page section of the report that deals with Placa says that he started abusing an altar boy in his first assignment as a priest:
"Once, when he was working at the rectory on a slow evening, the boy was in the office watching TV, Priest F came in and asked if he could join him. He pulled a chair up next to the boy and put his right hand on his thigh. Slowly his hand began to creep up towards the boy's genital area. Alarmed, the boy covered his crouch. After Priest F's efforts to push his arm away failed, Priest F gave up and left. The boy remembered that Priest F was very nervous. He never told anyone at the time because he didn't think anyone would believe him"
In his next assignment, "Priest F" did not relent:
"Priest F was cautious, but relentless in his pursuit of victims. He fondled boys over their clothes, usually in his office. Always, his actions were hidden by a poster, newspaper or a book. He talked continuously as he fondled them. Everyone in the school knew to stay away from Priest F."
A footnote in the report about one of those instances of alleged abuse contains an absurd but heartbreaking detail: "One of the victims remembers the first incident of abuse taking place when preparations were underway to attend a right-to-life march on the anniversary of the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision. The students were making banners with Priest F's help. It was a banner that was used as the foil on this occasion."
Literally fondling boys under a right-to-life banner. Wow. It's an irony that you might have to be Catholic to appreciate.
Many Voice readers may be aware of Rudy Giuliani's longtime friendship with Msgr. Alan Placa, a priest accused of not only molesting four minors on Long Island but covering up other child abuse cases that he was supposed to investigate for the Catholic Church. Wayne Barrett wrote about Giuliani and Placa in June in a larger article about Rudy's campaign on his supposed Catholic record.
Special grand jury reports from the Suffolk County Supreme Court, which were released in 2003, shed more light on Placa's alleged misdeeds with little boys.
A little background on Placa from the Barrett story:
Alan Placa is not just a major figure in Giuliani's marital life: He baptized both of Giuliani's children, and though already stripped of his priestly powers, he was given special dispensation from his bishop in Long Island to preside at Helen Giuliani's September 2002 funeral. A month earlier—despite still-pending allegations that he'd groped four minors in Long Island's Diocese of Rockville Center—he was hired as a three-day-a-week consultant at Giuliani Partners, where he remains today. Michael Hess, the managing partner of Giuliani's firm and the city's former top lawyer, represents Placa in the ongoing cases. When first reached by a reporter at Giuliani Partners, Placa claimed that he was only visiting—a falsehood quickly reversed by a firm spokeswoman....Indeed, even if one assumes that America won't be offended by the contradiction between Giuliani's marital choices and his professed Catholicism, that will almost certainly change as the country learns more about his best friend, business associate, and lifelong link to the church. New York papers have reported some devastating details, drawn largely from a Suffolk County grand jury report issued in 2003
.
Placa was the Catholic clergyman identified as "Priest F" in the grand jury report, according to Richard Tollner, one of his accusers who testified before the grand jury, and various media accounts.
The three-page section of the report that deals with Placa says that he started abusing an altar boy in his first assignment as a priest:
"Once, when he was working at the rectory on a slow evening, the boy was in the office watching TV, Priest F came in and asked if he could join him. He pulled a chair up next to the boy and put his right hand on his thigh. Slowly his hand began to creep up towards the boy's genital area. Alarmed, the boy covered his crouch. After Priest F's efforts to push his arm away failed, Priest F gave up and left. The boy remembered that Priest F was very nervous. He never told anyone at the time because he didn't think anyone would believe him"
In his next assignment, "Priest F" did not relent:
"Priest F was cautious, but relentless in his pursuit of victims. He fondled boys over their clothes, usually in his office. Always, his actions were hidden by a poster, newspaper or a book. He talked continuously as he fondled them. Everyone in the school knew to stay away from Priest F."
A footnote in the report about one of those instances of alleged abuse contains an absurd but heartbreaking detail: "One of the victims remembers the first incident of abuse taking place when preparations were underway to attend a right-to-life march on the anniversary of the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision. The students were making banners with Priest F's help. It was a banner that was used as the foil on this occasion."
Literally fondling boys under a right-to-life banner. Wow. It's an irony that you might have to be Catholic to appreciate.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Monsignor removed from Brooklyn parish after admitting misconduct from 30 years ago
Monsignor removed from parish after admitting misconduct from 30 years ago
BY PETER KADUSHIN and ALISON GENDAR
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS WRITERS
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2007/12/04/2007-12-04_monsignor_removed_from_parish_after_admi.html
A Brooklyn monsignor has been yanked from his parish after admitting "inappropriate behavior" with up to five young people more than 30 years ago, authorities said.
Msgr. George Zatarga, 65, admitted allegations of sexual misconduct when he was a relatively new priest in the Diocese of Brooklyn in the late 1970s, according to a letter the Bishop of Brooklyn Nicholas DiMarzio sent to Zatarga's flock.
A law enforcement source said investigators also were checking out more recent abuse allegations. Zatarga served as chaplain at Bishop Loughlin Memorial High School in Brooklyn from 1971 to 1979, and chaplain at Archbishop Molloy High School in Queens from 1979 to 1989.
An adult victim broke the silence with a call to the diocese's toll-free sexual assault hotline two weeks ago, authorities said.
Zatarga admitted the misconduct and resigned over the weekend as pastor of the American Martyrs parish in Bayside, Queens, a post he had held for the past two years.
None of the alleged abuse took place at American Martyrs, said diocesan spokesman Frank DeRosa. Diocesan officials declined to name where Zatarga worked when the alleged assault occurred.
"The faith is great but something obviously went wrong," said a parishioner at American Martyrs, who gave his name only as Michael. "There's a problem in the church right now and something needs to be done. It is unacceptable that he could do something like that."
Zatarga is at a counseling center outside of the diocese, and the allegations have been turned over to the Brooklyn district attorney's office for investigation, DeRosa said.
The statute of limitations for sexual abuse is five years, law enforcement sources said.
He has been placed on administrative leave, meaning that he cannot present himself as a priest, wear clerical garb, celebrate the Mass or administer sacraments publicly. He will be allowed to celebrate Mass privately.
Zatarga was ordained in June 1968. He left Archbishop Molloy to serve Christ the King Church in Queens from 1989 to 1999. He served as the vicar for senior priests - ministering to retired priests from 1999 to 2005 before coming to American Martyrs.
Other American Martyrs parishioners said Zatarga was known for taking month-long vacations, including a ski trip to Colorado, and for an offbeat sense of humor.
The article above is complete.
BY PETER KADUSHIN and ALISON GENDAR
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS WRITERS
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2007/12/04/2007-12-04_monsignor_removed_from_parish_after_admi.html
A Brooklyn monsignor has been yanked from his parish after admitting "inappropriate behavior" with up to five young people more than 30 years ago, authorities said.
Msgr. George Zatarga, 65, admitted allegations of sexual misconduct when he was a relatively new priest in the Diocese of Brooklyn in the late 1970s, according to a letter the Bishop of Brooklyn Nicholas DiMarzio sent to Zatarga's flock.
A law enforcement source said investigators also were checking out more recent abuse allegations. Zatarga served as chaplain at Bishop Loughlin Memorial High School in Brooklyn from 1971 to 1979, and chaplain at Archbishop Molloy High School in Queens from 1979 to 1989.
An adult victim broke the silence with a call to the diocese's toll-free sexual assault hotline two weeks ago, authorities said.
Zatarga admitted the misconduct and resigned over the weekend as pastor of the American Martyrs parish in Bayside, Queens, a post he had held for the past two years.
None of the alleged abuse took place at American Martyrs, said diocesan spokesman Frank DeRosa. Diocesan officials declined to name where Zatarga worked when the alleged assault occurred.
"The faith is great but something obviously went wrong," said a parishioner at American Martyrs, who gave his name only as Michael. "There's a problem in the church right now and something needs to be done. It is unacceptable that he could do something like that."
Zatarga is at a counseling center outside of the diocese, and the allegations have been turned over to the Brooklyn district attorney's office for investigation, DeRosa said.
The statute of limitations for sexual abuse is five years, law enforcement sources said.
He has been placed on administrative leave, meaning that he cannot present himself as a priest, wear clerical garb, celebrate the Mass or administer sacraments publicly. He will be allowed to celebrate Mass privately.
Zatarga was ordained in June 1968. He left Archbishop Molloy to serve Christ the King Church in Queens from 1989 to 1999. He served as the vicar for senior priests - ministering to retired priests from 1999 to 2005 before coming to American Martyrs.
Other American Martyrs parishioners said Zatarga was known for taking month-long vacations, including a ski trip to Colorado, and for an offbeat sense of humor.
The article above is complete.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
If Boston Archdiocese can do it, why not New York?
Hub diocese releases reports criticizing its parish closings
Cardinal's lay panel reviewed use of funds; Sale of 1 church is also examined
By Michael Paulson, Globe Staff | November 16, 2007
The Archdiocese of Boston, in an unusual act of public self-scrutiny, is releasing two reports highly critical of how the church handled several aspects of the parish closings process over the last several years.
The archdiocese is publishing in its weekly newspaper, the Pilot, a report by a lay panel, the Parish Reconfiguration Fund Oversight Committee, which was handpicked by Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley to review the use of funds generated through the closing of parishes. Even though O'Malley chose to establish the committee, its members said that O'Malley's former aides were not forthcoming with financial information and not responsive to advice from the panel.
The second report, by a retired judge picked by the lay committee to review the sale of one closed church in East Boston, sharply criticizes the archdiocese for its handling of that transaction. That report, being posted on the Pilot's website, describes how the photographer who purchased St. Mary Star of the Sea Church bought the building last November for $850,000 and then sold it three weeks later to an evangelical congregation for $2.65 million.
The archdiocese says it decided to publish the documents in the interest of transparency and because of commitments to the committee, which was headed by David Castaldi, who was a leader of the lay reform group Voice of the Faithful. Archdiocesan officials said they would not dispute the criticism, but instead pointed out that they have replaced the allegedly uncooperative officials and have changed their real estate procedures so that the problems would be less likely to recur.
The report acknowledges the improvements and praises the archdiocese for its recent steps toward financial transparency, which have included what the committee described as "outstanding" and as "the most complete financial disclosure of any diocese in the United States." The committee also said it perceived a "new policy of openness" at the archdiocese after O'Malley last year brought in the Rev. Richard P. Erikson to replace Bishop Richard Lennon as the archdiocese's vicar general and banking executive James P. McDonough to replace David Smith as chancellor.
In an interview yesterday, McDonough said the committee members "have done fine service" for the church and acknowledged that "there were mistakes" in the handling of the East Boston sale but said "no one here benefited from those mistakes." He also said the current administration is committed to listening to laypeople.
The reconfiguration committee reviewed the handling of $66 million garnered by the archdiocese since 2004 through the sale of closed church buildings and the seizure of the treasuries of some closed parishes. It alleged that until a year ago, the archdiocese was characterized by "a culture with excessive concern that outsiders not be permitted knowledge of church policies and business affairs" and said the committee often received information too late to offer any advice and that when it did offer recommendations, they were often not heeded.
The committee also criticized the archdiocese for financial policies that it said rewarded parishioners who challenged their closings and punished those who did not, by allowing funds from contested closings to go to nearby parishes, but taking the funds from uncontested closings for use by the central administration.
But, the committee said, "the transparency in church business affairs introduced by Cardinal O'Malley and his selection of a new archdiocesan leadership team offer hope."
The retired judge who scrutinized the East Boston transaction criticized the archdiocese for failing to protect against flipping, as the quick turnaround sale is called, and for failing to inform its own finance council that the evangelical church had at one point offered the archdiocese a higher price than the photographer.
The judge, Kevin M. Herlihy, said the archdiocese was willing to lose money in order to prevent the building from falling into the hands of the evangelical church, but said the archdiocese's failure to then write a restrictive deed preventing such usage was "unfathomable" and that the archdiocese's conduct "arguably constituted malfeasance, a dereliction of duty."
McDonough commissioned his own review of the East Boston sale that reached similar conclusions, finding that the archdiocese's real estate policies were "clearly deficient." McDonough said he has since put into place new policies requiring better communication and more attention to restrictive covenants in real estate transactions.
Michael Paulson can be reached at mpaulson@globe.com.
Cardinal's lay panel reviewed use of funds; Sale of 1 church is also examined
By Michael Paulson, Globe Staff | November 16, 2007
The Archdiocese of Boston, in an unusual act of public self-scrutiny, is releasing two reports highly critical of how the church handled several aspects of the parish closings process over the last several years.
The archdiocese is publishing in its weekly newspaper, the Pilot, a report by a lay panel, the Parish Reconfiguration Fund Oversight Committee, which was handpicked by Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley to review the use of funds generated through the closing of parishes. Even though O'Malley chose to establish the committee, its members said that O'Malley's former aides were not forthcoming with financial information and not responsive to advice from the panel.
The second report, by a retired judge picked by the lay committee to review the sale of one closed church in East Boston, sharply criticizes the archdiocese for its handling of that transaction. That report, being posted on the Pilot's website, describes how the photographer who purchased St. Mary Star of the Sea Church bought the building last November for $850,000 and then sold it three weeks later to an evangelical congregation for $2.65 million.
The archdiocese says it decided to publish the documents in the interest of transparency and because of commitments to the committee, which was headed by David Castaldi, who was a leader of the lay reform group Voice of the Faithful. Archdiocesan officials said they would not dispute the criticism, but instead pointed out that they have replaced the allegedly uncooperative officials and have changed their real estate procedures so that the problems would be less likely to recur.
The report acknowledges the improvements and praises the archdiocese for its recent steps toward financial transparency, which have included what the committee described as "outstanding" and as "the most complete financial disclosure of any diocese in the United States." The committee also said it perceived a "new policy of openness" at the archdiocese after O'Malley last year brought in the Rev. Richard P. Erikson to replace Bishop Richard Lennon as the archdiocese's vicar general and banking executive James P. McDonough to replace David Smith as chancellor.
In an interview yesterday, McDonough said the committee members "have done fine service" for the church and acknowledged that "there were mistakes" in the handling of the East Boston sale but said "no one here benefited from those mistakes." He also said the current administration is committed to listening to laypeople.
The reconfiguration committee reviewed the handling of $66 million garnered by the archdiocese since 2004 through the sale of closed church buildings and the seizure of the treasuries of some closed parishes. It alleged that until a year ago, the archdiocese was characterized by "a culture with excessive concern that outsiders not be permitted knowledge of church policies and business affairs" and said the committee often received information too late to offer any advice and that when it did offer recommendations, they were often not heeded.
The committee also criticized the archdiocese for financial policies that it said rewarded parishioners who challenged their closings and punished those who did not, by allowing funds from contested closings to go to nearby parishes, but taking the funds from uncontested closings for use by the central administration.
But, the committee said, "the transparency in church business affairs introduced by Cardinal O'Malley and his selection of a new archdiocesan leadership team offer hope."
The retired judge who scrutinized the East Boston transaction criticized the archdiocese for failing to protect against flipping, as the quick turnaround sale is called, and for failing to inform its own finance council that the evangelical church had at one point offered the archdiocese a higher price than the photographer.
The judge, Kevin M. Herlihy, said the archdiocese was willing to lose money in order to prevent the building from falling into the hands of the evangelical church, but said the archdiocese's failure to then write a restrictive deed preventing such usage was "unfathomable" and that the archdiocese's conduct "arguably constituted malfeasance, a dereliction of duty."
McDonough commissioned his own review of the East Boston sale that reached similar conclusions, finding that the archdiocese's real estate policies were "clearly deficient." McDonough said he has since put into place new policies requiring better communication and more attention to restrictive covenants in real estate transactions.
Michael Paulson can be reached at mpaulson@globe.com.
Monday, November 26, 2007
The Child Molestation Prevention Plan Part 1.
1. Tell Others The Facts
What are the first three facts you can tell others? Fact one: Today, 95 percent of child molestation can be prevented. We have the knowledge to stop it. Fact two: Today, living in the United States, there are 39 million adults who have survived child sexual abuse. Fact three: Today, more than three million American children are victims. Most of them are children, struggling alone, believing there is no adult who can help them. To help prevent child molestation from happening to the children closest to you, begin by telling others the basic facts.
But why you? Shouldn't stopping sexual abuse be left to professionals - physicians and therapists? Better yet, shouldn't the police and the courts take care of it?
Professionals - physicians and therapists - can never put an end to sexual abuse; neither can the police or the courts. Why? Because they come on the scene too late. By the time they get there, the children have already been molested. Only you can get there in time.
There's a bigger reason why the professionals and the courts can't put an end to sexual abuse. They have no permission to talk to a child about sex - unless, of course, they talk to the child after the fact, after the child has already been sexually abused or has abused another child. Only you can talk to your children before anything happens, before any damage is done - to anyone.
Not In My Family
What if you are certain there has never been a child molester or a molested child in your family? You are probably wrong.
Unfortunately, most of today's children will never tell. They feel ashamed that this has happened to them. They are protecting their abuser because he or she is part of their family. They are protecting other members of their family - saving them from the pain of knowing.
In spite of the millions of victims in our families, many people stick to their mistaken belief that child molestation has nothing to do with them.
An estimated one in 20 teenage boys and adult men sexually abuse children, and an estimated one teenage girl or adult woman in every 3,300 females molests children. Although that's well over five million people, most families mistakenly believe that as far as molesters go, there has never been one in their family, and what's more, there never will be. Add together the child victims, the adult survivors, and the abusers, and that's 15 out of every 100 Americans who have been either a molested child or a molester.
To help prevent child molestation from happening to the children closest to you, begin by telling others the basic facts.
We Start By Speaking The Same Language
If we're going to work together to stop child sexual abuse, we have to speak the same language. We have to mean the same thing when we say "child molester," "child molestation," and even "child."
Moreover, all of us have to understand the basic facts: What exactly is child molestation? How many of our children are sexually abused? How seriously are they damaged? What are the characteristics of a child molester? What causes someone to sexually abuse a child? Which of our children are most at risk?
A child molester is any older child or adult who touches a child for his or her own sexual gratification.
Child molestation is the act of sexually touching a child.
A child is a girl or boy who is 13 years of age or younger.
What's the age difference between a molester and a child? It is five years, so a 14-year-old "older child" sexually touching a nine-year-old is an example. This is the accepted medical definition.
Sometimes, a professional will consider that a molestation act has occurred when the older child is only three years older - a sixth-grader with a third-grader, for instance. The crucial element here is the lack of equality between the two children; the sixth grader is clearly bigger, more powerful, and more "adult-like" than the third-grader.
We avoid definitions that are ambiguous by sticking to the medical definition. We define "child molester" as an adult or child, who is at least five years older than the child he or she has molested.
Telling Others The Facts
If we're going to protect our children from sexual abuse, all of us have to understand exactly what we mean by the act of sexual abuse. Why? Because one of the greatest obstacles we face is people's fear of the facts about child molestation.
For instance, some people who have no idea that sexual touch is vastly different from hugging are afraid to hug a child - especially one who isn't theirs - because someone might think they are child molesters. You can calm their fears by telling them this fact: Hugging is not molesting. Sexual touch is when an adult fondles the child's chest, buttocks, or genitals with the direct purpose of sexually exciting himself or the child.
Can you tell your husband that fact? Can you tell your sister, your cousin, or your best friend? If you can, then you can easily tell others all the rest of the facts.
The less people know, the more anxiety they feel, and the more they want to run away or pretend that today's estimated three million sexually abused children don't exist. Every fact has a calming effect. By telling the people closest to you the facts, you can help those same people become strong adult protectors of the children closest to you.
How Many Children Are Sexually Abused?
Three million children! I don't believe it. How can you possibly know that there are exactly three million child victims?" As you begin to tell others the facts, this is the first question they may ask you. The answer: Of course, we don't know exactly.
Children seldom tell. Those millions of children are a secret. They are the secret in family after family after family. Even adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse seldom tell. What we do know from studies of adult men and women is that the number is at least three million. At least three million children are molested before they finish their 13th year. In 1998, there were 103,000 reported and confirmed cases of child molestation. For comparison, at the height of the polio epidemic that struck children in the 1950s, there were 21,000 cases reported in a year. For rubella, there were 57,000 cases reported. For child molestation, those numbers of reported and confirmed molestations are only the tip of the iceberg. For every case reported there are at least two and maybe three more cases that never get reported.
That's why we may never know the exact number of child victims. We do know that if we use the conservative estimate that two in every ten little girls and one in every ten little boys are victims (based on the population reported in the 1999 U.S. Census statistical abstract) well over three million children are victims.
Take a moment to think about that. Three million children is a staggering number of children. That's 46 National Football League stadiums packed with children who are, today, being sexually abused, and who believe they have no adult to go to for help.
How Severe is the Damage?
Some people will say that sexually touching a child does no harm. Some adults will even tell boy victims to "act like a man" and "stop whining." Other adults are unsympathetic about the experiences of adult survivors. They will say that, no matter what happened in childhood, that is the past. You're an adult now, so get over it.
The facts are that sexual abuse does harm the child and that the damage often carries over into the child's adult life.
Studies show that this damage can include:
difficulty in forming long-term relationships;
sexual risk-taking that may lead to contracting sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS;
physical complaints and physical symptoms;
depression, suicidal thoughts, and suicide;
links to failure of the immune system and to increases in illnesses, hospitalizations, and early deaths.
In addition to the tangible physical and emotional damage that sexual abuse does to the child, that terrible secret that is held so close by two or three family members can go on to tear at the fiber of the family in generation after generation.
Who Is The Child Molester? Who Causes So Much Damage To Our Children?
We want to introduce you to a sexual abuser of children. Keep in mind that far more men than women are abusers. In fact, approximately one out of 20 men, and approximately one out of 3,300 women are sexual abusers of children. Let's look at a man who has molested children. We'll call him George.
George's Story
George was a typical teenager. In his twenties, George emerged from his shell, got married, and had two sons. His parents were proud of him, of the family he had established, of the values he taught his children.
During his thirties, he was promoted to a new position in his company every two or three years. More money, more responsibility, more travel, more stress.
One day when George was on the road, his wife got a call. Her husband was three states away. He'd been arrested in that state for child molestation. By now George was 43.
His wife remembers smiling into the phone. She had a flash image - her telling the story about this mistake. "Can you imagine? Poor George, - the most conservative man in the world." - and how their friends would laugh. She repeated her husband's name, including middle name. She spelled out the first, middle, and last name. His wife was sure it was somebody else with a similar name. After she was convinced that her husband was the George in custody, her next emotion was fury. Who would falsely accuse a fine man like her husband? Would the lawyer's fees bankrupt them? What would his boss say? After 20 years of marriage she knew George, knew he was the last man in the world who would ever. . . .
But did she know George?
Like most people, George's wife, when she considered child molestation at all - thought about it only as a sin or a crime. Her husband was simply not a criminal. He had never even had a traffic ticket. He was a regular hardworking man with a great sense of responsibility. If anything, he was a law-and-order guy. He was, like many husbands, concerned for his family's safety. He was their protector.
His religion was an important part of his life. Their religious beliefs were important to both of them and to their children.
And besides that George couldn't be a child molester, she thought, because they had a vigorous and happy sex life.
Through the months that followed, George's wife and his parents received several shocks. He confessed. Yes, he had sexually molested the 10-year-old girl who accused him, the daughter of a man who'd been his friend since high school. Then she found out there had been other victims. He had molested 23 little girls. The number included two nieces, one the daughter of his wife's sister and, the other the daughter of his own sister. He had also molested several daughters of close friends. His two nieces he had molested over a period of years. Both nieces kept the secret from everybody in the family. In a further shock to his family, he also confessed that when he was 17 and she was in grade school, he had repeatedly molested his stepsister. She also never told.
George's larger family is, of course, destroyed. Neither his sister nor his sister-in-law will ever forgive him for sexually abusing their daughters. They also shun his wife. No matter what she says about her innocence, they believe she knew all along and allowed him to molest. His parents are shocked. Both are devastated by their failure to protect George's young stepsister and their grandchild.
An Unsuccessful "Success Story"
Now that you've read about George's 26 years of molesting, what do you think? Is this a success story? His family says yes.
George's wife believes George when he says he's learned his lesson. He's glad he's going to jail. He deserved to be punished. It's as though jail will be his salvation. Now, it's over. He will never touch a little girl again. In her mind, this severe (and deserved) punishment of a flawed man with a good core is all that is needed.
His minister believes George too. He's prayed with him in his jail cell.
The judge hates these cases. Thank goodness the law is clear. He listens to the parade of character witnesses. George is a stellar employee, a person who does good work with the adults in his community, full of remorse, a changed man. The sentence is long - 20 years, to serve seven.
In George's case, in that old-era way of doing things, we used every old strategy to stop him.
George was a religious man. He knew that molesting a child was a sin. After his arrest, George's wife found a Bible in his car's glove compartment. Sometimes, when he was fighting his strong desire to sexually touch a child, he would recite certain passages and he would use the power of his deep religious convictions to stop that desire. Religion - in George's case - saved a few little girls from being molested. Still, he molested 23 little girls.
George was arrested and sent to jail. This strategy may have prevented more little girls from becoming victims; it did protect his nieces from George molesting them again. Still, he molested 23 little girls.
Many of the people around George believe that George's case is a success. After all, George's molesting has been stopped. He's been arrested; he's been put in jail. Many of the little girls have gone into therapy. So we have punished the child molester, we've treated the victims.
At the core, sending molesters to jail as a solution will always fail our children. Why? Because in order for a molester to be jailed, the criminal justice strategy requires that our children be sexually abused. Without a victim, it can't make a move.
It's the same with treating the victims. As a strategy, it's ineffective until after our children are sexually abused.
What we find horrifying in George's case is the waiting. All the adult protectors of those 23 little girls had to wait, powerless. First, they waited while 23 little girls were sexually abused. Then they waited for a little girl to tell an adult. But that wasn't the end of the waiting. They also had to wait for one of the 23 little girls to tell an adult who was willing to report the case. While they waited, they allowed George to go on molesting little girls for 26 years.
George's family did the best they could, given their options in the old era. Today there is no reason why George's story should be repeated.
Why? Because we have new information all of us can use to stop people like George before he molests 23 little girls.
New Information - A Typical Child Molester
When George's neighbors heard of the first accusation, they took his side. They didn't know who this 10-year-old girl from another city was, but they knew George. Some of them knew his parents.
When he admitted that he had molested so many little girls, their shock reverberated in their stories: "He was the last person you would imagine." "A very unusual case." "I've known this guy since grade school, it's unbelievable."
Everyone who knows George is sure of one thing: George is nothing like a typical child molester.
After all, he comes from a good home. His wife comes from a good home. George and his wife, their two children, and both sets of grandparents live near each other and go to the same church. He was baptized in the church and still attends regularly. He pays close attention to the rules. He pays all his bills a week before the due date. He has a college fund for his two sons. He rotates his tires. He drives within the speed limit.
George's wife and his neighbors believe that it's impossible - or extremely unusual - for an ordinary man in an ordinary family, a hard working responsible, husband and father of two, a man with high moral standards to be a child molester. They mistakenly believe that his family life, his acts of responsibility, his education, his moral values all protect George from becoming a child molester. In fact, they believe that those same things protect his family - and their families' children - from any connection with child molestation.
Is this an unusual case? If you lived in George's community what facts could you tell? You could repeat this fact: George's case is not in the least unusual. George is the typical child molester. He's married, educated, working, and religious.
Most people will tell you that this couldn't be right.
It is.
Researchers asked the 4,000 admitted child molesters in the Abel and Harlow Child Molestation Prevention Study to answer questions about their lives. These abusers were men aged 18 to 80.
How does George compare? George is typical.
First of all, he's married, just like 77 percent of the more than 4000 child sexual abusers in the Child Molestation Prevention Study. George is religious, like 93 percent of the abusers. He's educated. More than 46 percent had some college education and another 30 percent were high school graduates. Like 65 percent of the admitted abusers, George was working. Numerous studies of adult victims have sought to link child molestation victims to lower social class and lower family income. All have failed. Child victims and their abusers exist equally in families of all income levels and classes. And, now from the study, we know that child molesters are as equally married, educated, employed, and religious as any other Americans.
TABLE 2
Contrasts: Admitted Molesters vs. All American Men
Admitted Child Molesters
American Men
Married or formerly married
77%
73%
Some College
46%
49%
High School only
30%
32%
Working
69%
64%
Religious
93%
93%
Sources: The Abel and Harlow Child Molestation Prevention Study and the 1999 U.S. Census Statistical Abstract
Note: All people in both groups were at least 25 years old.
Examining The Facts With Care
Is it possible that the profile of the child molester is this: a man who is married, educated, working, and religious?
Yes. However, we all have to be careful at this point. We have to ask the next question: What does this mean? To answer that we come to another finding from the Abel and Harlow Child Molestation Prevention Study.
Rather than causing a person to molest, being married, educated, working, and religious is who we are as Americans. These are the facts. It's crucial that everyone understands them. In order for adult protectors to stand as a barrier between their children and a child sexual abuser, the protectors have to know what a sexual abuser of children looks like. He looks like George.
And he looks like a lot of other people you know. In analyzing the reports of the 4,000 admitted child molesters researchers found this: in their outward characteristics, matching percentages of child molesters to percentages of all American men, the average child molester closely matched the average American man.
They matched all the outward characteristics listed in Table 2.
Which Ethnic Groups Molest Children?
Are there ethnic groups in which child molestation does not occur? Probably not. Results from the Abel and Harlow Child Molestation Prevention Study suggest that each ethnic group studied has child molesters among them. Once again, the percentages bear a resemblance to the U.S. Census. (See "The Abel and Harlow Child Molestation Prevention Study" for further details about ethnic groups).
TABLE 3
Ethnic Groups: Admitted Molesters vs. All American Men
Admitted Child Molesters
American Men
Caucasian
79%
72%
Hispanic/Latin-American
9%
11%
African-American
6%
12%
Asian
1%
4%
Native American
3%
1%
Sources: The Abel and Harlow Child Molestation Prevention Study and the 1999 U.S. Census Statistical Abstract
Note: 3,952 men who admitted to molesting children were compared to American men of various ethnic groups. Asians were under-represented in the complete sample of 15,508 men. They were 1.2 percent. Native Americans were over-represented in the complete sample. They were 3 percent. Both groups had child molesters in proportions equal to their percentages of representation in the complete sample.
Which Children Are Molested?
Children are most at risk from the adults in their own family, and from the adults who are in their parents' social circle. In fact, 90 percent of abusers target children in their own families and children who they know well. Furthermore, research suggests that the risk is across the board: Child molesters come from every part of our society, and so children from every part of our society are at risk.
TABLE 4
Which Children Do Child Molesters Target?
CHILDREN IN THE FAMILY
Biological Child
19%
Stepchild, Adopted or Foster Child
30%
Brothers & Sisters
12%
Nieces & Nephews
18%
Grandchild
5%
CHILDREN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD
Child Left in My Care
5%
Child of Friend or Neighbor
40%
CHILDREN WHO ARE STRANGERS
Child Strangers
10%
Source: The Abel and Harlow Child Molestation Prevention Study.
Note: Since sexual abusers of children often molest children in more than one category, the categories total more than 100 percent. The same child molester may have molested his biological child and his stepchild, therefore, we cannot say that those two categories combined represent 49 percent, but must say that they represent a lower number.
Notice that only 10 percent of the child sexual abusers report that they molest a child who is a stranger.
Let's put the facts together:
Child molesters exist in every part of our society.
They molest children close to them, mainly children in their family or children in their social circle.
Most child molesters, 90 percent, report that they know their child victims very well.
We want you to look carefully at that last fact on the list. While there are several facts that you will use as part of The Child Molestation Prevention Plan, this is the most important.
To save the greatest number of children in the shortest possible time, we must turn the current focus of our efforts upside down. Right now, 90 percent of our efforts go toward protecting our children from strangers, when what we need to do is to focus 90 percent of our efforts toward protecting children from the abusers who are not strangers - the molesters in their families and the molesters who are the friends of their families.
And we must ask the next important question: What causes the one member of the family who molests to be so different from the rest of his or her family? To end nearly all child molestation we must focus on the cause.
What are the first three facts you can tell others? Fact one: Today, 95 percent of child molestation can be prevented. We have the knowledge to stop it. Fact two: Today, living in the United States, there are 39 million adults who have survived child sexual abuse. Fact three: Today, more than three million American children are victims. Most of them are children, struggling alone, believing there is no adult who can help them. To help prevent child molestation from happening to the children closest to you, begin by telling others the basic facts.
But why you? Shouldn't stopping sexual abuse be left to professionals - physicians and therapists? Better yet, shouldn't the police and the courts take care of it?
Professionals - physicians and therapists - can never put an end to sexual abuse; neither can the police or the courts. Why? Because they come on the scene too late. By the time they get there, the children have already been molested. Only you can get there in time.
There's a bigger reason why the professionals and the courts can't put an end to sexual abuse. They have no permission to talk to a child about sex - unless, of course, they talk to the child after the fact, after the child has already been sexually abused or has abused another child. Only you can talk to your children before anything happens, before any damage is done - to anyone.
Not In My Family
What if you are certain there has never been a child molester or a molested child in your family? You are probably wrong.
Unfortunately, most of today's children will never tell. They feel ashamed that this has happened to them. They are protecting their abuser because he or she is part of their family. They are protecting other members of their family - saving them from the pain of knowing.
In spite of the millions of victims in our families, many people stick to their mistaken belief that child molestation has nothing to do with them.
An estimated one in 20 teenage boys and adult men sexually abuse children, and an estimated one teenage girl or adult woman in every 3,300 females molests children. Although that's well over five million people, most families mistakenly believe that as far as molesters go, there has never been one in their family, and what's more, there never will be. Add together the child victims, the adult survivors, and the abusers, and that's 15 out of every 100 Americans who have been either a molested child or a molester.
To help prevent child molestation from happening to the children closest to you, begin by telling others the basic facts.
We Start By Speaking The Same Language
If we're going to work together to stop child sexual abuse, we have to speak the same language. We have to mean the same thing when we say "child molester," "child molestation," and even "child."
Moreover, all of us have to understand the basic facts: What exactly is child molestation? How many of our children are sexually abused? How seriously are they damaged? What are the characteristics of a child molester? What causes someone to sexually abuse a child? Which of our children are most at risk?
A child molester is any older child or adult who touches a child for his or her own sexual gratification.
Child molestation is the act of sexually touching a child.
A child is a girl or boy who is 13 years of age or younger.
What's the age difference between a molester and a child? It is five years, so a 14-year-old "older child" sexually touching a nine-year-old is an example. This is the accepted medical definition.
Sometimes, a professional will consider that a molestation act has occurred when the older child is only three years older - a sixth-grader with a third-grader, for instance. The crucial element here is the lack of equality between the two children; the sixth grader is clearly bigger, more powerful, and more "adult-like" than the third-grader.
We avoid definitions that are ambiguous by sticking to the medical definition. We define "child molester" as an adult or child, who is at least five years older than the child he or she has molested.
Telling Others The Facts
If we're going to protect our children from sexual abuse, all of us have to understand exactly what we mean by the act of sexual abuse. Why? Because one of the greatest obstacles we face is people's fear of the facts about child molestation.
For instance, some people who have no idea that sexual touch is vastly different from hugging are afraid to hug a child - especially one who isn't theirs - because someone might think they are child molesters. You can calm their fears by telling them this fact: Hugging is not molesting. Sexual touch is when an adult fondles the child's chest, buttocks, or genitals with the direct purpose of sexually exciting himself or the child.
Can you tell your husband that fact? Can you tell your sister, your cousin, or your best friend? If you can, then you can easily tell others all the rest of the facts.
The less people know, the more anxiety they feel, and the more they want to run away or pretend that today's estimated three million sexually abused children don't exist. Every fact has a calming effect. By telling the people closest to you the facts, you can help those same people become strong adult protectors of the children closest to you.
How Many Children Are Sexually Abused?
Three million children! I don't believe it. How can you possibly know that there are exactly three million child victims?" As you begin to tell others the facts, this is the first question they may ask you. The answer: Of course, we don't know exactly.
Children seldom tell. Those millions of children are a secret. They are the secret in family after family after family. Even adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse seldom tell. What we do know from studies of adult men and women is that the number is at least three million. At least three million children are molested before they finish their 13th year. In 1998, there were 103,000 reported and confirmed cases of child molestation. For comparison, at the height of the polio epidemic that struck children in the 1950s, there were 21,000 cases reported in a year. For rubella, there were 57,000 cases reported. For child molestation, those numbers of reported and confirmed molestations are only the tip of the iceberg. For every case reported there are at least two and maybe three more cases that never get reported.
That's why we may never know the exact number of child victims. We do know that if we use the conservative estimate that two in every ten little girls and one in every ten little boys are victims (based on the population reported in the 1999 U.S. Census statistical abstract) well over three million children are victims.
Take a moment to think about that. Three million children is a staggering number of children. That's 46 National Football League stadiums packed with children who are, today, being sexually abused, and who believe they have no adult to go to for help.
How Severe is the Damage?
Some people will say that sexually touching a child does no harm. Some adults will even tell boy victims to "act like a man" and "stop whining." Other adults are unsympathetic about the experiences of adult survivors. They will say that, no matter what happened in childhood, that is the past. You're an adult now, so get over it.
The facts are that sexual abuse does harm the child and that the damage often carries over into the child's adult life.
Studies show that this damage can include:
difficulty in forming long-term relationships;
sexual risk-taking that may lead to contracting sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS;
physical complaints and physical symptoms;
depression, suicidal thoughts, and suicide;
links to failure of the immune system and to increases in illnesses, hospitalizations, and early deaths.
In addition to the tangible physical and emotional damage that sexual abuse does to the child, that terrible secret that is held so close by two or three family members can go on to tear at the fiber of the family in generation after generation.
Who Is The Child Molester? Who Causes So Much Damage To Our Children?
We want to introduce you to a sexual abuser of children. Keep in mind that far more men than women are abusers. In fact, approximately one out of 20 men, and approximately one out of 3,300 women are sexual abusers of children. Let's look at a man who has molested children. We'll call him George.
George's Story
George was a typical teenager. In his twenties, George emerged from his shell, got married, and had two sons. His parents were proud of him, of the family he had established, of the values he taught his children.
During his thirties, he was promoted to a new position in his company every two or three years. More money, more responsibility, more travel, more stress.
One day when George was on the road, his wife got a call. Her husband was three states away. He'd been arrested in that state for child molestation. By now George was 43.
His wife remembers smiling into the phone. She had a flash image - her telling the story about this mistake. "Can you imagine? Poor George, - the most conservative man in the world." - and how their friends would laugh. She repeated her husband's name, including middle name. She spelled out the first, middle, and last name. His wife was sure it was somebody else with a similar name. After she was convinced that her husband was the George in custody, her next emotion was fury. Who would falsely accuse a fine man like her husband? Would the lawyer's fees bankrupt them? What would his boss say? After 20 years of marriage she knew George, knew he was the last man in the world who would ever. . . .
But did she know George?
Like most people, George's wife, when she considered child molestation at all - thought about it only as a sin or a crime. Her husband was simply not a criminal. He had never even had a traffic ticket. He was a regular hardworking man with a great sense of responsibility. If anything, he was a law-and-order guy. He was, like many husbands, concerned for his family's safety. He was their protector.
His religion was an important part of his life. Their religious beliefs were important to both of them and to their children.
And besides that George couldn't be a child molester, she thought, because they had a vigorous and happy sex life.
Through the months that followed, George's wife and his parents received several shocks. He confessed. Yes, he had sexually molested the 10-year-old girl who accused him, the daughter of a man who'd been his friend since high school. Then she found out there had been other victims. He had molested 23 little girls. The number included two nieces, one the daughter of his wife's sister and, the other the daughter of his own sister. He had also molested several daughters of close friends. His two nieces he had molested over a period of years. Both nieces kept the secret from everybody in the family. In a further shock to his family, he also confessed that when he was 17 and she was in grade school, he had repeatedly molested his stepsister. She also never told.
George's larger family is, of course, destroyed. Neither his sister nor his sister-in-law will ever forgive him for sexually abusing their daughters. They also shun his wife. No matter what she says about her innocence, they believe she knew all along and allowed him to molest. His parents are shocked. Both are devastated by their failure to protect George's young stepsister and their grandchild.
An Unsuccessful "Success Story"
Now that you've read about George's 26 years of molesting, what do you think? Is this a success story? His family says yes.
George's wife believes George when he says he's learned his lesson. He's glad he's going to jail. He deserved to be punished. It's as though jail will be his salvation. Now, it's over. He will never touch a little girl again. In her mind, this severe (and deserved) punishment of a flawed man with a good core is all that is needed.
His minister believes George too. He's prayed with him in his jail cell.
The judge hates these cases. Thank goodness the law is clear. He listens to the parade of character witnesses. George is a stellar employee, a person who does good work with the adults in his community, full of remorse, a changed man. The sentence is long - 20 years, to serve seven.
In George's case, in that old-era way of doing things, we used every old strategy to stop him.
George was a religious man. He knew that molesting a child was a sin. After his arrest, George's wife found a Bible in his car's glove compartment. Sometimes, when he was fighting his strong desire to sexually touch a child, he would recite certain passages and he would use the power of his deep religious convictions to stop that desire. Religion - in George's case - saved a few little girls from being molested. Still, he molested 23 little girls.
George was arrested and sent to jail. This strategy may have prevented more little girls from becoming victims; it did protect his nieces from George molesting them again. Still, he molested 23 little girls.
Many of the people around George believe that George's case is a success. After all, George's molesting has been stopped. He's been arrested; he's been put in jail. Many of the little girls have gone into therapy. So we have punished the child molester, we've treated the victims.
At the core, sending molesters to jail as a solution will always fail our children. Why? Because in order for a molester to be jailed, the criminal justice strategy requires that our children be sexually abused. Without a victim, it can't make a move.
It's the same with treating the victims. As a strategy, it's ineffective until after our children are sexually abused.
What we find horrifying in George's case is the waiting. All the adult protectors of those 23 little girls had to wait, powerless. First, they waited while 23 little girls were sexually abused. Then they waited for a little girl to tell an adult. But that wasn't the end of the waiting. They also had to wait for one of the 23 little girls to tell an adult who was willing to report the case. While they waited, they allowed George to go on molesting little girls for 26 years.
George's family did the best they could, given their options in the old era. Today there is no reason why George's story should be repeated.
Why? Because we have new information all of us can use to stop people like George before he molests 23 little girls.
New Information - A Typical Child Molester
When George's neighbors heard of the first accusation, they took his side. They didn't know who this 10-year-old girl from another city was, but they knew George. Some of them knew his parents.
When he admitted that he had molested so many little girls, their shock reverberated in their stories: "He was the last person you would imagine." "A very unusual case." "I've known this guy since grade school, it's unbelievable."
Everyone who knows George is sure of one thing: George is nothing like a typical child molester.
After all, he comes from a good home. His wife comes from a good home. George and his wife, their two children, and both sets of grandparents live near each other and go to the same church. He was baptized in the church and still attends regularly. He pays close attention to the rules. He pays all his bills a week before the due date. He has a college fund for his two sons. He rotates his tires. He drives within the speed limit.
George's wife and his neighbors believe that it's impossible - or extremely unusual - for an ordinary man in an ordinary family, a hard working responsible, husband and father of two, a man with high moral standards to be a child molester. They mistakenly believe that his family life, his acts of responsibility, his education, his moral values all protect George from becoming a child molester. In fact, they believe that those same things protect his family - and their families' children - from any connection with child molestation.
Is this an unusual case? If you lived in George's community what facts could you tell? You could repeat this fact: George's case is not in the least unusual. George is the typical child molester. He's married, educated, working, and religious.
Most people will tell you that this couldn't be right.
It is.
Researchers asked the 4,000 admitted child molesters in the Abel and Harlow Child Molestation Prevention Study to answer questions about their lives. These abusers were men aged 18 to 80.
How does George compare? George is typical.
First of all, he's married, just like 77 percent of the more than 4000 child sexual abusers in the Child Molestation Prevention Study. George is religious, like 93 percent of the abusers. He's educated. More than 46 percent had some college education and another 30 percent were high school graduates. Like 65 percent of the admitted abusers, George was working. Numerous studies of adult victims have sought to link child molestation victims to lower social class and lower family income. All have failed. Child victims and their abusers exist equally in families of all income levels and classes. And, now from the study, we know that child molesters are as equally married, educated, employed, and religious as any other Americans.
TABLE 2
Contrasts: Admitted Molesters vs. All American Men
Admitted Child Molesters
American Men
Married or formerly married
77%
73%
Some College
46%
49%
High School only
30%
32%
Working
69%
64%
Religious
93%
93%
Sources: The Abel and Harlow Child Molestation Prevention Study and the 1999 U.S. Census Statistical Abstract
Note: All people in both groups were at least 25 years old.
Examining The Facts With Care
Is it possible that the profile of the child molester is this: a man who is married, educated, working, and religious?
Yes. However, we all have to be careful at this point. We have to ask the next question: What does this mean? To answer that we come to another finding from the Abel and Harlow Child Molestation Prevention Study.
Rather than causing a person to molest, being married, educated, working, and religious is who we are as Americans. These are the facts. It's crucial that everyone understands them. In order for adult protectors to stand as a barrier between their children and a child sexual abuser, the protectors have to know what a sexual abuser of children looks like. He looks like George.
And he looks like a lot of other people you know. In analyzing the reports of the 4,000 admitted child molesters researchers found this: in their outward characteristics, matching percentages of child molesters to percentages of all American men, the average child molester closely matched the average American man.
They matched all the outward characteristics listed in Table 2.
Which Ethnic Groups Molest Children?
Are there ethnic groups in which child molestation does not occur? Probably not. Results from the Abel and Harlow Child Molestation Prevention Study suggest that each ethnic group studied has child molesters among them. Once again, the percentages bear a resemblance to the U.S. Census. (See "The Abel and Harlow Child Molestation Prevention Study" for further details about ethnic groups).
TABLE 3
Ethnic Groups: Admitted Molesters vs. All American Men
Admitted Child Molesters
American Men
Caucasian
79%
72%
Hispanic/Latin-American
9%
11%
African-American
6%
12%
Asian
1%
4%
Native American
3%
1%
Sources: The Abel and Harlow Child Molestation Prevention Study and the 1999 U.S. Census Statistical Abstract
Note: 3,952 men who admitted to molesting children were compared to American men of various ethnic groups. Asians were under-represented in the complete sample of 15,508 men. They were 1.2 percent. Native Americans were over-represented in the complete sample. They were 3 percent. Both groups had child molesters in proportions equal to their percentages of representation in the complete sample.
Which Children Are Molested?
Children are most at risk from the adults in their own family, and from the adults who are in their parents' social circle. In fact, 90 percent of abusers target children in their own families and children who they know well. Furthermore, research suggests that the risk is across the board: Child molesters come from every part of our society, and so children from every part of our society are at risk.
TABLE 4
Which Children Do Child Molesters Target?
CHILDREN IN THE FAMILY
Biological Child
19%
Stepchild, Adopted or Foster Child
30%
Brothers & Sisters
12%
Nieces & Nephews
18%
Grandchild
5%
CHILDREN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD
Child Left in My Care
5%
Child of Friend or Neighbor
40%
CHILDREN WHO ARE STRANGERS
Child Strangers
10%
Source: The Abel and Harlow Child Molestation Prevention Study.
Note: Since sexual abusers of children often molest children in more than one category, the categories total more than 100 percent. The same child molester may have molested his biological child and his stepchild, therefore, we cannot say that those two categories combined represent 49 percent, but must say that they represent a lower number.
Notice that only 10 percent of the child sexual abusers report that they molest a child who is a stranger.
Let's put the facts together:
Child molesters exist in every part of our society.
They molest children close to them, mainly children in their family or children in their social circle.
Most child molesters, 90 percent, report that they know their child victims very well.
We want you to look carefully at that last fact on the list. While there are several facts that you will use as part of The Child Molestation Prevention Plan, this is the most important.
To save the greatest number of children in the shortest possible time, we must turn the current focus of our efforts upside down. Right now, 90 percent of our efforts go toward protecting our children from strangers, when what we need to do is to focus 90 percent of our efforts toward protecting children from the abusers who are not strangers - the molesters in their families and the molesters who are the friends of their families.
And we must ask the next important question: What causes the one member of the family who molests to be so different from the rest of his or her family? To end nearly all child molestation we must focus on the cause.
Friday, November 23, 2007
Shock, disappointment and disbelief follow popular priest allegations.
Residents rally around priest
Many support Salerno after abuse allegation
By Sumathi Reddy
Sun reporter
November 20, 2007
By 8:30 a.m. yesterday, the first sign had already gone up.
"God bless father Michael Salerno
We love and support you!"
Many support Salerno after abuse allegation
By Sumathi Reddy
Sun reporter
November 20, 2007
By 8:30 a.m. yesterday, the first sign had already gone up.
"God bless father Michael Salerno
We love and support you!"
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
An Open Letter to Rev McGuire from the father of two Victims.
This open letter to Rev. Donald McGuire, S.J., was written by the father of two of McGuire’s victims.
I am posting this letter with the author’s permission.
* * *
OPEN LETTER TO:
November 21, 2007
“Reverend” (?) Donald J. McGuire
The Most Dangerous Priest in America
Oak Lawn, Illinois
Congratulations! You have successfully accomplished much of the work of your spiritual mentor, Lucifer. For at least 40 of your 46 years of Satan inspired priesthood you have ruined the lives of countless of young boys and their family’s with your forced pedophilia. A special place in Hell waits, unless before death, you repent and seek forgiveness. I never imagined so much evil could exist in one individual as it does in you, Donald McGuire! You as well as your cohorts, the Jesuits, have known of your deviant lifestyle for decades, yet have done nothing to stop it. With so many male prostitutes available for your perverted pleasure why do you target young innocent boys from decent families for your lewd and lascivious behavior? Is it because your deranged criminal mind only finds joy in murdering the souls of your countless innocent victims through your evil behavior?
In my October 8, 2007 letter to Judge James L. Carlson in Walworth County (WI) asking for revocation of bond and incarceration, as you certainly deserve, I noted how you have made a mockery of the Sacraments of Holy Orders (Priesthood) and Penance (Confession) as you often molested young boys (including mine) in the confessional. Since then, I’ve discovered your Sacramental Mockery #3 extends to Matrimony (Marriage) - You deliberately drove wedges between husbands and wives and to create an opportunity for you to essentially kidnap our sons for your world wide perverted sexual encounters, including in the convents of Mother Teresa, and continued to traumatize them. Also, your sexual abuse of our younger son, while you were in Phoenix to witness the Marriage of our oldest son (your earlier victim) is unconscionable. Sacramental Mockery #4 (Baptism) – Your eager willingness to baptize our three youngest children and stay at our home was obviously a deceptive ploy to sexually abuse our oldest son again, and again. Sacramental Mockery #5 (Eucharist) – On retreats you typically reserved the Blessed Sacrament in your bedroom at night, where you also sexually abused my sons and other boys. How much more demonic can you be? I can only pray that through your fraudulent and sacrilegious priesthood somehow this Sacrament was invalid.
You dare to tell the few supporters you have left that my sons’ motivation in filing a lawsuit against you and your co-conspirators (the Chicago Province of the Society of Jesus) is “for the money”. Even the Archdiocese of Chicago is getting on this bandwagon. If not money, which “medium of exchange” do you suggest as a trade off for the lonely, silent depression and shame you’ve put my two sons through for the past 19 years and 7 years respectively? It’s still far from being over, if ever. What about the constant, painful reminder we as parents feel that we ever allowed a then, unknown psychopathic child predator into our lives that destroyed forever the innocence of our sons? Are we supposed to sit around a campfire, hold hands sing Kumbia and hope all is forgotten? Whatever the final outcome, it will not have been worth the ongoing tears, anguish and humiliation that you, Donald McGuire, have caused. Certainly you know by now there are multiple criminal complaints filed against you in various counties where your despicable crimes were committed. The U.S. Attorney of Northern Illinois is prosecuting you for your malfeasants (Case #07CR 716).
What baffles me, Donald McGuire, is how in the twilight years of your life you don’t acknowledge your obvious guilt, apologize to the multiple victims, now young men, and their families and help us all begin the healing process. Even Jeffery Daumer, who ironically, had the same criminal defense lawyer, Gerald Boyle, as you did in your Wisconsin trial, sought and received partial forgiveness from some of his victims’ families before his untimely miserable death. You say: “I’m losing friends because people don’t know my side of the story” and “my lawyer says I can’t talk”. You’ve had ample opportunity to tell your story, yet you remain mute with a disgusting smirk. Why? In fact at your sentencing on July 18, 2006 in Walworth County, (WI) you swore on the Bible: “I wish I ignored my lawyers’ advice and testified in my own behalf. Given the opportunity for a new trial I swear I will not remain silent”. Your multiple motions for a new trial were all denied on November 1, 2007. So, now’s your chance; let’s hear your story. Also, you won’t have your lawyer at your side on Judgment Day. What will you do then? You never got permission from parents of your victims to introduce them to gay pornography or to impose your deviant sexual fantasies on them. Why do you now need permission from your lawyer to be contrite? Please let us know when you get the OK from your lawyer to apologize – then do it!
J.R.C. - father of: Victims 5 & 10 (see NPR.com for details, Search - Donald McGuire)
- aka: John Does’ 117 & 118 (Cook County, IL – Civil Case #2007L011952)
I am posting this letter with the author’s permission.
* * *
OPEN LETTER TO:
November 21, 2007
“Reverend” (?) Donald J. McGuire
The Most Dangerous Priest in America
Oak Lawn, Illinois
Congratulations! You have successfully accomplished much of the work of your spiritual mentor, Lucifer. For at least 40 of your 46 years of Satan inspired priesthood you have ruined the lives of countless of young boys and their family’s with your forced pedophilia. A special place in Hell waits, unless before death, you repent and seek forgiveness. I never imagined so much evil could exist in one individual as it does in you, Donald McGuire! You as well as your cohorts, the Jesuits, have known of your deviant lifestyle for decades, yet have done nothing to stop it. With so many male prostitutes available for your perverted pleasure why do you target young innocent boys from decent families for your lewd and lascivious behavior? Is it because your deranged criminal mind only finds joy in murdering the souls of your countless innocent victims through your evil behavior?
In my October 8, 2007 letter to Judge James L. Carlson in Walworth County (WI) asking for revocation of bond and incarceration, as you certainly deserve, I noted how you have made a mockery of the Sacraments of Holy Orders (Priesthood) and Penance (Confession) as you often molested young boys (including mine) in the confessional. Since then, I’ve discovered your Sacramental Mockery #3 extends to Matrimony (Marriage) - You deliberately drove wedges between husbands and wives and to create an opportunity for you to essentially kidnap our sons for your world wide perverted sexual encounters, including in the convents of Mother Teresa, and continued to traumatize them. Also, your sexual abuse of our younger son, while you were in Phoenix to witness the Marriage of our oldest son (your earlier victim) is unconscionable. Sacramental Mockery #4 (Baptism) – Your eager willingness to baptize our three youngest children and stay at our home was obviously a deceptive ploy to sexually abuse our oldest son again, and again. Sacramental Mockery #5 (Eucharist) – On retreats you typically reserved the Blessed Sacrament in your bedroom at night, where you also sexually abused my sons and other boys. How much more demonic can you be? I can only pray that through your fraudulent and sacrilegious priesthood somehow this Sacrament was invalid.
You dare to tell the few supporters you have left that my sons’ motivation in filing a lawsuit against you and your co-conspirators (the Chicago Province of the Society of Jesus) is “for the money”. Even the Archdiocese of Chicago is getting on this bandwagon. If not money, which “medium of exchange” do you suggest as a trade off for the lonely, silent depression and shame you’ve put my two sons through for the past 19 years and 7 years respectively? It’s still far from being over, if ever. What about the constant, painful reminder we as parents feel that we ever allowed a then, unknown psychopathic child predator into our lives that destroyed forever the innocence of our sons? Are we supposed to sit around a campfire, hold hands sing Kumbia and hope all is forgotten? Whatever the final outcome, it will not have been worth the ongoing tears, anguish and humiliation that you, Donald McGuire, have caused. Certainly you know by now there are multiple criminal complaints filed against you in various counties where your despicable crimes were committed. The U.S. Attorney of Northern Illinois is prosecuting you for your malfeasants (Case #07CR 716).
What baffles me, Donald McGuire, is how in the twilight years of your life you don’t acknowledge your obvious guilt, apologize to the multiple victims, now young men, and their families and help us all begin the healing process. Even Jeffery Daumer, who ironically, had the same criminal defense lawyer, Gerald Boyle, as you did in your Wisconsin trial, sought and received partial forgiveness from some of his victims’ families before his untimely miserable death. You say: “I’m losing friends because people don’t know my side of the story” and “my lawyer says I can’t talk”. You’ve had ample opportunity to tell your story, yet you remain mute with a disgusting smirk. Why? In fact at your sentencing on July 18, 2006 in Walworth County, (WI) you swore on the Bible: “I wish I ignored my lawyers’ advice and testified in my own behalf. Given the opportunity for a new trial I swear I will not remain silent”. Your multiple motions for a new trial were all denied on November 1, 2007. So, now’s your chance; let’s hear your story. Also, you won’t have your lawyer at your side on Judgment Day. What will you do then? You never got permission from parents of your victims to introduce them to gay pornography or to impose your deviant sexual fantasies on them. Why do you now need permission from your lawyer to be contrite? Please let us know when you get the OK from your lawyer to apologize – then do it!
J.R.C. - father of: Victims 5 & 10 (see NPR.com for details, Search - Donald McGuire)
- aka: John Does’ 117 & 118 (Cook County, IL – Civil Case #2007L011952)
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Next Monday at 7:30pm. Save the date. Crosses: Portraits of Clergy Abuse, shows the huge, personal price paid by survivors of clergy sex crimes.
On Monday, November 19 at 7:30pm Carmine Galasso, photographer and writer, will speak about his new book: Crosses.Location: Larchmont Avenue Church in Larchmont For more information: Call 914. 834. 2183 or 914.235.2123
With portraits taken over a period of two to three years, here are also the accounts of children, now as adults themselves and in their own words, of a childhood blighted by the violation and horror of sexual abuse at the hands of a member of the Catholic clergy. From countless interviews, emails and phone conversations they recall their experiences of an abuse of power – be they priest, monk or nun - which has followed them into their adult lives.
With portraits taken over a period of two to three years, here are also the accounts of children, now as adults themselves and in their own words, of a childhood blighted by the violation and horror of sexual abuse at the hands of a member of the Catholic clergy. From countless interviews, emails and phone conversations they recall their experiences of an abuse of power – be they priest, monk or nun - which has followed them into their adult lives.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Clohessy Calls UCCB election "a sad day for the American Catholic Church."
TUCSON (AZ)KVOAKicanas elected bishops' VP, draws fire from criticAssociated Press -November 13, 2007TUCSON, Ariz. (AP) - Bishop Gerald Kicanas has been elected vice president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, normally the post leading tosubsequent election as president.Kicanas follows Chicago Cardinal Francis George, who on Tuesday was elected president of the conference.Kicanas led the Tucson diocese through Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization proceedings during 2004 and 2005 in response to a priest sex abuse scandalthat resulted in a wave of lawsuits.The election of both George and Kicanas drew criticism from the national director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, David Clohessy, whocalled it "a sad day for the American Catholic church. It's top two officials have terrible track records on child sex abuse and cover-up."A call to a spokesman for Kicanas seeking comment was not returned immediately.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Snap distraught because wrongdoers (like Cardinal George) in the church hierarchy seemingly get rewarded and promoted.
Survivors Network of those Abused By PriestsP.O. Box 6416, Chicago, Illinois 60680-6416312-455-1499
November 12, 2007: Election of USCCB officers
Statement by Barbara Dorris of St. Louis, Outreach Director of SNAP, (314 862 7688, 314 503 0003 cell)
We are distraught because wrongdoers in the church hierarchy seemingly get rewarded and promoted.
Pope Benedict has chosen several bishops and cardinals who ‘severely mishandled’ abuse cases, including Archbishop William Levada of San Francisco (now a Cardinal in a high level Vatican post), Bishop Nicholas DiNardo of Galveston-Houston (recently made a cardinal), Bishop Jaime Soto (from Orange County, named Sacramento’s bishop), and Bishop Walter Hurley of Detroit (now Grand Rapids bishop).
The US bishops have also been supported and promoted wrong-doers. In 2004, they elected Spokane Bishop William Skylstad as their leader, even though he sought bankruptcy protection to avoid having to testify in potentially embarrassing civil trials about how much he knew and how little he did about abusive priests. In 2004, they elected Chicago Cardinal Francis George as their vice president, even though he let a convicted molester work in his archdiocese and live in his mansion. Now, US bishops seem poised to promote George again, despite his duplicity in the recent child molestation cases involving Fr. Donald McGuire, Fr. Daniel McCormack and others.
Other candidates for USCCB positions are similarly compromised and corrupt.
We urge the Pope to avoid promoting complicit bishops, even if it means digging deeper into the pool of rank-and-file parish priests, rather than elevating corrupt auxiliary bishops or bishops into higher positions. We also urge America’s bishops to nominate and support candidates for USCCB offices who have NOT engaged in widespread cover ups of clergy sex abuse cases.
Church officials can’t have their cake and eat it too. They can’t claim they want victims to come forward while promoting the very men who stiff-armed victims, deceived police, stonewalled prosecutors, misled parishioners and protected predators for years. They can’t claim they’ve ‘learned’ and ‘reformed’ while honoring and promoting the very men who continue to be reckless, secretive and recalcitrant.
This kind of callousness rubs salt into the already deep and still fresh wounds of many victims and Catholics who are still in pain because of abusive priests and complicit bishops. It fuels the already intense helplessness and pessimism many victims and Catholics feel about the prospects of a safer church. It deters victims, especially those trapped in shame and self-blame, from reporting their predators and thus protecting vulnerable kids.
And it shows that, despite decades of scandal and a plethora of promises, bishops still refuse to truly reform.
CONTACT
Barbara Blaine of Chicago, SNAP President 312 399 4747 9606
Barbara Dorris of St. Louis, SNAP Outreach Director 314 862 7688
David Clohessy of St. Louis SNAP National Director 314 566 9790 cell, 314 645 5915
Barbara BlainePresident312 399 4747snapblaine@gmail.com Survivors Network of those Abused by PriestsSNAPnetwork.org
Mark your calendar: 2008 SNAP National Conference July 11-13 in Chicago
November 12, 2007: Election of USCCB officers
Statement by Barbara Dorris of St. Louis, Outreach Director of SNAP, (314 862 7688, 314 503 0003 cell)
We are distraught because wrongdoers in the church hierarchy seemingly get rewarded and promoted.
Pope Benedict has chosen several bishops and cardinals who ‘severely mishandled’ abuse cases, including Archbishop William Levada of San Francisco (now a Cardinal in a high level Vatican post), Bishop Nicholas DiNardo of Galveston-Houston (recently made a cardinal), Bishop Jaime Soto (from Orange County, named Sacramento’s bishop), and Bishop Walter Hurley of Detroit (now Grand Rapids bishop).
The US bishops have also been supported and promoted wrong-doers. In 2004, they elected Spokane Bishop William Skylstad as their leader, even though he sought bankruptcy protection to avoid having to testify in potentially embarrassing civil trials about how much he knew and how little he did about abusive priests. In 2004, they elected Chicago Cardinal Francis George as their vice president, even though he let a convicted molester work in his archdiocese and live in his mansion. Now, US bishops seem poised to promote George again, despite his duplicity in the recent child molestation cases involving Fr. Donald McGuire, Fr. Daniel McCormack and others.
Other candidates for USCCB positions are similarly compromised and corrupt.
We urge the Pope to avoid promoting complicit bishops, even if it means digging deeper into the pool of rank-and-file parish priests, rather than elevating corrupt auxiliary bishops or bishops into higher positions. We also urge America’s bishops to nominate and support candidates for USCCB offices who have NOT engaged in widespread cover ups of clergy sex abuse cases.
Church officials can’t have their cake and eat it too. They can’t claim they want victims to come forward while promoting the very men who stiff-armed victims, deceived police, stonewalled prosecutors, misled parishioners and protected predators for years. They can’t claim they’ve ‘learned’ and ‘reformed’ while honoring and promoting the very men who continue to be reckless, secretive and recalcitrant.
This kind of callousness rubs salt into the already deep and still fresh wounds of many victims and Catholics who are still in pain because of abusive priests and complicit bishops. It fuels the already intense helplessness and pessimism many victims and Catholics feel about the prospects of a safer church. It deters victims, especially those trapped in shame and self-blame, from reporting their predators and thus protecting vulnerable kids.
And it shows that, despite decades of scandal and a plethora of promises, bishops still refuse to truly reform.
CONTACT
Barbara Blaine of Chicago, SNAP President 312 399 4747 9606
Barbara Dorris of St. Louis, SNAP Outreach Director 314 862 7688
David Clohessy of St. Louis SNAP National Director 314 566 9790 cell, 314 645 5915
Barbara BlainePresident312 399 4747snapblaine@gmail.com Survivors Network of those Abused by PriestsSNAPnetwork.org
Mark your calendar: 2008 SNAP National Conference July 11-13 in Chicago
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
