It’s a sad reminder of the enormous harm done by the sexual abuse of minors.  Twenty-five years after Dyer’s death, there is still pain and suffering.  Hopefully, today’s lawsuit filing is the first step in the quest for justice and healing for one courageous young man.

POSTED: 1:42 pm PDT July 6, 2011

PORTLAND, Ore. — Nine former students of one of Oregon’s best known “tough love” boarding schools, a facility east of Prineville that was shut by the state two years ago, filed a lawsuit Wednesday alleging emotional, physical and sexual abuse.The suit is being brought by attorneys Kelly Clark, Steve Crew, Gilion Dumas, Kristian Roggendorf, Peter Janci and the Portland law firm O’Donnell Clark and Crew, who often bring child abuse cases in Oregon and around the nation.The suit alleges claims of battery, negligence, and infliction of emotional distress against Mount Bachelor Academy and its parent companies, Aspen Education Group and CRC Health. The suit seeks more than $14 million in compensatory damages, and punitive damages will be sought as well.An attorney for the school’s operator later issued a statement denying the charges. That statement is in full below, after the rest of the release about the lawsuit’s allegations:Located 26 miles east of Prineville, the controversial “therapeutic boarding school” known as Mount Bachelor Academy was closed by the state of Oregon in November of 2009 based on the findings of an investigation related to charges of systemic abuse and neglect.According to a report by the Oregon Department of Human Services, Mount Bachelor Academy reportedly used “punitive, humiliating, degrading and traumatizing” tactics as “treatment” 00– an approach some say stems from the Synanon self-help group of the 1960′s, which was rejected as a cult by mainstream mental health community by the late 1970s. At the time of its closure in 2009, Mt. Bachelor Academy reportedly had more than 75 staff supervising approximately 90 students who were being charged a tuition of $6,400 per month.“The so-called ‘treatment’ that these children were forced to endure on a daily basis at Mt. Bachelor Academy is obscene. Not only did the program ‘break kids down’, it did nothing to build them back up,” said Kelly Clark, an attorney for the plaintiffs. “We intend to prove that this wasn’t education, it wasn’t treatment and it wasn’t ‘tough love’ – this was abuse.”The plaintiffs in Wednesday’s suit, who all attended Mount Bachelor Academy in the late 1990s, allege: that they were subjected to regular psychological abuse and shaming, including being required to reenact traumatic experiences (such as prior instances of child sexual abuse) in front of their peers; that they were subjected to extreme isolation and prolonged deprivations of food, water, shelter, and basic medical care; that students were required to go days with little or no sleep and were also regularly forced into “chain gang” style labor; that phone calls to their families were limited and were monitored by Mt. Bachelor Academy staff; and that parents were instructed by staff not to believe their children if they claimed malfeasance or abuse – i.e., the children will lie, it is all part of the treatment process, parents were told.The allegations in the lawsuit are consistent with the findings by the Oregon Department of Human Services. In late 2009, following a seven month investigation, DHS found multiple incidences of “abuse and neglect” and “serious violations of Oregon’s licensing standards.”The DHS report cited nine substantiated claims of abusive practices, including “punitive, humiliating, degrading and traumatizing” activities such as “sexualized role pay and reenactment of traumatic events, such as prior physical or sexual abuse.” The state also found that these were not isolated incidents; instead, “many of [the abusive] behaviors fell within the range of behavior expected, encouraged or condoned by the Mount Bachelor Academy program itself . . . .”DHS determined that “MBA poses a serious danger to public health or safety of children . . . [and] should not be permitted to continue operating as a therapeutic boarding school for children.” Thereafter, in November of 2009, the state gave Mt. Bachelor Academy 72 hours to shut down its program and remove students from its facility. The facility closed on November 3, 2009. Later, in October 2010, as part of a settlement of a suit by Mt. Bachelor against the state contesting the DHS findings of abuse, Aspen Education Group and CRC Health Group (the parent company’s of Mount Bachelor Academy) agreed that DHS had reasonable cause to believe that abuse or neglect had occurred at the school, and that DHS had a reasonable basis to investigate and to seek corrective actions.The lawsuit names Mount Bachelor Academy and its parent companies as defendants. Those include Aspen Education Group – a national conglomerate of therapeutic boarding schools which, at its peak had nearly 40 youth programs throughout the United States – as well as Aspen’s parent company, CRC Health Group. CRC Health Group is a large national healthcare corporation owned by Bain Capital, a private equity firm with $65 billion in assets.4Wednesday’s lawsuit is part of a larger response to decades of abuse and mistreatment in so-called “tough love” facilities – both inside and outside of the Aspen Education Group.According to previous news reports, at least four children have died in Aspen-owned facilities since 2004. One of those incidences occurred in Oregon in 2009 – the death of student Sergey Blashchishen during a wilderness hike in the Redmond-based Sagewalk Wilderness School.Blashchishen, a minor at the Sagewalk facility, collapsed in August of 2009 while hiking on his second day Aspen’s Sagewalk program. Staff had reportedly ignored repeated signs of a serious medical problem, and the boy died at the scene. The lead sherif’s investigator on the Sagewalk case recommended that the Lake County district attorney file homicide charges. Sagewalk had previously been the subject of the nationally broadcast ABC television series “Brat Camp” in 2005.As Peter Janci, one of the Plaintiffs’ attorneys explained,“Many ‘tough love’ schools have been a breeding ground for abuse – isolating vulnerable kids and subjecting them to debunked so-called ‘treatments’ by unqualified staff, while their parents are kept in the dark and bilked out of tens of thousands of dollars.”Problems of abuse, injury and even death are present throughout the “tough love” industry. Some reports indicate that more than two dozen teenagers died in such facilities between 1990 and 2001.The lawsuit is one in a growing number of actions by individuals who survived these facilities, only to be left with serious, long-term psychological injuries. Several weeks ago, a civil suit was filed against Silverado Academy in Utah for claims related to a staff member’s sexual abuse of at least 10 boys.Previously, in 2006, attorneys for another group of individuals filed a major lawsuit alleging neglect, fraud and abuse against the World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and Schools and related entities. That suit is still pending in federal court in Utah, and now includes 353 plaintiffs who allege they were wronged by therapeutic boarding schools and their related entities.“This is a watershed moment in exposing organizations that have profited from broken promises to desperate families,” said Clark. “We believe that institutions like Mount Bachelor Academy need to be exposed for what they are and held accountable for the permanent damage they have done to the lives of vulnerable teenagers entrusted to their care.”Clark and his firm are among the most prominent child sexual abuse attorneys in the nation, having brought over 300 claims against such organizations as the Catholic Church, the Mormon Church, the Boy Scouts of America and dozens of other youth-serving organizations.Clark has twice won landmark child abuse cases at the Oregon Supreme Court, and last year was lead counsel in a six week sex abuse trial against the Boy Scouts of America resulting in a jury verdict of nearly $20 million.—A response from Greg Chaimov, a lawyer with Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, on behalf of client Mount Bachelor AcademyWhile we have not yet had the opportunity to evaluate the allegations in the complaint filed today, we would like to go on record that Mount Bachelor Academy was successful in resolving the dispute with the Oregon Department of Human Services last fall after abundant evidence was collected that showed the allegations of abuse made to the Department were unfounded.DHS initially took action based on students’ allegations, but withdrew its orders, including the suspension of Mount Bachelor Academy’s license, after further information became available. Given the favorable terms of the settlement agreement, we agreed to dismiss our various legal proceedings against the state. We also independently decided to leave Mount Bachelor Academy closed due to the fact that the sudden and erroneous closure of the campus effectively shut the program down the year prior.For over two decades, Mount Bachelor Academy (MBA) positively changed the lives of over 1,000 troubled young people. MBA was a program specifically designed for troubled students who had failed to progress in other settings. It was designed to help kids confront the worst of their behaviors and take ownership of them, whether that be substance abuse, sexual acting out or other issues. This approach proved successful at producing positive, life-changing – and, in some cases, life-saving – results. The numerous positive testimonials provided by families and students over the years further attest to the success of MBA.MBA and its parent companies never condoned or participated in the mistreatment or deprivation of any students. As we understand, the plaintiffs in this lawsuit attended MBA prior to its acquisition by a nationally recognized network of therapeutic schools and programs that espouse comprehensive best practices and safety protocols. While we cannot comment on specific allegations from individual students due to HIPAA privacy regulations, we vigorously deny any and all charges of mistreatment.

At the outset I should say by way of disclaimer and disclosure, again, that I have several reasons for having thought so much and read so widely on these matters. First, I am a broken man, a not very virtuous Christian in recovery from many addictions, who has badly hurt, and been hurt by, those I have loved deeply.  Some of this pain has been very private, but some of it– because much of my professional life in law and politics has been somewhat high profile– some of it has not.  Either way, for many years now I have been keenly aware that I am a man who stands in need of both receiving and giving forgiveness.  Second, as a child sex abuse lawyer for those who are victims of Catholic priest abuse, Mormon abuse, and Boy Scout abuse, among other contexts, I have seen firsthand the struggles of survivors of child sex abuse to obtain apologies from those who wronged them, and, sometimes, to find in their own souls the power to forgive those who harmed them.   So I have thought a lot about all this.

Often I am asked, by a client survivor of child abuse, or by, say a younger man in recovery, about forgiveness. Usually the question is whether I think it is incumbent upon them to forgive those who have hurt them.  This is a difficult and delicate question, and I am always quick to say so to those who ask.  Some people—many of my colleagues in the child abuse healing field, for example—will discourage you from even considering this.  But, I suggest to my questioner, no one can presume to tell another whether he or she must, or even should, forgive someone who has wronged him or her.  I have not lived your life, I have never been an abuse survivor, I have not walked in your shoes. Recovering—from addiction or from child abuse—is about learning to take back your power and live your own life, and so only you can decide whether to forgive. 

But, even being reluctant to give advice about whether another should forgive, I will sometimes  offer a few observations. 

First, I have observed that it is very difficult—although not impossible–  for a person who has been hurt to forgive someone who has not asked for forgiveness, who has not shown remorse, who has not tried to make amends, who has shown no willingness to change and go in a new direction.  So one consideration is whether the hurtful person has asked for forgiveness.   If not, then offering forgiveness is more difficult and it is perfectly appropriate to acknowledge that.

Second, I have noticed that coming to a place where one can offer forgiveness to another for a wrong done can take a long, long time—and that is understandable. Deeply wounded people must first become whole, become strong, become able to care for themselves and their needs, to stand up for themselves and hold their boundaries.  Too often, a perpetrator of abuse or pain has conditioned the other to give up his or her own power habitually and automatically, or quickly to drop emotional boundaries in relation to the perpetrator.  Do not confuse damaged self-esteem or fragile boundaries with true forgiveness, I will say.  Only a whole and healed person can forgive, and if one tries too soon, or pronounces forgiveness out of compulsion, it can become a re-enactment of the abuse dynamic—even from a distance, even without any actual or ongoing interaction between the wrongdoer and the wronged.  “I really feel like I should forgive him,” some of my clients will say.   But this is just another way in which a harmful person continues to steal power from the one he has harmed.  

This dynamic is true even—maybe even especially—if the compulsion to forgive comes from a place of early or old religious dogma or training.  Remember that many survivors were abused by figures of religious or spiritual authority, which means often that many of these survivors carry the remnants of religious training, and so can easily feel compelled “to forgive” as a result of childhood guilt.  But as we can easily see, a coerced or compulsive religious scruple is not the same thing as a mature and strong spiritual decision: especially when it comes to the very weighty decision to forgive one who has done harm.  Now I want to be careful here, lest I be misunderstood. I am not rejecting the ancient and powerful spiritual wisdom of Christianity, of Judaism, of Islam, of the Eastern spiritual systems—all of which, in various ways, teach the cleansing power of forgiving those who have hurt us.  But I am saying that the truth in these traditions about forgiveness must be discovered by each wounded person in his or her own time, in wholeness and in freedom.  It is no good to forgive because I think I “must,” or “should.”  Forgiveness is a gift—perhaps the greatest gift known to humankind—but in order to be authentic, to be healing, it must be freely offered by one who has the emotional and spiritual power to choose to do so.  So forgive when you are able to do so freely: which is, ironically, about the same time that you are also able to choose not to forgive. In other words, forgive if you choose, as you choose.

Then, once I have tried to make sure I am clear on these two observations, I offer a third.  And that is this: that once in a great while—and it is a mysterious and beautiful thing– I have seen wounded people become strong, become clear, become free in their healing and new power, and then choose to forgive those who have hurt them.  And what I then see in these people is a release, a new level of freedom from the toxic hold that the hurtful person once held over them.  “He/She has held me and my emotions captive long enough,” they say. “I’m done.  I release it, I release him.  I’m no longer willing to carry the burden of this anger, this hurt, this resentment.  I choose to forgive, and I am free.  I do not hate him; I do not wish him ill.  I want to be at peace, with myself, with him, with the universe.  Knowing I could choose not to do so, and that I would be justified in doing so, I nonetheless think it is best– for me –to choose to forgive.”  When these incredible people come to this place, as I have observed, they become some of the freest, most peaceful, powerful and loving people I have ever known.   And so it is that, in response to the question of “should I forgive?” I say to my inquirer, if you decide you want to go to that place, if you decide, in freedom, to choose to forgive, then I will fully support you and walk with you along the way. Because I want to watch the miracle.  Perhaps I might learn from you, and draw from your good spirit and energy. That would be a great privilege, indeed.

Reading about a recent criminal sex abuse trial in Medford, Oregon recently, I was stunned at what I learned.  A child was asked to "demonstrate" how she was abused by her stepfather, complete with a mattress being brought into the courtroom.  Now, of course, I have no right to an opinion about whether the man is guilty or not.  But, as this well-written Mail Tribune editorial points out, assuming that the child was abused– which is what any judge must do in such a situation– did no one in the courtroom, judge, prosecutor, victim’s advocate, see what this was likely to do to a child who has been abused?  It is the worst kind of re-creation of trauma: done in public with hostile adults standing by ready to shame the child!  I don’t of course question the motive of the judge or prosecutor: I do question their judgment.   It tells me how far we still have to go in helping even the legal profession understand the life-scarring impact of abuse.

As a child sex abuse attorney who has represented many, many victims of priest sexual abuse, Boy Scout sexual abuse, Mormon sexual abuse, and child sexual abuse in a variety of other contexts, I have seen firsthand the deep need that survivors have for a genuine apology from those who harmed them—the perpetrators of the abuse and those in institutional positions of responsibility who failed to protect children from abuse. In my last blog, I posted on the nature of a true apology, and examined some pseudo-apologies, explaining why such half measures do not achieve any healing or forgiveness.  In this post, I want to tell a story of one of the very few true apologies I have ever seen in doing this work, and one of the most genuine apologies I have ever seen in any context.

A number of years ago, the parents of a four year-old little girl came to me deeply distraught at having learned that their daughter, along with several other children, had been repeatedly molested by an employee of a large athletic club, part of a national chain company. This 22 year-old man, who was soon after convicted of multiple counts of child sexual abuse, would often worm his way into the child care area of the club, and was allowed by unsuspecting childcare workers to play with the children.  During this play, he would frequently abuse these small children, as a hidden video camera later showed.  As the situation became clear during the criminal investigation, the parents became convinced that the club had been badly negligent, both in failing to do a full background check on this man, but also in failing to supervise the child care area, as the videos made plain.  The parents wanted accountability and they wanted change, so that this did not happen to anyone else, but they did not want to file a lawsuit if they could avoid it. So we made an out of court claim against the athletic club and they offered to mediate the claim. 

A few months later, after a day with a skillful mediator, we settled the claim—for a confidential amount of money for the future needs of the child. We also secured an agreement that the organization would do a comprehensive review of their child safety policies, bring in outside experts to assist with this project, and include my clients in the process every step of the way, allowing them to have input and to make suggestions.  And—most important of all to the parents—we negotiated that an executive of the company would come to Portland and meet with them face to face, to make a personal apology for the company’s mistakes. “An apology,” I said to the mediator, “not some meely-mouthed statement of regret.” I was thinking of all the half and pseudo apologies I had heard from so many people in positions of responsibility for the safety of children at the end of cases, so many bishops and bureaucrats and insurance executives.

So it was that a few weeks later we had a meeting in my office—the parents, me, two lawyers for the company and the executive.  I must admit, when I was first introduced to the executive, I was disappointed.  I guess I had expected some silver-haired CEO with an air of “top guy”—but instead here was a young woman, not much older than my clients, perhaps in her mid-thirties.  She introduced herself as the “Vice President for Human Resources”—meaning she was in charge of writing policies regarding the supervision of employees.  So, clearly she was the one who would head up the “policy review” process outlined in our settlement.  But who was going to make the apology? I wondered.  It didn’t take long to find out.

(Now, I should say at this point that I recreate this conversation from memory, not notes, which I did not keep, and so I might not have all the dialogue just right. But I remember it like it was yesterday, such an impact it had on me.)

”I’m so glad you agreed to meet with me,” started the young woman, clearly nervous and unsure of herself, “for I am absolutely committed to changing our policies so that nothing like this ever happens again, and we will do whatever it takes to make sure of that.”  Hmmm.  A little blunt, I thought, but so far, so good. 

She was then silent for a long time and looked down.  Her voice changed, she shook her head and looked directly at the parents.  “No, wait…Before we start that process,” said she, “I want to say something first.  I want you to know that I’m a parent, too. I have a five year old, a beautiful five year- old little boy”—at this her eyes started to well with tears– “and I just want you to know that, if this ever happened to my child, I would be so upset, so angry, so enraged, I don’t know what I would do.  I cannot even imagine what your life has been like for the last several months.  So I am here to say how very sorry I am at what happened to your daughter.  I just cannot imagine your pain and anger….”  Now, at this point I expected her to stop, as I had seen happen with so many other organizations, after a representative had given some version of “I’m sorry this happened to you.”   After all, though this young woman was obviously sincere, so far all she had really done was to show deep empathy for what had happened to this family. Now, don’t get me wrong– deep empathy is great, and I wish more organizations would practice it as genuinely as did this executive.  But so far, it wasn’t an apology. It was just an expression of empathy. 

But not for long.

“And I want you to know that I know, and my company knows, that we completely failed you here,  and we failed your daughter”— by now, real tears flowing down her face and her voice breaking—“ and I am so, so sorry. I would give anything if we could go back and prevent what happened to your little girl.  I know that we can’t do that, and so all I can offer you, on my own behalf and on behalf of my company, is a genuine, deep, unconditional apology.  I am and we are very sorry and apologize to you and your daughter.”

You could hear a pin drop. The parents were still. The mother slowly started to speak.  “You know,” she said, “that is all I really wanted to hear.  What you said really matters to me, and I believe you that you and your company are sorry….Thank you.”  “Yeah,” echoed the father softly, “I appreciate your kind words, and I accept your apology.  Now we can all go to work to change things so that this doesn’t happen to anyone else.”   And so we did, and the organization is now significantly safer for children than it was before.

The power of an apology is an amazing thing, if it is given sincerely and without equivocation, as this story shows.

I get asked quite often by people what is the role of apology and forgiveness in the work that I do. Well, the short answer is: not much. As a child sex abuse attorney having represented over over 300 men, women and children who suffered child sexual abuse, I can count on one hand the number of times that I have witnessed a genuine apology and a request for forgiveness.  Whether from those responsible for Catholic priest abuse, Boy Scout abuse, Mormon abuse, or any of the other contexts in which these crimes occur– families, schools, athletic leagues–  I just haven’t seen it, with but a few exceptions.

But as one who has made serious mistakes in my own life deeply hurting those I have loved, as a (not very virtuous) man of Christian faith, as a recovering alcoholic who has done his best to make amends to those I have harmed in my life, and as a human being who observes the human condition, I have read and thought a lot about apologies and forgiveness.  So, in this and forthcoming blogs, I plan to reflect with you on the nature of apology and forgiveness.

We have all seen the pseudo-apology:  "I’m sorry this happened to you."  "I regret that you feel something I did– or did not do–caused you pain."  "We regret your experience."  These are not apologies and requests for forgiveness.  These are words written by lawyers and publicists so their clients can get out of a legal scrape or a public embarrassment and yet not acknowledge wrongdoing.  The Catholic Church is the most notorious user of this kind of pseudo apology.   If you really read what the Church heirarchy has written, even the comments of the Popes, they do not amount to real apologies.  The closest they have come is to "apologize for the heinous actions of some priests."  But, of course, coming from the Church heirarchy– which, all too often, played a crucial role in allowing child sex abuse to occur– this rings hollow.  It fails to acknowledge the role of the bishops and cardinals in transferring abusive priests, in covering up the problem, in denying the extent of it.  It pretends that the problem of child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church began and ended with a few errant priests.  It ignores the culture of secrecy and denial that was so prevalent in the Church leadership structure during the last fifty years.

Not not only the Catholic Church, but also the Boy Scouts, the Mormon Church, the Seventh Day Adventist Church, governments and schools: I have seen all of them give short shrift to the apology and request for forgiveness that is so crucial to healing for survivors of child abuse.

A true apology and request for forgiveness starts with an unconditional acknowledgment– yes, even confession– of wrongdoing.  "I was, we were,  wrong. Our actions were selfish and wrong. There is no excuse. We are deeply sorry and offer our sincere and unconditional apology. We humbly ask your forgiveness."  This kind of genuine apology takes its lead from the great spiritual traditions of the West:  the biblical stories of the Old Testament, the ancient Greeks and Romans, the  New Testament’s idea of "metanoia"– repentance– which literally means to stop, turn around and go a different direction.  The genuine apology has as its goal the deep and beautiful idea of reconciliation, that the purpose of life is to be in harmony with those around me, those I love, even those I have hurt or who have hurt me.  It understands that, as long as you are diminished by my actions, I am diminished.  I cannot be whole until you are whole.  And so, the giver of a genuine apology yearns more than anything else to be restored to the one he has hurt.  Anything less has some other purpose, and is not an apology. It cannot rightly ask forgiveness and it can never reach the goal of reconciliation and restoration.

Those who have harmed children, and those in whose names others have harmed children– churches, Scouts, youth organizations– have such an opportunity to foster healing for survivors of abuse.  It is a shame– literally, a shame– that they do not more often practice the grace of genuine apology.

In the next post, I will write about some of the genuine apologies I have seen, and about the miraculous healing that they have brought about.

I agree with the professor that more needs to be done in terms of organizational oversight and accountability within the Church. I also agree that the John Jay Report was by all fair measures an independent research project that was not “rigged” as Plante puts it, by the Catholic bishops.

However, in his article, Professor Plante makes some conclusions that do require clarification and at times, correction. For instance, the John Jay Report is not comprehensive in the sense that it covers every aspect of the priest abuse crisis. It clearly passed over in silence the role the clerical culture played in the sexual abuse of minors. Plante states definitively that celibacy and homosexuality are not causally related to the crisis. While this is true as far as it goes, yet, celibacy, for sure, is an integral part of the Catholic clerical culture. Richard Sipe, perhaps the leading expert in the world on priest abuse and the clerical culture, has done extensive research on the subject of celibacy. As a former priest and a therapist, he has completed a 25 year study on the subject of celibate/sexual behavior of priests specifically.  Thomas Doyle, an ordained Catholic priest is also an highly learned expert on the subject. He has noted that, “…the influence of mandatory celibacy and the sub-culture of which it is an integral part play a major role in the socialization and maturation processes of the men who will eventually violate minors. The clerical culture should have been the subject of the $1.8 million venture because if looked at closely and honestly it would have yielded information that not only provided believable reasons for the abuse nightmare but valuable though radical steps to take to avoid similar travesties in the future.”

Professor Plante also claims, “The study also shows that the vast majority of abuse cases occurred between the mid 1960s to the mid 1980s. Ninety-four percent of all cases happened before 1990 and 70 percent of offenders were ordained before 1970.” This is simply not true. How do I know this? Certainly, it is well documented that the problem of child sexual abuse has haunted the Catholic Church for centuries, even millennia. (Interested readers will want to read “Sex, Priests, and Power,” written by Sipe, Doyle and canon lawyer and former priest Patrick Wall. ) So, for the study to pretend that the “problem” is one that arose in the last decades of the 20th Century is simply disingenuous. Moreover, I have seen too many Catholic Church documents that prove that Church leaders, at least some of them, knew full well the scope of the problem in the US back before 1950.. For example, Fr. Gerald Fitzgerald, founded the Paracletes in 1947 in order to deal with those priests who are abusing minors. In 1964, Fitzgerald wrote a letter to a bishop acknowledging that 3 out of every 10 priests he counseled were there for the sexual abuse of minors. In the early 1960’s the same Fr. Fitzgerald wrote a letter to then-Pope Paul VI warning him about the prevalence and sinister nature of priest sexual abuse of minors. Beyond that, I have seen candid letters from the 1950’s from bishops to heads of religious orders making clear that at least some bishops knew only too well about the abuse problem. Even the Vatican issued a letter to the world’s bishops in the early 1960’s about how to deal with the phenomenon of priests abusing minors.

In the Huffington Post article, Professor Plante states that the American Church has received the majority of sexual abuse claims that it will ever receive, because those who’ve been abused have had “incentive” to come forward recently. This statement is somewhat surprising from a psychology professor. For it is virtually beyond serious dispute in the mental health fields that most children aren’t capable of coming forward to talk about their abuse for long periods of time, even decades, because of the traumatic and confusing nature of the abuse itself.

Finally, Plante makes the following comment regarding the sociological make-up of priest abusers, “Let’s also be very clear that the report found that the vast majority of clergy sex offenders are not pedophiles, but rather situational generalists violating whomever they had access to and not seeking out young pre-pubescent children of either gender. They violated whoever was available to them at the time.”

So…. What’s the point? Is a “situational generalist” who abuses children better than a pedophile who does? Should Catholics breathe a sigh of relief about this? I think not. For what remains clear is that priests who abused minors took very specific and calculated steps to target them. These priests groomed their victims by showering them with attention, gifts, special favors, and a certain sense of specialness. The resulting damage—emotionally, psychologically, and spiritually—was profound. So, no matter what label Professor Plante wants to give these priests, they abused children.

I appreciate Dr. Plante’s willingness to share his insights concerning the John Jay Study. However, with respect, I do believe he raises more issues than he answers. The problems with the John Jay study cannot be simply explained away so easily—nor can the problem of priest abuse of children in the Catholic Church.

Now, it may come as a surprise, but I do not think the study is wholly wrong in its basic conclusion– that the pedophilia problem was not "caused" by celibacy or homosexuality. I have written on this very topic before. To state the obvious, the modern problem of abuse of children by priests was caused by extraordinary high numbers of pedophiles in the priesthood– either drawn to the priesthood because of their pedophilia or as "products of the system." Less obvious, the problem was made worse by the Church’s abysmal system for selecting, training and monitoring priests; by a systematic failure of the Church to educate priests about how to live a celibate life and yet still be balanced and whole persons; and by bishops who made the problem worse by recirculating dangerous priests. My friend Richard Sipe, a former priest who has studied and written about the abuse problem in the Church for forty years, and who has testified on behalf of victims in hundreds of cases, has written about all of this extensively– most interestingly that the "cause" is not celibacy.

But the question that the John Jay Study does not answer– indeed the question that John Jay was not apparently asked– is how did the pedophilia "problem" become a full on "scandal," one that not only devastated thousands of innocent children, but also deeply, irrevocably scarred the image and credibility of the Catholic Church? For I take it as a given that society would not have been wholly shocked over the last ten or fifteen years by revelations that the Catholic Church had an active pedophilia problem. Indeed, similar revelations have come out about the Boy Scouts of America, the LDS (Mormon) Church, and other such organizations, and as of yet no great national scandal has resulted. I say this because, as of yet, the public has not yet been saturated with story after story of how the hierarchies of these organizations engaged in a systematic and calculated cover up of the problem. But the "problem" of abuse in the Catholic Church became a worldwide "scandal" once it began to become clear that this was not just a problem of the actions of a number of sick and twisted priests, but was fundamentally a problem of disintegrating spiritual integrity, and the actions of too many bishops, cardinals and others in high places who, over and over again, here, there, and seemingly everywhere, refused to act in the Spirit of Christ and do the right thing. This is the "cause" of the scandal.

And it is truly tragic: not only did it visit unfathomable suffering upon the most vulnerable and innocent members of the Church, the children, but it scarred, perhaps permanently, the respect that society once bestowed upon the Catholic Church. As a Christian, when I hear radical secularists ridiculing Christianity, especially Catholicism, because of the child abuse scandals, I cringe at the knowledge that it was the actions of the Church leadership– at least if not moreso than the actions of the pedophiles themselves– that provided the ammunition for the Church’s enemies to use against it.

So the John Jay study is perhaps not so flawed, at least as far as it goes. The problem is that it does not go far enough. It does not ask the biggest question– not what caused the "pedophilia problem," but rather, what caused the "pedophilia scandal?" It is not John Jay’s fault that they did not answer this question; after all, they were not asked.

"Whether the Church is subject to the laws of civil government" is a strange question as phrased. Granted, there may be a fair question about the extent to which the Church–or any private organization of goodwill– is subject to an unjust law of civil government. But that is not one that can be fairly applied to child abuse reporting laws. No serious thinker would claim that child abuse reporting laws are unjust; and the author certainly does not so suggest.

 All in all, I wish more pastors, priests and bishops thought this way. At least they would get to the right result: suspected abuse would be reported to civil authorities.

It is my view that the child sexual abuse problem in the Mormon Church, broadly defined to include inter-family abuse, has been persistent and substantial for a long, long, time. Perhaps if we recall that in its early decades the Church condoned polygamy, coupled with the fact that historically girls far younger than 18 were considered appropriate for one of these multiple marriages, then we can see at least some reasons why the LDS Church has historically had blurred boundaries around what is, and is not, appropriate sexual behavior involving minors.  

One other source of the problem, however, is, to my mind also responsible for the kind of situation reported in Arizona.  And that is the extent to which members of the LDS Church have been taught to “go to the Bishop” with almost any kind of problem, including some kinds of problems that should not “go to the Bishop,” but instead should go to law enforcement—like problems with child sexual abuse. In fact, I think it is still the formal policy of the LDS Church that not all credible allegations of child abuse in an LDS Ward must be reported to law enforcement; rather, only if the recipient of the information is legally required to report to law enforcement are they to do so, under LDS policy. In other words, the policy of the LDS Church is still not to require that all allegations of child abuse always be reported to law enforcement.  Now, it is all well and good for church members to have the support of a church leader at times of life crisis. But that does not mean that going to the bishop is the only thing to do at times like these: indeed church members and leaders, including bishops,  should be required and trained by the LDS Church  to report every credible allegation of child abuse to law enforcement. In other words, they should be trained to act as “mandatory reporters” – even if, under their state’s laws, they are not.  Churches should be on the leading edge of child abuse prevention, not reluctantly doing the minimum that they are required to do under the law.

Whatever the particulars are of the Arizona situation, and whatever LDS Church officials knew about this particular situation of child sexual abuse, the larger lessons are about the practices and policies of the Mormon Church, now and in the past, when it comes to child sexual abuse.  It is not enough to “go to the Bishop.”

The father of The 5 Browns, a renowned Mormon piano group, has been sentenced to prison for a minimum of 10 years for the sexual abuse of his own daughters.  Keith S. Brown pleaded guilty one felony count of sodomy and two felony counts of sexual abuse.

Judge David Mortensen sentenced the 55-year-old to 10 years to life on the first count, and 15 years to life for each of the others.

The abuse occurred when the daughters were children in the 1990’s.  Now adults, the daughters reported the sexual abuse to law enforcement authorities last year.

The 5 Browns are a family musical group that performs classical music around the country.  The daughters were not at the sentencing hearing of their father since they were on tour in Florida. 

As a result of the Philadelphia Grand Jury’s Report released on February 10, 2011, four Philadelphia priests were criminally indicted for their role in the sexual abuse of minors.  One of those priests, Monsignor William Lynn had served the Archdiocese of Philadelphia as Vicar General (the Archbishop’s right hand man) from 1992-2004.  Lynn faces two criminal counts of child endangerment.  The criminal indictments are unprecedented in that a church’s “manager” has never before been indicted for his role in the conspiracy and cover-up that allowed the sexual abuse of minors to go on unabated for decades. 

In addition to the criminal indictments, the Grand Jury Report had another important consequence-the public revelation of an archdiocese’s modus operandi in concealing sexual abuse and covering up for the offending priest.  The Report reveals for the first time the extent to which the former Archbishop of Philadelphia, Anthony Cardinal Bevilacqua was directly involved in the conspiracy and cover-up.  Decades before he became a cardinal, Fr. Bevilacqua was involved in the transfer of an abusive priest, Fr. Romano Ferraro to the Archdiocese of St. Louis where Ferraro abused three more minors.  In 1971, Ferraro was dishonorably discharged from the military for sexual abuse.  Bevilacqua welcomed him back to Brooklyn and gave him another assignment.  Throughout the 1970’s, Ferraro abused minors in the Diocese of Brooklyn.  In the early 1980’s Bevilacqua quietly arranged for Ferraro to be transferred to St. Louis. 

Bevilacqua became the bishop of Pittsburgh and was later transferred to Philadelphia where he was made a cardinal.  He was promoted through the ranks of the Catholic hierarchy while covering up for sexual predators.  It’s not as if Bevilacqua’s superiors in Brooklyn were not unaware of Bevilacqua’s actions.  Before becoming a bishop in Pittsburgh, he exchanged memos about Fr. Ferraro with then-Bishop Mugavero of Brooklyn. 

Anthony Bevilacqua has been rewarded throughout his career for protecting the interests of the Church while allowing minors to be preyed upon by sexually abusive priests.  This is what the Philadelphia Grand Jury Report has revealed.  We would never have known if such a grand jury had not been convened and the Church documents been made public.  That’s why the Church’s own internal documents are crucial to putting an end to the sexual abuse of minors.  Kudos to the Philadelphia District Attorney’s office and the good citizens of Philadelphia who made this happen!

US Senator Scott Brown has made public the sexual abuse he endured as a child.  The Republican Senator from Massachusetts made the revelations to Leslie Stahl of 60 Minutes in preparation of the release of his new book Against All Odds, which is set for publication next week. 

In the interview which will be aired this Sunday on 60 Minutes, Brown tells a tale that many of us working with abuse survivors have heard before-Brown was assaulted by a camp counselor and threatened to keep quiet or suffer the consequences.  As a child, Brown was vulnerable to sexual predators because of his living circumstances.

"When people find people like me at that young vulnerable age, who are basically lost, the thing that they have over you is, they make you believe that no one will believe you,” Brown said, who said the counselor touched him during several incidents. “Fortunately, nothing was ever fully consummated, so to speak, but it was certainly, back then, very traumatic.”

Despite anecdotal evidence—thousands of men standing up in the last decade to tell their stories of sexual abuse at the hands of priests, ministers, Boy Scout leaders and other trusted male mentors—the myth about child sexual abuse, that “it rarely happens to boys” is still prevalent.

But, as this excellent article points out, that myth is dissolving.  This is the point that came out so powerfully in the recent series of broadcasts done by Oprah Winfrey on male survivors of abuse.  Since I do so much work on behalf of child abuse survivors, often I have people ask me, “why are so many men coming forward these days?” The answer is the same one as for women—because they can no longer carry the secret, and because, finally, society is giving them permission to speak their truth. Except that for men, that permission has been slower in coming.

It is obvious that acceptable ideas of what it means to be a man in this society have been badly confused and repressive, until just the last few decades.  It was not that long ago—my boyhood, for instance—that the image of “a real man” given to boys was centered on war heroes, cowboys, athletes and other tough guys.  And, of course, much of that was, and remains, a powerful and in many ways positive ideal for men.  After all, society, families and children need men to be strong, resilient, determined. 

My own father, rest his noble heart, was one of these: one of the “greatest generation”—a WW II marine, a creative and energetic entrepreneur, an avid outdoorsman. As Tom Brokaw articulated so powerfully in his “Greatest Generation” book several years ago, men like my father weathered the depression, beat back fascism in all its forms, built an American economic powerhouse, and stared down communism.

So thank God for this kind of male strength.  But there was a cost to this as well, a deep and personal cost for entire generations of these men. They were not “allowed,” and certainly not encouraged, to be very open about their inner lives, their sufferings, their struggles. Big boys don’t cry. Indeed. 

But starting with the so-called “Men’s Movement” of the 1970’s and 1980’s, men began to question this motif. That this movement wandered around in the wilderness for a few decades before it began to be rooted and balanced does not change the fact that what was happening in the poetry of Robert Bly, the stories of James Hillman, the recovery literature aimed at men, the new theologies setting forth a different vision for male virtue, all were uncovering some very important truths and freedoms for men.  One of the most central insights from all this was the notion of “male authenticity,” the idea that, whatever else it means to be a man, it must include being authentic. 

That means that men, to be truthful and whole and alive, must embrace all aspects of themselves—outward energy and power and adventure, for sure, but also a rich inner life, which must include being able to understand and articulate their own emotions, struggles, and a living spiritual journey. 

All of which brings us back to male survivors of child abuse. In my work advocating for adults abused as children, probably 75% of those who have come to see me have been men.  Often I am the first person ever who they have told about their abuse—including their own wives, partners, parents, siblings, best friends, even counselors and ministers.  These men have carried a secret— one of the deepest and darkest secrets a man can carry, “As a boy I was sexually touched by a man” —for decades.  

It is significant, I think, that they come to tell a man, and in my case, a man with his own kind of past brokenness, one that I often freely tell them about, for in those shared struggles a bond is formed and they know they are not alone in their struggle for authenticity.

But it began a decade or two ago, with just a trickle of a few incredibly courageous men who began to break the secret. A handful of gutsy men decided, against all fear and shame, to take society at its word, that it is acceptable to talk about their inside struggles. And so they stared down their own demons and they defied society to call them unmanly for speaking out about the unspeakable things that happened to them as boys.  

Now, a second generation of men is standing on the broad and powerful shoulders of these early mythbusters.  They, too, are coming forward and breaking silence, naming abusers, demanding accountability from churches and youth organizations and the Boy Scouts of America, and from any other institution of trust that failed them by harboring child abuse. 

And they are getting healed, transformed and energized, even if it sometimes takes—as it has for many of the men I have helped—years, even decades, of hard work in counseling, in anger management, in drug or alcohol recovery, for them to find their own way.  These are some of the most authentic men I have ever met, and I salute—yes, that most traditional male gesture of respect and honor—I salute them.

And so the myth continues to dissolve.

One of the blogs I read as part of my personal daily spiritual meditations today had as its accompanying photograph an image of a child, an angelic girl of about six years, apparently on her first communion. She is dressed in a white lacy sweater, with a brilliant white scarf of some sacred meaning, and she is holding a framed icon of the Virgin and Child.  She is the very image of innocence and promise.  

When I see young children these days, whether in a photograph like this, or in a school play, or at the shopping mall, I am often both overjoyed and saddened. Overjoyed at the gift of innocence in a child, at the promise and hope in a sweet face, at the pure joy in young laughter and play. Saddened because I see in those faces the early images of the hundreds of boys and girls—now men and women —abused as children, for whom I have fought over the last fifteen plus years.

In that moment, I think what it means for them that they were not able to grow naturally and happily in those early years. They never had the chance to pass naturally into fair youth, through healthy adolescence and into the fullness of young adulthood.  They had that inner flame of childlike joy so present in this photograph snuffed out by the blunt instrument of child abuse, the flame never to be rekindled, at least not to its original radiance. 

One such woman, I will call her Samantha, was raped at age seven by her family’s trusted priest, a man who over the prior decade had repeatedly been reported to the Catholic hierarchy for “inappropriate attentions” toward young girls.

To this day, she is haunted by the memory of standing at the bathroom sink, frantically washing out her dress to remove all traces of the encounter,  while the priest was standing over her and scolding her because she—she, mind you—had made such a mess.   How does a girl recover from that kind of trauma?  How possibly in later adolescence or young adulthood try to learn healthy intimacy?  How does she find again the kind of total trust that she had placed in this representative of God? 

In Samantha’s case, miraculously, she has come a long way toward healing, has through years of therapy and hard work built herself into a strong and vibrant woman of insight and wisdom, and dedication to helping others.  But others are not so constituted, and are never ever able to cobble together anything like a normal life: perpetually dogged by dark depression, shrieking anxiety or the numbness of substance abuse.

And between Samantha and these there is a whole continuum of brokenness and healing.

So when I contemplate young children, such as the girl in the photograph, I ask myself: does this work I do make any difference? Since the laws of virtually all states do not allow for aged criminal prosecutions, is it enough to try to get these people some kind of justice—even civil, that is to say, monetary, justice?  Does it really do any good for these men and women to have society say to them, through the mechanism of a settlement or jury verdict, “this should not have happened to you, and here is a rough symbol of justice”?   Does any of this really help them, or help protect kids in the future? 

The men and women I represent think so.  They tell me so, often years later when they stop by to see me or I bump into them on the streets. They tell me stories, like Samantha’s, of how they are now freer than they were, how they found inside strength and courage they never knew they had, power to keep going and to rebuild their lives, inside and out. They tell me to keep on fighting, and they thank me. Irony of ironies: they thank me. 

No. It is I who should thank them— I who twenty years ago at the age of 34 had become a selfish and abusive alcoholic, and thus a prematurely washed up politician; I who thought I had forever thrown away any chance to make a positive difference for anyone; I who because of these men and women have been given a second chance at life, a chance to redeem myself.

So now, when I see the child in this photograph, or when I see all those kids running and laughing at the beach or in the snow, I stop and look. I take it in.  I send them all the positive energy I have, I utter all the fervent prayers that this old and scarred heart of mine can find, and I thank God—and the men and women who have asked my help—that I have been given such work as this, to advocate for children such as these, children young or old. 

The letter undermines the Catholic Church’s credibility since they have always maintained that they never stopped bishops from cooperating with law enforcement in the investigation of priest sexual abuse cases.

As a Catholic priest abuse lawyer, I’ve heard bishops and archbishops swear in deposition testimony and in other court proceedings that they were never told by higher Church authorities that they were not to involve civil authorities. This newly revealed letter proves otherwise.

The letter was signed by no less than the papal representative to Ireland, a high ranking authority in the Church. He is the pope’s emissary to Ireland. When he signs such a formal letter, he is speaking in the name of the Pope himself. If the Irish bishops were told in no uncertain terms not to cooperate with police in child sex abuse cases involving priests, it’s safe to assume the American bishops were under the same orders.

The directive came from the very top of the church hierarchy. All along, I’ve been saying the church documents reveal the truth. This latest bombshell revelation proves it. There is no equivocation in the letter, it’s crystal clear. The Catholic Church has been involved in a massive cover-up in which thousands of children were sexually abused.

But a deeper question arises: why is this news? Why unusual? Should it not be the case that this action– a priest standing with wounded members of his flock, speaking the truth even if it means taking on his own superiors — is the norm, and not the exception?

I have been a child sexual abuse attorney now for over 15 years; I have represented over 300 men and women abused as children, the vast majority of them victims of abuse in the Catholic Church.

And yet, aside from this story, I know of only one other active priest who has spoken out for victims, even if and when that means taking on the Catholic heirarchy: Fr Tom Doyle, the most morally courageous man I know. For nearly 30 years now, this relentless man has tirelessly taken a stand on behalf of victims, and against secrecy and cover-up. But how can it be that we almost never hear of this kind of thing happening?

Surely there are thousands of good and faithful priests in the Catholic Church. This is what the Vatican and the American heirarchy repeatedly tell us, and we all know good and holy priests. So why do so few stand up and speak out? The only answer I can come up with is that the pressure put on these men to stay quiet and "show obedience" is immense. If true, then that is a terribly wrong and misguided attempt by the heirarchy to protect the reputation of the Church.

I am a man of Christian faith– though a deeply flawed one, to be sure. But one of the things that this means is that I expect more from the leadership of the churches, especially the Catholic Church.

Anyone who holds the Christian faith in high regard, and the Catholic Church, expects the Church to do the right thing. And so I– we– have been especially disappointed over the years at the response to the abuse crisis. Surely the Church would have been better off to fling open the doors, get the truth out in the open– "we had and still have a serious child sex abuse problem in this Church, and even the bishops and heirarchy have sinned in hiding it; we apologize unconditionally and beg forgiveness, and we commit ourselves to doing whatever it takes to heal victims and protect children"– than to take the path of denial and cover up that it has taken.

People can and will forgive a wrong, even a serious wrong, if there is real remorse, repentance and change. But this is not the path the Church has taken. And, because of that, stories like this one are an exception, and not the rule. That is not only a tragedy for tens of thousands of victims; it is a tragedy of the first order for the Catholic Church.

Really?  Disney?  Yes, really.  As this review points out, if you go to see "Tangled" you will see a beautiful and charming re-telling of the old Grimm’s tale, "Rapunzel."  You will also see– if you have eyes to see– an excellent portrayal of the way some children are controlled and manipulated by those who would use them.  While nothing in "Tangled" hints at child sexual abuse, it surely shows how abusers can and do convince children that they have their best interests at heart. As David Clohessy of SNAP points out in this review, most child abusers do not wear overcoats or masks; most are trusted figures in a child’s life, and are very adept at grooming and then controlling their victims.

It is a sad day when we cannot even go escape to a Disney movie without being reminded of the ugliness of child abuse.  But only when we can see the signs of abuse for what they are– in Disney, in church, in the schools and athletic leagues– can we protect children.

Does this man, I wonder, really believe this? Is it possible to believe this? Consider: the Catholic Church, to take just one example of an "institution of trust" with responsibilities for children, is manifestly a safer place than it was, say, 30 years ago. Certainly stilll has a long way to go, but I think it is clear that the Church is a safer place for kids than it was a few decades ago. If that is true, then comes the follow up question: why is that so? Is it because the bishops heard the still small voice of the Spirit urging them to do the right and difficult thing? We wish. But the truth is that it is a safer place, not because the bishops got the Holy Spirit, but because the bishops got sued, over and over again… sued ten thousand times by courageous men and women all over the country who finally stood up for themselves and for future generations of children. THAT’s why kids are safer now. Because of lawsuits; and lawsuits were (and are) only possible in states where the statute of limitations reasonably recognizes that the majority of abuse survivors do not realize their injury until later in life. The psychological literature is loaded with the explanation for this, but it is the reality. And a fair statute of limitations must recognize this reality. Thus the New Jersey debate. But to hear a representative of the Catholic Church say that a statute of limitations bill will not protect a child is simply disappointing, and the statement disingenuous.

I came late to the realization that lawsuits will really help protect children. For a long time, I simply thought of litigation as the messy and uncomfortable search for justice, one victim at a time. But after a decade or so, I started to see the results of all that litigation, and I realized that civil lawsuits really can and do make institutions of trust– not just the defendant institution, but others as well– safer for children. For a fine exposition of the reality that lawsuits (and related publicity) changed the Catholic Church, see the work by my friend Timothy Lytton, Professor of Law at Albany Law School in New York. It is called "Bishop Accountability– How Lawsuits Changed the Catholic Church." A highly informative read.

Until now, verdicts in these Catholic Church sexual abuse cases had always found the Diocese or the religious order liable. This is the first time a jury has found a specific parish liable for the actions of a priest. This is significant and may be a response to the Catholic Church’s decision to change their organizational structure in order to avoid civil liability in these cases. Formerly, the Catholic Church in the Unites States has been structured as a corporation sole, a holdover from old English law wherein the bishop is the sole entity responsible for all Catholic entities within the diocese. As Catholic priest abuse lawsuits mounted in this country, some dioceses decided to make each individual parish a separate corporation in order to protect the diocese from civil lawsuits. This happened in the Portland Archdiocese bankruptcy in 2004. As a result of the staggering liability that the Archdiocese faced, it decided to form each parish into a new corporation. But, as the Delaware case showed, that hardly solves the problem. If a jury finds that an abusive priest worked for both a diocese and a parish, it can do, as this jury did, the obvious thing and hold both of the organizations liable. Here, the Delaware jury found that an individual parish was responsible for the actions of its priest. This is a good sign in the fight for the survivors of child sexual abuse. The verdict holds all those entities, the diocese as well as the parish, accountable for the criminal actions of a priest who preys on children.

Clohessy does an outstanding job in this interview of articulating the motivations and aspirations of those committed to ending child sexual abuse, especially the survivors. It is a noble child civil rights movement, and its leaders, like David, are to be applauded.

Significantly, the public is beginning to see the commonalities between child sex abuse in the Catholic Church, child sex abuse in the Mormon Church, child sex abuse in the Boy Scouts– as well as in other "institutions of trust." These commonalities are, among others:

* Child sexual abuse always occurs in secrecy, and secrecy is its soil and fertilizer.

* The hierarchies of these organizations have made diligent efforst to keep their abuse problems quiet– thus the cover-ups, the secret files, the official denials. See the "secrecy" comment above.

* Once the secrets begin to come out– in litigation, usually, and then in the press, the organizations react with bluster, hardball tactics, and stonewalling legal strategies. Worse, they blame the victims or their families, or their lawyers, for the problem.

But what these institutions of trust fail to see from these commonalities is that, as time goes on, victims get stronger and more resolute, and abuse cases don’t get better for these organizations, they get worse. Thus, the tactics above do not solve the problem, they only protract it. They do not understand that the victims come forward and bring litigation for two reasons– each vital and unshakable: first, to secure justice for themselves and accountability for their abusers and the institutions that enabled the abuse; and, second, to prevent child abuse in the future. Both reasons are central to the healing, and both are independently sustaining and motivating for abuse survivors.

And, of course, the survivors are winning this great and long battle: the organizations slowly change their policies, are less likely to transfer abusers around, and start asking what else they can do to prevent abuse. Oh, they won’t admit that any of these things are because of claims or lawsuits, but let’s ask this: Is the Catholic Church, for example, safer for kids than it was 30 years ago? I think the almost universal answer would be "yes." But, then, let’s ask: what is the reason for that change? It’s not because the bishops suddenly got the Holy Spirit; it’s because the bishops got sued, over and over again, by thousands of men and women who decided to stand up and fight, for themselves and for future generations.

This movement by survivors is a great and noble child civil rights movement, and I remain incredibly honored to be able to be part of it.

9News.com

DENVER – A controversial self-published book that offered advice to pedophiles has apparently been pulled from the website that was selling it.

Amazon.com no longer had a listing for "The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure: a Child-lover’s Code of Conduct" on Thursday.

A search of the site produced a link to Pueblo author Philip R. Greaves II’s book, but the link now leads to a dead end. The listing apparently has been deleted.

The online bookseller came under fire Wednesday when some of its customers threatened to boycott the site because of the book.

Amazon had issued the following statement Wednesday:

"Amazon believes it is censorship not to sell certain books simply because we or others believe their message is objectionable. Amazon does not support or promote hatred or criminal acts, however, we do support the right of every individual to make their own purchasing decisions."

Greaves had defended the book on Wednesday.

"Every time you see them on television, they’re either murderers, rapists or kidnappers, and, you know, that’s just not an accurate presentation of that particular sexuality, it’s not."

Amazon.com did not immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday.

Here is a hard-hitting but highly accurate recap of the problem of child sexual abuse in the Boy Scouts, triggered by our trial in Portland this past Spring.  The Boy Scouts of America has such great potential, and has been such a positive influence in the lives of so many kids; but that cannot and should not erase the story of tens of thousands of boys who were sexually abused in Scouting, while all the time the national organizations knowingly stood by and did nothing to change its program to protect its kids, and indeed even covered up the problem. 

Have they learned their lesson? And, of course, like too many institutions of trust where abuse happens, BSA did nothing to reach out to known child sexual abuse victims and offer them help.  Those who are most committed to Scouting should react most strongly to the utter failure of BSA to live up to its own ideals when it comes to the sexual abuse of children in the Boy Scouts.

Read Here.

We encourage you to contact Amazon and express your outrage at this. This deserves a full boycott if they don’t heed the message.

Amazon defends ‘Pedophile’s Guide’
Another book protested in 2002 for advocating adult-child sex is still available on the site.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40112145/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/

By Helen A.S. Popkin
November 10, 2010
www.MSNBC.com

NEW YORK — Amazon is selling a self-published book defending pedophiles, sparking discussions about the retailer’s obligation to vet items before they are sold in its online stores, and threats of boycott from Amazon customers if the book is not removed.

The book, " The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure: a Child-lover’s Code of Conduct" by Philip R. Greaves II, offers advice to pedophiles afraid of becoming the center of retaliation. It is an electronic book available for Amazon.com Inc.’s Kindle e-reader.

The author’s description (misspellings included) reads:

"This is my attempt to make pedophile situations safer for those juveniles that find themselves involved in them, by establishing certian rules for these adults to follow. I hope to achieve this by appealing to the better nature of pedosexuals, with hope that their doing so will result in less hatred and perhaps liter sentences should they ever be caught."

Amazon issued a statement that will no doubt fuel the outraged comments multiplying on the "Pedophile’s Guide" Amazon page. "Amazon believes it is censorship not to sell certain books simply because we or others believe their message is objectionable," it reads. "Amazon does not support or promote hatred or criminal acts, however, we do support the right of every individual to make their own purchasing decisions."

As a private company, Amazon has the right to sell whatever it wants as long as it’s legal, and as such, offers books that cater to Holocaust deniers and other hate groups, as well as graphic dog fighting and cock fighting videos. Adult (legal) pornography, while available in book and magazine form, is not permitted in the Kindle e-reader store. This is possibly because of its iTunes partnership with the notoriously porn-free Apple which removed both "Ulysses" and the "Kama Sutra" from its own book store.

Video: Why was Amazon selling pedophilia guide? (on this page)

A customer review on the "Pedophile’s Guide" Amazon page written by "Outraged Mother" reads, "The line of immorality is at best a zone with ill defined boundaries. Whatever. This crosses into the unsavory and shameful side of the zone. Take it down."

"There is a point when, even though a company has a no-censorship policy, that selling certain books is simply wrong," reads "Disgusting Abomination," another customer review. "Not censoring is one thing, and I commend that, but choosing to sell this book on a site that accessed by millions of people (including children) daily is reprehensible. This is a disgusting choice you have made, Amazon. Whatever money you are making off this book can’t be worth the ire you are receiving for selling it."

In an unexplained turn of events, more than 103 customer reviews populated the "Pedophile’s Guide" page earlier today, when news first broke about the book’s availability, but dropped down to less than 30 by late afternoon. The number of reviews has since grown to over 60.

As news and outrage about the book spread, the first (presumed) Internet jokester chimed in with "A fantastic guide," the first five star review:

"I can’t thank Amazon enough for keeping this great work of literature up for those of us with ‘special tastes.’ The instructions and images in the guide were extremely insightful and led to a wonderful experience for both myself and my partner. Thank you for protecting free speech, Amazon!"

In 2002, Amazon.com cited the First Amendment as justification for offering another book that advocates adult-child sex, "Understanding Loved Boys and Boylovers," by David L. Riegel. Further, the paperback book is still available on the site.

At that time, Amazon stated, "Our goal is to support freedom of expression and to provide customers with the broadest selection possible so they can find, discover, and buy any title they might be seeking."

An Amazon employee emphasized that "Understanding Loved Boys and Boylovers" was "not a ‘how-to’ manual for molesting children. The author simply expresses his point of view about what he feels are misunderstood."

"Pedophile’s Guide" has also triggered mounting outrage on Twitter and beyond. A chorus of Twitter users is calling for Amazon to pull the book, and a campaign to push the hashtag #BoycottAmazon into Twitter’s top trends is underway.

A keyword search for "Amazon" on the microblogging network reveals a growing number of retweets featuring Amazon’s contact info and urges to keep calling and e-mailing "until the book is removed."

Associated Press contributed to this report.

Fourth Amended Complaint

Jury Instructions Phase I

Jury Instructions Phase II

Plaintiff’s Requested Jury Instructions, Phase I and Phase II

Plaintiffs’ Revised and Supplemental Requested Jury Instructions Phase I

Plaintiff’s Requested Jury Instructions, Phase II

Read more about the trial here.

TUNE in on NOVEMBER 5 and NOVEMBER 12, 2010 to watch the show!

Matthias Conaty participated in this Oprah special as one of the two hundred survivors of sexual abuse.  He serves on the board of directors of the National Association to Prevent Sexual Abuse of Children and is the vice chair for the National Child Protection Training Center board of directors. 

As I sat in the audience of 200 courageous men at this groundbreaking taping of The Oprah Winfrey Show, my thoughts and emotions were difficult to contain. I felt my long journey of suffering and surviving sexual abuse and finding ways to cope with the toxic shame and blame it left behind had reached a turning point.  Oprah pointed out what a tremendous amount of energy we had gathered with the noble purpose of shining a light of awareness on the pervasive, insidious human tragedy of sexual abuse of children.

A major theme in the show was how men who were sexually abused as children tend to stay silent. While this is also true of girls and women, statics tell us males are even more likely not to come forward. My transformation from victim of childhood sexual abuse to survivor began when I finally found my voice and was able to speak up. Thankfully I was believed. Family, friends and advocates supported me. I was able to help my home state, Delaware, pass landmark statute of limitations reform. This law, the Child Victim’s Act, allowed 10 victims of the man who abused me to be among the many victims who were able to speak up and move forward in their journeys of recovery. The community is now on notice that there are dangerous predators among us. Rooting out predators is critical because we must focus on preventing sexual abuse from happening to children right now and in the future.

For me, the indelible image from the Oprah show will remain the entire male survivor audience to holding up 8x10s of our childhood photos as the program began. That simple act alone was a powerful statement made by this landmark show.  As adult men, we were standing up for the boys we once were and representing the thousands of silent children and wounded adults who are among us.

I am honored to work with the dedicated child protection professionals and volunteers at the National Child Protection Training Center. In this effort, I am able to turn a tragic part of my childhood into positive action for others today and in the future. NCPTC has a unique vision and purpose. We have set the goal of ending child abuse in the United States within three generations. Sounds idealistic, doesn’t it? It certainly is. It’s idealistic and critically necessary. Our executive director, Victor Vieth, has created an inspiring peer-reviewed plan of action — Unto the Third Generation — that is concrete and unfolding throughout the nation right now.

Since its inception, NCPTC has trained more than 40,000 front-line child protection workers and forensic interviewers in all 50 states and 17 countries. Prevention education is also a major component of our mission. Along with the prevention specialists of the Jacob Wetterling Resource Center, NCPTC educates families and communities to prevent the exploitation of children. Prevention is delivered to adults, children, teens and community coalitions or agencies. Please join us in this grassroots movement to ensure minors are never again treated as objects and that all children are afforded the personal safety and dignity they deserve.

Matthias Conaty of Wilmington, Del., helped to lead the Coalition to Pass the Child Victim’s Act, which successfully lobbied the Delaware Legislature to repeal the civil statute of limitations and enacted a two-year civil window for victims of childhood sexual abuse in Delaware. He also serves on the board of directors of the National Association to Prevent Sexual Abuse of Children and as the vice chair for the National Child Protection Training Center board of directors.

NCPTC and NAPSAC are nonprofit organizations dedicated to ending child abuse through education, training, awareness, prevention, advocacy and the pursuit of justice.  NCPTC promotes reformation of current training practices by providing an educational curriculum to current and future front-line child protection professionals around the nation so that they will be prepared to recognize and report the abuse of a child.  You can make donations to NCPTC—a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization, or NAPSAC—a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization.  All donations received will help fund services and programs of the organizations.  Make a donation to NCPTC or NAPSAC today.

  Click here to learn more about Oprah’s two-day show event.

Stay tuned for more commentary to follow.

Child abuse and crime victims groups file amicus brief urging the Oregon Supreme Court to help break the cycle of secrecy in child sexual abuse cases.

Read the brief here!

The news that over 1000 teachers in Kenya have been dismissed in recent years for sexually abusing girls is stunning.  Read The Article Here.

No matter how long I do this work, I never get used to such things—and especially not to such numbers.  If you assume that, on average, each teacher involved had 10 victims—a conservative number, according to psychological literature—there are at least 10,000 girls affected.  But wait: we know that only a handful ever get caught or reported: 10% would be a very high number.  But even if it is that, there would be as many as 100,000 girls abused.  Again, the problem seems to be of staggering proportions.

This dynamic is similar to what we learned in the sex abuse trial of the Boy Scouts in Portland this past spring.  We had over 1200 “Perversion files” introduced into evidence, all concerning Boy Scout leaders sexually abusing boys, just from 1965-85.  Expert testimony established that, for such an environment, each such Boy Scout leader would have, on average, 10-20 victims, and that, perhaps 10% of all sex abuse in the Boy Scouts  would ever be reported—a very optimistic number, the experts agreed.  But if you do that math, it means that somewhere between120,000 and 240,000 boys were sexually abused in Boy Scouting, JUST from 1965-85.  And we know that the Boy Scouts have been keeping their “confidential Perversion files” on child sexual abusers since 1925.    As I have said repeatedly since the trial, I am personally convinced that the problem of child sexual abuse in the Boy Scouts is at least as serious, if not worse, than the sexual abuse problem in the Catholic Church.

Less than 24 hours after the 2nd District Court of Appeal ruling in Los Angeles calling for the release of personnel documents in the Franciscan friars sex abuse case, THESBNN.COM has learned the case may be headed to the California Supreme Court.

What the Pope Knew
Saturday, Sept. 25 at 8:00pm ET and PT
CNN and CNN International.

Brian Rokus and Scott Bronstein, from CNN’s Special Investigations and Documentaries unit, are the producers and writers for What the Pope Knew. Kathy Slobogin is managing editor, Scott Matthews is the executive producer.

Details:
During his first papal visit to the U.S., Pope Benedict XVI reached out to victims of sexual abuse by Catholic priests, unprecedented for the Vatican. He became the first pope to directly and personally apologize to victims for their trauma. He was the first to acknowledge publicly that the Church had systemically erred in the way that it had transferred offending priests to new parishes, putting more children at risk, instead of reporting offenders to law enforcement. A new era of accountability seemed to have dawned. But Benedict’s role in managing the child sex abuse scandal while he was Archbishop of Munich and Freising, and as a powerful cardinal at the Vatican, has now come under scrutiny.

Conflicting portraits of the former Joseph Ratzinger have emerged. While defenders of this pope insist he has done more than any other church authority to change the Vatican’s policies and, apologize for the abuses. Others point out that he has been in positions of power for nearly 30 years and could have done more. “Joseph Ratzinger was not and is not the villain of the sexual abuse crisis in the Catholic Church in no way shape or form. Yet, he’s not the hero either. He was part of the culture,” says David Gibson, the pope’s biographer, in the documentary.

The documentary features insights from Vatican insiders and internal church documents about abusive priests. It also features a rare interview with the “Vatican’s prosecutor,” Charles Scicluna, as well as an exclusive interview with the first victim to personally sue Pope Benedict. CNN’s investigation is a complex portrait of the pope; while he seemed to move with rapidity to discipline priests whose values he felt strayed too far from Catholic orthodoxy, his delays and deliberations on even the most egregious of the child abuse cases baffles and infuriates those waiting for justice.

Various stories and sections of the documentary will also be available on CNN.com. CNN Worldwide, a division of Turner Broadcasting System, Inc., a Time Warner Company, is the most trusted source for news and information. Its reach extends to nine cable and satellite television networks; one private place-based network; two radio networks; wireless devices around the world; CNN Digital Network, the No. 1 network of news Web sites in the United States; CNN Newsource, the world’s most extensively-syndicated news service; and strategic international partnerships within both television and the digital media.

Read here: Oregon sex-literature laws ruled unconstitutional

This is what I meant when I said, in a 2008 debate with the ACLU’c Charlie Hinkle at the City Club that we in Oregon have "too much free speech." When we cannot pass common-sense laws aimed at protecting children because of wholly abstract "free speech" limits, then we have "too much free speech," and judges run a risk of so alienating the public, so separating the "constitutional sense" from the "common sense" of the people, that both the courts and the constitution will lose legitimacy with the average citizen.

My full comments can be found at here.

For More Information:
Michael Beaty (360) 695-7909
Kelly Clark (503) 306-0224

Vancouver, Wash—Two adults today filed suit in Clark County Superior Court against the La Center School District for childhood sexual abuse they suffered as second-graders at the hands of their teacher, Robert David Ryan, in the early 1980’s.  The suit contends that the District was negligent in its supervision of Ryan at Mary Gabrielson Elementary School and because of the school district’s negligence, the plaintiffs suffered severe and permanent mental, emotional and psychological damage. The teacher would routinely fondle students under the pretext of having them sit on his lap, or sit next to him, while he ostensibly gave instruction, according to the lawyers for the victims, Vancouver attorney Michael Beaty and Portland attorney Kelly Clark. 

The second grade teacher had worked for the school district for about 10 years prior to his arrest. He was charged with the sexual abuse of 14 of his students between the ages of seven and nine years old. The teacher plead guilty to two counts of “Indecent Liberties” on June 2, 1983 and was sentenced to 10 years in prison and an additional 10 years of probation. According to court records, the teacher later admitted to abusing about 25 students and that he had not “expressed in any guilt or remorse for his actions.” The teacher’s last known address was in Missouri.

The plaintiffs, now in their 30’s, are both Washington residents, though one is currently working out of state. “We see the way in which a child abuser can use his authority and position to manipulate and abuse children, especially when those who are supposed to be supervising him are not doing their job,” said Beaty, a Vancouver trial attorney who has previously represented hundreds of personal injury victims.

“This teacher was audacious—covertly abusing kids in the presence of other kids, and in plain view of other teachers and staff,” said Clark, who frequently represents victims of child sexual abuse.  “This administration clearly was not paying attention to the rumors and warning signs.”

According to the attorneys, both adults have had significant consequences from their childhood abuse:  trauma, early onset alcohol and drug abuse, chronic anxiety, long-term depression and repeated failures in relationships.  “They are just starting to deal with the impact that the abuse is having on their lives,” said Beaty.  “They know they are in for a long road.”

 “What these two have suffered are the signature symptoms of the crime of abuse,” said Clark, who regularly represents child abuse victims in cases against churches, schools, and other youth organizations, including the Boy Scouts—against whom he won a $20M verdict in May of this year in a Portland trial.  “When this kind of thing happens to a 7 year- old, it is like vandalism to the soul, and it takes decades to recognize and repair the wreckage.

Under Washington law, a lawsuit does not state the amount of money sought, and the suit says only that the plaintiffs “seek damages in an amount to be proven at trial.”  According to Beaty, the case should come to trial in about a year.

###

Read the Official Complaint Here.

"However, it is the scandal over paedophile priests that will plague the Pope throughout his visit.

…"But while the Pope has expressed contrition over the revelations, even senior Catholics in Britain believe the Vatican has not handled its response to the crisis well.

‘The Vatican has got itself into a very defensive position, which probably inhibits the positive initiatives we could be taking,’ Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster, said recently. ‘The Holy See can do a lot better in its understanding of how the media perceive things and how important those perceptions are.’

…"The Vatican‘s attitude appears to remain one of minimising the wave of criticism focused on Pope Benedict’s handling of the crisis over paedophile priests. Complaints were ‘excessive amplifications’ with ‘an echo superior to that which is the true sensitivity of the population’, Federico Lombardi, spokesman for the Vatican, said on Friday."

–Financial Times, Sept 13, 2010.

"Excessive amplifications?"  Really?  Really.   Compare this response, so typical of the Vatican, with that of the Belgian Church in today’s NYT– which really seems to get that the abuse scandals there are a very big deal and must be dealt with in an upfront and uncompromising way.  See article here.

Tragically, the American Church’s response has been and continues to be closer to that of the Vatican than that of Belgium.

It didn’t have to be this way. Way back in the mid-1980′s, after the cases involving Fr Gil Gauthe of Louisiana came to light, the National Bishops Conference commissioned a study by three men whom they trusted as being experts in the field, one of whom was a young priest and canon lawyer, then in the Washington DC Vatican embassy, with an obviously bright future, Fr Thomas Doyle.  The study came back with an unpopular conclusion: the Church has a major child abuse problem on its hands, and, unless the Church comes forward quickly and aggressively to acknowledge it, seek out the victims and get them help, the Church could be facing huge liability. How huge?  Perhaps as much as a HALF A BILLION DOLLARS in liability, the study concluded.

Well, the report was shelved, and Doyle’s bright career was derailed.  (He ended up as a longtime priest in the Air Force, and has become the leading priest expert in the nation on the abuse problem, testifying hundreds of times for victims in court and depositions. He is one of the most spiritually courageous men I know.)

But fast forward twenty years, and the American Church has been badly damaged by their own failure to do the right thing back in 1985.  SEVERAL Billions of dollars paid out in judgments and settlements– just in the US– plus several dioceses bankrupt, a Cardinal from Boston forced to resign, and the image of the Church in tatters. 

All because the Bishops thought the Doyle report was–to borrow from the words of Fr Lombardi above–"excessive amplifications."