RSS Feed

Outreach & Events

Convention Highlights

2013 Convention  
Madison, Wis.

Videos & More!

Raleigh Regional Convention

May 2 – 3

Raleigh Convention


October 24—25  , 2014

37th Annual Convention
Los Angeles, Cal.

2014 Convention

Upcoming Events & Appearances

Appearances, Debates, Speeches and More

Lauryn Seering

Lauryn Seering

%836 %America/Chicago, %1998

The Religious War Against Women

April 1998

By Annie Laurie Gaylor

This speech was given on March 14, 1998, from the pulpit of the historic Sixteenth Avenue Baptist church in Birmingham Alabama. The occasion was the "week of remembrance and renewal" hosted by the Emergency Coalition for Choice, responding to the January 29 bombing of a Birmingham abortion clinic that killed guard Robert Sanderson and maimed nurse Emily Lyons.
The group I represent, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, came into existence in part because of the abortion movement, because of the organized religious opposition to abortion rights. My mother Anne Gaylor in working for the repeal of antiabortion laws in Wisconsin in the late sixties soon realized that the true enemy of abortion rights and all women's rights was organized religion.

Virtually every vocal opponent of contraception and abortion for the past 30 years argues against these rights on the basis of God and the bible. There were many fine organizations working for women's rights, but none--we felt--getting at the root cause of women's oppression--patriarchal religion and its incursions upon our secular laws. So that's why I'm here today.

The primary organized opposition to reproductive rights in this country always has been religion. In fact, we are in the midst of a religious war not just against abortion rights, but women's rights in general, not just in our country, but worldwide.

In this country, the religious terrorism is directed at birth control and abortion clinics, their patients, medical providers and staff. In Alabama, it is the Army of God bombing abortion clinics. In Algeria, it is terrorists from similarly named groups who are shooting schoolgirls on the streets for not wearing veils.

In America, the foot soldiers of the Religious Right are engaged in their campaigns of terrorism, harassment, stalking, arsons, bombing, murder, trying to close down legal abortion clinics by force. They do all these things in the name of God. In Afghanistan, the radical Islamic Taliban that has taken over that country is literally halting all medical care for women--the hospitals in the capital city are already closed to women. They've done this, and worse, in the name of Allah.

Islamic fundamentalist theocrats openly talk of jihad, a holy war. So does Patrick Buchanan, who has called for a Christian jihad in this country.

Whether declared or undeclared, there is nothing new in this religious war against women. After the organized women's movement was officially launched 150 years ago this year, Elizabeth Cady Stanton said the "bible was hurled at us on every side." Every freedom won for women in this country, small or large--from wearing bloomers to riding bicycles to not wearing bonnets in church, to being permitted to speak in public, to attend universities, to enter professions, to vote and own property--was opposed by the churches. In the nineteen seventies and eighties, it was the churches--Catholic, fundamentalist Protestant and Mormon--which marshalled political forces to defeat the Equal Rights Amendment.

And the most important right women have strived to obtain is the right to decide if and when to become a mother. Foes of women's freedom know that controlling women's reproduction is the ultimate way to control women. That is why when it comes to abortion, religious opponents are not just hurling bibles. They are hurtling bombs.

This is a religious war against women because it relies on threats, force, violence, harassment, terrorism. Pascal said: "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." And Voltaire said people who believe in absurdities will commit atrocities.

What happened on January 29 was an atrocity. It painfully reopens wounds of all the other atrocities here in Birmingham and elsewhere, also directed against civil rights, especially what happened to four young girls bombed in this church 35 years ago. Violent extremists who oppose equality such as the Army of God and the KKK, are always convinced they are acting in the name of God.

Let me acknowledge the great historic work of the SCLC, that was headquartered here, and to say a grateful word for the work of RCAR, Fran Kissling, and any one of any belief who does not let dogma get in the way of humanity. It is vital in the abortion debate that the mainstreamers and liberal religionists do not yield the moral high ground or let the crazies and fanatics speak for them.

But neither should we let the political debate deteriorate into a contest between believers who say God supports a woman's right, versus the implacable orthodox who scream that abortion is a sin.

Because that's a battle that has no place in our capitol buildings, should not be fought, and can never be won. No two denominations, no two clergy, no two biblical interpretations, seemingly can agree. Where there is one religious authority, there will always be a contrary religious authority. In our secular country, we are all free to believe what we like, but our government must remain above the religious fray.

And that's women's salvation--our precious, uniquely American principle of the separation of church and state.

Our constitution says you cannot legislate your religion. Belief that a "human being exists at conception" is a matter of faith, not fact.

You cannot shut down an abortion clinic because your church or your pastor or your holy book opposes abortion.

Our government cannot issue a divine fiat saying when a soul exists, or that a soul exists.

Despite what the Ten Commandments and Judge Moore and Gov. James and Attorney General Pryor and the Christian Coalition and the Christian Family Alliance say, in America, we can have as many Gods as we like, or none at all.

Women and the men who support women's rights must make it our business to protect our First Amendment, because it protects us. We must fortify the wall of separation between church and state, because it is the only barrier, it is the only barrier, standing between women's rights and this holy war.

Let's take a cue from the great civil rights movement of the sixties, and keep our eyes on the prize--freedom. As Margaret Sanger said: "No woman can call herself free who does not own and control her own body. No woman can call herself free until she can choose consciously whether she will or will not be a mother."

As we renew our support, we pay homage to the remarkable courage and commitment of Emily Lyons. We renew our support in memory of Robert Sanderson, in memory of Dr. Gunn of Pensacola, in memory of all the women who have died from illegal abortions, the 200,000 women who die every year worldwide because abortion remains illegal or inaccessible. We renew our support in defense of women's lives.

Adlai Stevenson once wrote:

"It is a common heresy and its graves are to be found all over the earth. It is the heresy that says you can kill an idea by killing a man, defeat a principle by defeating a person, bury truth by burying its vehicle.

"Man may burn his brother at the stake, but he cannot reduce truth to ashes; he may murder his fellow man with a shot in the back, but he does not murder justice."

Annie Laurie Gaylor is editor of Freethought Today.

%836 %America/Chicago, %1990

Why Women Need Freedom From Religion

Nontract #10
Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc.

Organized religion always has been and remains the greatest enemy of women's rights. In the Christian-dominated Western world, two bible verses in particular sum up the position of women:

"I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."--Genesis 3:16
By this third chapter of Genesis, woman lost her rights, her standing--even her identity, and motherhood became a God-inflicted curse degrading her status in the world.

In the New Testament, the bible decrees:

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."--1 Tim. 2:11-14
One bible verse alone, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (Exodus 22:18) is responsible for the death of tens of thousands, if not millions, of women. Do women and those who care about them need further evidence of the great harm of Christianity, predicated as it has been on these and similar teachings about women?

Church writer Tertullian said "each of you women is an Eve . . . You are the gate of Hell, you are the temptress of the forbidden tree; you are the first deserter of the divine law."

Martin Luther decreed: "If a woman grows weary and at last dies from childbearing, it matters not. Let her die from bearing, she is there to do it."

Such teachings prompted 19th-century feminist Elizabeth Cady Stanton to write: "The Bible and the Church have been the greatest stumbling blocks in the way of woman's emancipation."

The various Christian churches fought tooth and nail against the advancement of women, opposing everything from women's right to speak in public, to the use of anesthesia in childbirth (since the bible says women must suffer in childbirth) and woman's suffrage. Today the most organized and formidable opponent of women's social, economic and sexual rights remains organized religion. Religionists defeated the Equal Rights Amendment. Religious fanatics and bullies are currently engaged in an outright war of terrorism and harassment against women who have abortions and the medical staff which serves them. Those seeking to challenge inequities and advance the status of women today are fighting a massive coalition of fundamentalist Protestant and Catholic churches and religious groups mobilized to fight women's rights, gay rights, and secular government.

Why do women remain second-class citizens? Why is there a religion-fostered war against women's rights? Because the bible is a handbook for the subjugation of women. The bible establishes woman's inferior status, her "uncleanliness," her transgressions, and God-ordained master/servant relationship to man. Biblical women are possessions: fathers own them, sell them into bondage, even sacrifice them. The bible sanctions rape during wartime and in other contexts. Wives are subject to Mosaic-law sanctioned "bedchecks" as brides, and male jealousy fits and no-notice divorce as wives. The most typical biblical labels of women are "harlot" and "whore." They are described as having evil, even satanic powers of allurement. Contempt for women's bodies and reproductive capacity is a bedrock of the bible. The few role models offered are stereotyped, conventional and inadequate, with bible heroines admired for obedience and battle spirit. Jesus scorns his own mother, refusing to bless her, and issues dire warnings about the fate of pregnant and nursing women.

There are more than 200 bible verses that specifically belittle and demean women. Here are just a few:

(See Woe To The Women: The Bible Tells Me So for a more comprehensive list)

2:22 Woman created from Adam's rib
3:16 Woman cursed: maternity a sin, marriage a bondage
19:1-8 Rape virgins instead of male angels

20:17 Insulting Tenth Commandment, considering a wife to be property
21:7-11 Unfair rules for female servants, may be sex slaves
22:18 "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"
38:8 Women may not enter tabernacle they must support

12:1-14 Women who have sons are unclean 7 days
12:4-7 Women who have daughters are unclean 14 days
15:19-23 Menstrual periods are unclean
19:20-22 If master has sex with engaged woman, she shall be scourged

1:2 Poll of people only includes men
5:13-31 Barbaric adulteress test
31:16-35 "Virgins" listed as war booty

21:11-14 Rape manual
22:5 Abomination for women to wear men's garments, vice-versa
22:13-21 Barbaric virgin test
22:23-24 Woman raped in city, she & her rapist both stoned to death
22:28-29 Woman must marry her rapist
24:1 Men can divorce woman for "uncleanness," not vice-versa
25:11-12 If woman touches foe's penis, her hand shall be cut off

11:30-40 Jephthah's nameless daughter sacrificed
19:22-29 Concubine sacrificed to rapist crowd to save man

I Kings
11:1-4 King Solomon had 700 wives & 300 concubines

14:1-4 "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one . . ."

7:9-27 Evil women seduce men, send them to hell
11:22 One of numerous Proverbial putdowns

3:16-17 God scourges, rapes haughty women

16:45 One of numerous obscene denunciations

24:19 "[woe] to them that are with child"

2:22 Mary is unclean after birth of Jesus

I Corinthians
11:3-15 Man is head of woman; only man in God's image
14:34-35 Women keep in silence, learn only from husbands

5:22-33 "Wives, submit . . ."

3:18 More "wives submit"

I Timothy
2:9 Women adorn selves in shamefacedness
2:11-14 Women learn in silence in all subjection; Eve was sinful, Adam blameless

Why should women--and the men who honor women--respect and support religions which preach women's submission, which make women's subjugation a cornerstone of their theology?

When attempts are made to base laws on the bible, women must beware. The constitutional principle of separation between church and state is the only sure barrier standing between women and the bible.

For more information about the treatment of women in the bible, read the books Woe to the Women: The Bible Tells Me So by Annie Laurie Gaylor and The Born Again Skeptic's Guide to the Bible by Ruth Hurmence Green.

Join the Freedom From Religion Foundation to help educate about the root cause of women's oppression, and to enforce the absolute separation of church and state.

Send your tax-deductible membership in today to Freedom From Religion Foundation, P.O. Box 750, Madison WI 53701.

%819 %America/Chicago, %1985

Annie Laurie Gaylor's Online Writing

Women and Religion

Why Women Need Freedom From Religion
"Organized religion always has been and remains the greatest enemy of women's rights. . . ."

The Religious War Against Women
This speech was given from the pulpit of the historic Sixteenth Avenue Baptist church in Birmingham Alabama during the "week of remembrance and renewal" responding to the bombing of a Birmingham abortion clinic.

What Does The Bible Say About Abortion?
"Absolutely nothing! The word 'abortion' does not appear in any translation of the bible! Out of more than 600 laws of Moses . . ."

Selected Quotes
Selected Quotes from Women Without Superstition: "No Gods - No Masters"

Shakespeare's Sonnets and the Mystique of the Sheikh
". . . The Double Standard is alive and well . . ."

No Gods, No Masters
Keynote speech to the International Humanist and Ethical Union, meeting at Conway Hall in London, England, Fall 2003

On anniversary of women's suffrage, equality still elusive
In The Progressive Media Project, August 19, 2003


A Pansy For Your Thoughts
Rediscovering a forgotten symbol of freethought

State/Church Separation

The Case Against School Prayer
This FFRF brochure was mailed to high-school principals around the nation.

Flex Muscle to Rescue the Establishment Clause
At a workshop at the national conference of the American Humanist Association, Annie Laurie spoke about the harm of religion in government.

Gideons Run Afoul Of First Amendment
Bibles in public schools

Pledge Furor Provokes Pious Patriotism
"A furor over the Pledge of Allegiance in normally laid-back, progressive Madison, Wisconsin, illustrates the frightening level religious hysteria has reached since the Sept. 11 terrorist acts. . ."

Every Knee Shall Bow
Annie Laurie Gaylor attended the 1995 Christian Coalition's "Road To Victory" conference as a participant observer.

Listening In On The Christian Coalition "Road To Victory"

Stamp Out Postal Proselytizing
"Learning that 'In God We Trust' posters were ordered up in every post office in the nation in late November, I sought to confirm this rumor with the United States Postal Service. . ."

Voucher Ploy Makes No Sense
"The day oral arguments on the Ohio school voucher case were heard before the U.S. Supreme Court, I was one of several guests invited to discuss the topic on arch-conservative Alan Keyes' TV talkshow 'Making Sense' on MSNBC. . ."

Hands That Prey On Sunday Morning
Voter Guides in churches

Black Collar Crimes

The Scandal of Pedophilia in the Church
"The general consensus in the United States is that if it is religious, it must be good. Criticism of religion is discouraged and stifled. . ."

"Zero Tolerance" for Cardinal Sins
" 'If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone?'--Luke 11:11. Yes--if that 'father' is part of the cabal of Roman Catholic cardinals who recently met at the Vatican . . ."

It's Time To Make Wisconsin Clergy Accountable
"Wisconsin is the worst state in the union in which to be a victim of a sexually abusive priest, minister or church employee. . ."

Churches Challenged To Reform in Face of Black Collar Crimes
"On the basis of our new study on recent criminal cases of pedophilia in the ministry, Freethought Today is issuing an open challenge to churches to clean house . . ."

Confronting Religious Discrimination

Boy Scouts Of America Practices Discrimination
"Although it advertises itself as a fun youth club open to any boy, Boy Scouts of America has a recent history of blatant discrimination . . ."

Gay Marriage: "It's Not a Christian Thing"
"The Associated Press ran a charming photograph in March of the beaming Mayor of San Francisco beside two blushing brides . . ."

Family Values--Brought To You By James C. Dobson

In Defense of "Godlessness"
"Freethinkers are often treated as 2nd-class citizens, particularly when they speak up for their rights or bring legal challenges to uphold separation of state and church. . ."

Religion--It's Scary but Sometimes Good for a Laugh
"I couldn't help taking great delight in Jerry Falwell's shoot-himself-in-the-foot remarks over the September 11 terrorist attacks on our nation. . . ."

The Facts vs. "The O'Reilly Factor"
Annie Laurie managed to get the "fair and balanced" Bill O'Reilly to admit he made a mistake about the Constitution.

Piece Missing at Peace Rally
"Dan and I timed a brief vacation in New York City to take in comedian Julia Sweeney's new monolog . . . We were thrilled when we realized our last day would coincide with the huge peace rally . . ."

Saga of a Civil Rights Complaint
Exchange of letters between Annie Laurie, FFRF's attorney, and attorneys of a local merchant who was offering free milk to patrons who attend Catholic mass, resulting in a civil rights victory.

Calidas, Yoga and the Getting of Wisdom
" . . . There, right on the order form, was a drawing of an American eagle with the bible quote . . ."


"The Contender" a Secular Parable
"The last movie to show a woman admitting unbelief before a Congressional hearing was 'Contact,' . . . 'The Contender,' written and directed by Rod Lurie, takes this scenario one step further. . ."

Review: "Magdalene Sisters" a Masterpiece
"If you missed Peter Mullan's exceptional film, 'The Magdalene Sisters,' during its short airing in U.S. theaters, it's a must-rent. . ."

Atheist Chic at the Movies?
" 'Chocolat,' a sleeper hit based on a fable set in a small French village in 1959, proudly boasts an atheist heroine.. . ."

Battle Hymn on Ice?
"I'm no autograph hound, but several years ago I resolved that if and when figure skater Michelle Kwan ever came to town, my daughter Sabrina and I would go to see her . . ."

Freethought Pilgrimage to London
Philip Pullman's "His Dark Materials"

Anti-God Play Wows London
". . . We saw Part I of Philip Pullman's 'His Dark Materials' at the British National Theatre in the evening . . ."

Video Renter, Caveat Emptor!
"The Other Side of Heaven."

By Ken Lynn

Each day in America's public and parochial schools, teachers and over 60 million students recite the Pledge of Allegiance along with thousands of citizens at meetings of the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, American Legion and many other fraternal and patriotic organizations. Most do so having no idea of the origin or meaning of the Pledge. The United States is one of the few nations in the world to have a pledge to its flag. How has this Pledge of Allegiance to our flag usurped the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights as the cornerstone of American patriotism?

The Pledge was first published in the September 8, 1892 issue of Youth's Companion, a weekly family magazine published by the Perry Mason Company in Boston. With a circulation of over 500,000, the Companion had the largest national circulation of its day. Daniel Ford owned Youth's Companion, and his nephew-by-marriage, James B. Upham, was a key staff member and a junior partner in the Perry Mason Company.

In 1891, Francis Bellamy, a Christian Socialist and Baptist minister, joined the staff of Youth's Companion. Bellamy was first cousin of Edward Bellamy, author of the widely circulated socialist utopian novel Looking Backward 2000-1887. Written in 1888, this book, which sold over a million copies in its first few years, described a future America completely socialized with all economic activity carefully planned. As Vice-President of the Society of Christian Socialists, Francis Bellamy lectured and preached on the virtues of socialism, giving a speech entitled "Jesus the Socialist," and a series of sermons on "The Socialism of the Primitive Church." In 1891, he was forced to resign from his Boston church because of his socialist views and activities.

Seeking ideas to commemorate the 400th anniversary of the discovery of America on Columbus Day, 1892, President Benjamin Harrison had initiated a call for the development of a special patriotic school program to highlight the event. Bellamy and Upham were able to line up the National Education Association to support Youth's Companion as a sponsor of the observance, and arranged for President Harrison and Congress to announce a national proclamation which centered around an American flag ceremony and (then unwritten) flag salute.

Bellamy, under the supervision of Upham, then authored the program for the celebration, including the flag salute or Pledge of Allegiance. His original version was, "I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Bellamy considered putting the words "fraternity" and "equality" into the Pledge, but decided against it as equality for blacks and women was a controversial rather than patriotic issue of the time. Originally intended for recitation on that single day, the Pledge was an instant success and was quickly adopted by the nation.

The Pledge remained in its original version until 1923 when the words "my flag" were changed to "the Flag of the United States" at the urging of the American Legion's National Flag Conference. The following year the Pledge was altered again with the addition "of America" after "Flag of the United States." This version of the Pledge was codified into Public Law in 1942.

The Pledge remained unchanged until the paranoia and hysteria stemming from Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy's "red scare" hearings swept the nation in the 1950s. Fearing Communism might cross the Atlantic and engulf America, a feeling arose in Congress and throughout parts of the nation that by acknowledging "God" as our national symbol, America would be protected from the Communist menace. Scoring a religious Trifecta of sorts, the Pledge was amended in 1954 to include the words "under God;" legislation to add the motto "In God We Trust" to all coins and currency was passed in 1955; and the national motto "E Pluribus Unum" [out of many, one] was changed to "In God We Trust" in 1956. Collectively these measures form an interesting trilogy of laws for a country founded on a secular Constitution and a belief in the separation of church and state.

Since 1954, the now religious Pledge has read: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." In an attempt to mitigate the effects of this controversial change, some religionists claim that the words "under God" merely declare the right of the people to express their belief in a God, not that the nation itself was founded on a belief in a God. Unfortunately, a look at the historical record indicates the latter is exactly what Congress intended when it inserted "under God" into the Pledge.

The resolution to change the Pledge was introduced into the House by Rep. Louis C. Rabaut. He proposed to add the words "under God" as "one nation, under God." Note the placement of the comma between "one nation" and "under God." As part of its deliberations, the House Judiciary Committee solicited an opinion for comma placement from the Library of Congress. Three proposals were considered:

one Nation, under God
one Nation under God
one Nation indivisible under God
The Library of Congress reported the following recommendation:

". . . Under the generally accepted rules of grammar, a modifier should normally be placed as close as possible to the word it modifies. In the present instance, this would indicate that the phrase 'under God,' being intended as a fundamental and basic characterization of our Nation, might well be put immediately following the word 'Nation.' Further, since the basic idea is a Nation founded on a belief in God, there would seem to be no reason for a comma after Nation; 'one Nation under God' thus becomes a single phrase, emphasizing precisely the idea desired by the authors . . ."

The Judiciary Committee and the House concurred with the Library of Congress, adopting the single phrase. The Senate co-sponsor of the resolution was Sen. Homer Ferguson, who said of the joint resolution during Senate debate, "Our Nation was founded on a fundamental belief in God . . ." Evidently, it was so important for this Congress to officially acknowledge the United States as a nation founded on a belief in a God, that even comma placement was debated to ensure the proper meaning was conveyed! With insertion of the words "under God," the Pledge has now become both a patriotic oath and a public prayer.

When we pledge allegiance, what are we doing? According to Black's Law Dictionary, 6th edition, allegiance is defined as: "Obligation of fidelity and obedience to government in consideration for protection that government gives." Although the flag represents the embodiment of our national conscience and is easily the most recognized symbol of our nation, one that I proudly support and defend daily as a member of our nation's Armed Forces, I find it curious that a "religious" Pledge of Allegiance to our flag rather than a Pledge of Allegiance to our secular Constitution has become the institutionalized form of patriotism in our country.

Members of the military are required to swear or affirm their support and defense of the Constitution of the United States. I have gladly "pledged my allegiance" by making this affirmation, and I, like many other atheists in foxholes, would give my life if necessary to defend our Constitution and our great democratic way of life.

Ken Lynn is an active duty Air Force officer currently stationed in Alabama. He and his wife Monica are Foundation members.

%792 %America/Chicago, %2001

Pledge Furor Provokes Pious Patriotism

November 2001
Joe McCarthy Lives!

By Annie Laurie Gaylor

A furor over the Pledge of Allegiance in normally laid-back, progressive Madison, Wisconsin, illustrates the frightening level religious hysteria has reached since the Sept. 11 terrorist acts.

While pious patriots are fearful of the "enemy without," I'm fearful of many of the 1,000 people who attended a raucous local school board meeting on Oct. 15.

It all started when the school board voted very sensibly on Oct. 8 to direct principals to play the national anthem to comply with a new state law mandating that Wisconsin schools offer the Pledge of Allegiance or the national anthem daily. Teachers and parents had urged the board to avoid recitation of the religious Pledge of Allegiance containing the words "under God."

After daily editorializing by the morning newspaper, which called the vote a "ban" on the Pledge, Rush Limbaugh and Rush "wannabes," as well Christian radio stations around the nation, urged followers to inundate the Madison school board with hate emails and phone calls. More than 20,000 emails were received over a few days' time.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott McCallum released a statement denouncing the school board and those citizens uncomfortable with the Pledge as "oddballs":

". . . some people are looking for ways to diminish our belief in God and country. It is disheartening, but in a free country you have patriots and you have the freedom for a few oddballs who place politics above patriotism." (When the school board scheduled an "emergency" hearing to reconsider the vote, I fleetingly considered carrying a placard saying "Proud to be an oddball.")

The die was cast when the meeting was called to order: the room erupted as hundreds in attendance stood and violently screamed out the Pledge of Allegiance. It was deafening and, to me, frightening. Many remained standing for some time, chanting "USA, USA." A chorus of "amens" ended the pledge, and would later resound in praise of speakers condemning the school board.

Students spoke first. I marveled at the poise of those who stood up in that hostile crowd, one only in 6th grade, to sincerely explain why the Pledge of Allegiance makes them uncomfortable. I marveled further when a fragile nonagenarian, a retired school board member, gently but tartly pointed out there are far better ways to educate about patriotism.

The school board listened patiently to about 166 people in more than nine and a half hours of testimony. Much of it was abusive, from out-of-towners, home-schoolers or others not directly concerned, and was rife with religious references.

A low, roomwide growl greeted the announcement of my name as a speaker. When I thanked the board for its vote, several yelled at me to "shut up." I read the cartoon reprinted below (receiving some applause), displayed a replica of the original secular Pledge of Allegiance, and condemned a shocking email sent to the Board that had been copied to me, in which the man mourned the fact that the terrorists had not turned their planes into the Madison School Board instead of the Twin Towers.

Although the "antis" were a "not-so-silent majority," as one young university student quipped, many thoughtful citizens, parents, teachers, and professionals urged the Board not to hedge on their no-pledge vote.

But at 2 a.m. the beleaguered board voted to pass the buck, to let principals decide whether to use the Pledge or the anthem. Only one school board member stood stalwart, the unflappable Bill Keys, who said he would not want any child to be the target of the kind of abuse the school board had taken over this issue. One silver lining: schools were instructed to preface every Pledge or anthem offering with a disclaimer that students are free not to stand or participate.

For many of us in this state that produced Joe McCarthy, the experience was an unwelcome taste of McCarthyism 2001-style.

%791 %America/Chicago, %2002

Pledging Allegiance to Constitution

This is excerpted from Michael Newdow's acceptance speech as "Freethinker of the Year" before the 25th annual convention of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Westin Horton Plaza Hotel, San Diego, on Nov. 22, 2002.

By Michael Newdow, M.D.

I want to thank the Freedom From Religion Foundation. I've always been an atheist but was never part of any movement like this. It's a special honor. I'm going to mention later how Robert Tiernan and FFRF were somewhat integral and became part of this lawsuit. I'll start at the beginning, though.

I have two friends who are law professors in Chicago, Michelle and Larry. They're great people, and I like to visit them. But when you go to their house, they only have liquid soaps, and I just hate liquid soaps--you can't get clean with the stuff.

I thought as a gag I'd bring them soap, regular soap, so I bought about a hundred bars. I'm standing in line, and it turns out it comes to $36.96, which all of you will immediately realize can be paid for with a twenty, a ten, a five and a one, and a half-dollar, quarter, dime, two nickels and a penny.

As I'm standing in line, I'm looking at the twenty dollar bill, and it says "In God We Trust." What the heck is this doing here? It just had never hit me. I looked at the ten dollar bill. "In God We Trust." And the five and the one and all the change. I thought, "What is going on here? I don't trust in God. I'm an American."

By the time I get to Michelle and Larry's house I'm fuming. I said, "Did you see this? It says 'In God We Trust.' " And they said, "Well, it's been there for a while." I told them, "I'm getting it off."

Larry, who knows constitutional law, said, "I think the case has already been tried." It turns out he was correct. The Freedom From Religion Foundation had tried to challenge the phrase as the motto and on currency in 1994. It eventually went to the Tenth Circuit.

When I got home from that trip, I resolved to get "In God We Trust" off of the coins and currency. I got on the Internet, and typed in "In God We Trust."

The first thing that came up was a website from the Treasury Department, and it tells the story. In 1861, Rev. Watkinson wrote a letter to Salmon P. Chase, Secretary of the Treasury, saying we need God on our coins.

Chase contacts a man by the name of James Pollitt, who was a founder of the NRA, which was not the National Rifle Association back then. It was the National Reform Association, which still exists today. Their goal is to have us declared a Christian nation. They came up with the idea of putting "In God We Trust" on a two-cent piece in 1864. Since that time it's progressed and it got on all the coins.

The second thing I found on the Internet was the Gaylor case. The Foundation attorney was named Bob Tiernan.

Somehow I found his phone number. I called him up and said, "Hi, my name is Mike Newdow and I'm going to get 'In God We Trust' off the currency," which was pretty arrogant, 'cause he had just lost in the Tenth Circuit.

I was down in Florida, which is the Eleventh Circuit, so I told Bob I would bring the case there, in a different circuit. Bob says, "More power to you, I give you my blessings." I told him I had one small problem I was wondering if he could help me with. He said, "Sure."

"I haven't the slightest idea how you file a lawsuit or do any of that stuff," I said. He was really amazingly generous, because he had spent a lot of time on the case, and he offered to send me his papers. I modeled my complaint on the Gaylor case.

As I thought about it, I realized that the case to get "under God" out of the pledge was stronger. The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892, and for 62 years it was doing perfectly well with no religion. Then in 1954 Congress took two words, "under God," and stuck them in the middle of this pledge, where it didn't belong. That's clearly unconstitutional.

So I'm thinking, "I really wish I had taken this case instead of the 'In God We Trust' on the coins." It turns out there's a Rule Fifteen that says you can amend your complaint as long as the defendants haven't responded. The sixty days had gone by, and they asked for an extension. So I thought, "All right, I take this as a sign from 'God,' " and I amended my complaint to challenge "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. That's how I got to this case.

I was planning on enrolling my daughter in a school in Florida, but for reasons we needn't go into, she ended up out here in California. I had lost in the lower level. My case got to the court of appeals and I wrote that I was no longer in Florida, and didn't have standing anymore. They threw the case out. When you lose the case on standing it's not like losing; it's like you never brought the case.

So I got one run-through and then I got to bring it again in the Ninth Circuit. You know what happened since then. We had oral arguments on March 14, and then they came out on June 26 in my favor. [applause] Thank you.

It turns out that in Rule Fifteen there's also a section rule 15(b)3 which says if you amend your complaint you have to come up with a song. So. . . [brings out his guitar, song excerpted below]

"They had those Pledge-of-Allegiance-needs-some-old-religion blues"
Well the world was full of danger,
It got worse with every hour.
The people put the call in
to Dwight E. Eisenhower
They ran it through the Congress.
Each colleague gave a nod.
"Well damn the Constitution--
This country needs some god."
In the aftermath of the Pledge of Allegiance, I wasn't prepared for the media. I had got a computer program that arrived the day of my decision. I was really bummed because I'd planned on setting up my computer to say, "Hi, this is Mike Newdow. For compliments press 1, for questions 2, for insults 3, for media 4." I never got a chance to set it up.

The Ninth Circuit call came in that they had a decision, and they vaguely told me I'd won. Then I waited for the papers to get faxed. Before the fax comes through, the Associated Press calls. Then I started getting phone calls from the television stations. I'm thinking: this is dangerous. I'd never publicized my case in any way.

At first I refused to have a photograph taken. The television studio started calling, wanting to do an interview. I said, "Well, can you blur the face?" Really!

Then the doorbell rang, and like an idiot I answered. There's four cameras there. There goes the anonymity. (I can just let you know I've yet to see a story that doesn't have something that's significantly wrong.)

You recall the 99 Senators coming out and saying how much we need God in our country? The Ninth Circuit ruling said I couldn't name Congress in my lawsuit because they have sovereign immunity--unless they waive immunity. Well, when they came out to say how wrong this decision is, they said, "We're sending the congressional legal authority out to the Ninth Circuit to go argue this case." So now we have Congress in the case.

The chaplains came out the next day and specifically said this decision was wrong. I decided that I'd bring suit against the chaplains and try to get them taken out of our government.

I have all this fodder now because of the pledge case. Now I have standing, because they addressed me personally on this case. I also applied for a position of chaplain. It turns out it's the highest paid position in government. They work for a minute a day, they get $140,000. It's not a bad job.

It's clear that nobody who's an atheist would ever get this position. In Article VI of the Constitution it says that "no religious test shall ever be required for any office of public trust under the Constitution."

Robert C. Byrd, a Democratic senator from West Virginia, came out and called Judge Goodwin "stupid." He also said, "If his name ever comes before me in his promotion in the judiciary, he'll never get it because of this case." Pretty amazing stuff.

Then Byrd said, "I for one am not going to stand for this country being ruled by a bunch of atheists. If they don't like it, let 'em leave." Which is really good because it gave me another song, this one about Byrd, hold on. [gets guitar]

He is the man for the whole USA
As long as you're Protestant and you're not gay
"If they don't like it, let 'em leave"
Q: When does your CD come out?
Thank you for asking. I actually have a CD.

Q: What's happening in your case?
We don't know what's going to happen yet in the Ninth Circuit, it hasn't been finalized. If I win there, it's pretty certain it'll get appealed to the Supreme Court and I think they'd take it. If I lose, I'll ask the Supreme Court to hear it, but you have about a 1% chance of the Supreme Court ever hearing a case, so it's not particularly great odds. We'll hope anyway.

Q: What can we do to help you? Financial support is always appreciated, I'm doing this myself. I did go to law school, although I never took the bar, I never did any practice until this case came along. I like the idea that people can look and see what just one person can do in this country, how one person can change it. It's impressive. There's a website: and we keep names of volunteers.

Q: How has this affected you in the medical community?
It hasn't affected me much. I'm a part-time attendee at UCLA in the Department of Emergency Medicine.

Q: How has this affected your daughter?
My daughter's great. She wants to go swimming and play. Doesn't affect her too much at all. She's happy.

Thank you.

%741 %America/Chicago, %2003

David Vs. Goliath

Vol. 20 No. 10 - Published by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. - December 2003

Newdow Update

This speech was delivered at the 26th annual convention of the Freedom From Religion Foundation at the Washington Court Hotel-Capitol Hill, Washington, D.C., on Oct. 12, 2003.

Michael Newdow. Photo by Brent Nicastro
By Michael Newdow

After I won the pledge case before the Ninth Circuit, someone asked me, "Do you feel like David and Goliath?"

I thought about it for a second, and I said, "Yeah, I feel like Goliath, because the law is extraordinarily on my side." If you go through all of the tests that the Supreme Court has ever enunciated on the Establishment Clause, the two words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance are clearly unconstitutional.

Last night we heard about the Lemon Test. The Lemon Test has three prongs. The first prong is: was the law passed for a religious purpose? The second prong asks if it has a religious effect. The third: is there an entanglement with religion and whatever's going on there in government?

Why did they stick the two words, "under God," in the Pledge of Allegiance? Clearly it had to be a religious purpose. It fails the first prong of Lemon. What's the effect? Clearly its effect is to have God in our government. That fails the second prong. And it's entanglement to the hilt. Government is saying the words. That's clearly unconstitutional.

There's also the neutrality test. The words "under God" are not neutral. The government is taking a position on the question: "Is there a God? Is there not a God?"

There's the imprimatur test. This places government's imprimatur on the idea of God.

Clearly, by every one of the Supreme Court's legal tests, we should win this case. Moreover, we're the Goliaths in this case in principle, even if you didn't have a test. If you try to express, try to put into normal vernacular the words of the Establishment Clause--"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"--what does it mean? We have separation of church and state is one way of stating it. But no matter what you come up with, sticking the two words "under God" in a nation's pledge clearly would fail the Establishment Clause. So we're Goliaths in terms of the principle as well.

Where we're Davids, on the other hand, is in numbers. Ninety-three percent of the population believes in God, and most of those people would like to have God in their government. The problem with that is we have a Constitution that very wisely does not permit majority rule over matters of conscience.

The other place where we're Davids is in terms of finances. The religious right has a lot of money. Just to give an example, most of you know that the religious right tried to get the mother of my child involved, to derail the case. When the case first broke, they flew her out by private jet from California to Washington, D.C. A private jet costs about $25,000. That flight is five times as much as what I'm going to spend totally for this entire case.

As of a year ago, those attorneys already had about $145,000 in legal fees accumulated, before the latest round of briefs. I'm just one guy, I don't have a secretary, I have to make my own copies on the copy machine I bought for $50, buy my own papers, send everything just regular mail. So we're Davids in that regard.

I'm going to look at case precedent from most to least recent to show how we're Goliaths in terms of the law. The last major case on the separation of church and state was in 2002, actually announced a day after the Ninth Circuit pledge decision was announced, on June 27, 2002. The Supreme Court heard a case known as Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, that talked about school vouchers in Ohio. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, approved the program, saying it's neutral.

There really is a tension here. On the one hand, we don't want to discriminate against religion any more than we do for religion. On the other hand, we don't want government money going to religious institutions. It also should be acknowledged that when public money goes to these religious schools, it's supposed to be used just for the secular aspects of those schools. Clearly, if you give money to the secular aspects, that's more money then that is available for the sectarian aspects. So that's always the issue. If you look at the opinion, it tells us that 96% of the vouchers that were used for private institutions went to religious institutions. That's obviously of concern, and therein lies the tension with the ideal of government not being for or against religion.

That's very different, though, from what's going on like the pledge case. Even in the Zelman case, Chief Justice Rehnquist, who wrote the decision, carefully said that the reason this case is okay is because the government is acting neutrally. It's saying individuals are spending public money on religious institutions, but the government has to be neutral. Clearly the government isn't neutral when it sticks the two words "under God" in the middle of our pledge. So even under Chief Justice Rehnquist's analysis, the pledge case has failed, if you went by what he did in Zelman.

The next case--we move back a year--was in 2001 called the Good News Club. That was a 6-3 decision. Basically we have three sets of three judges. We have on the "bad" side--no editorializing here--Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas, who will always vote against separation. On the "good" side, the great side, we have Souter, Stevens and Ginsberg. They want strict separation. In the middle we have three justices that we have to watch, and those are really whom we have to direct our cases toward: Kennedy, O'Connor and Breyer.

In the Good News case, Justice Breyer actually went on the other side, along with O'Connor and Kennedy. The Good News Club is a bible club that wants to use school classrooms to meet with children after school is out. The school district policy permitted nonprofits and community groups to use its schools after hours, with an exception for religious institutions. The Supreme Court said the district was discriminating against religion. Justice Breyer, in voting with the majority, noted the record just hasn't been developed yet. If it is shown that there is coercion to these little children, he would remand the case and let the lower courts look at that. Again, if you apply the neutrality issues with regard to the pledge, it's still in our favor quite strongly.

Back another year was Mitchell v. Helms, a case in Louisiana about government aids to private schools. We've had quite a few of these cases. The first major religious freedom case and parochial-aid case was Everson in 1947, which was about busing children: should we pay to bus children who go to sectarian schools? The Supreme Court said yes, we should, if we're going to pay for other kids to get to public schools. Again, we have that tension. Do we want to discriminate against religion? On the other hand, we are giving public money and it's benefiting the sectarian institutions.

It's a tough call. If you're a strict separationist you say no. If you're like Rehnquist and Scalia, then clearly that would be fine. In Mitchell v. Helms, we had four justices, who in religious aid cases seem to twist the Lemon Test around, even though all the justices who have twisted it have complained about it constantly. Scalia referred to the Lemon Test as "some ghoul in a late-night horror movie, that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad after being repeatedly killed and buried. Lemon stalks our Establishment Clause jurisprudence, once again frightening little children and school attorneys."

After complaining about Lemon so much, they simply rearranged it, removing the entanglement prong, saying, "We only have two prongs: purpose, and effect." Then they said, "An effect is now itself divided into three prongs, one of which is entanglement. The others are: does government invoke any religious belief or give aid based on the religion of the recipient?"

In Good News, you have the big three again--Thomas, Rehnquist and Scalia--with Kennedy joining this time, saying: "As long as government is neutral, we don't care about what happens to the money. We don't care if the funds get diverted to sectarian institutions. Government has acted neutrally, and that's fine."

The five other justices did not like that theory. They said you need more than that. Neutrality is required, but you also need to make sure that there are no funds being diverted. O'Connor and Breyer said, "We think that the diversion in this case is not adequate to worry about, so we're going to vote with the majority party." Our three--Souter, Stevens and Ginsberg--all said, "We think there's too much diversion," and so they voted against it. Once again, we see that this is a case very different from something like the pledge challenge.

Go back one more year, to 2000. Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe was the case that said you can't have prayer at high school football games. This followed a 1992 case, Lee v. Weisman, which said you can't have prayer at high school graduations. In the original 1992 case, Lee v. Weisman, they said the government, the school board, the school principal, is calling in some stranger to give a prayer, and even if it's nonsectarian, it's a prayer to God, and some people are uncomfortable with that. Because it's government acting, you can't do that. It was a great case for us.

In the Santa Fe case, they went even further. In Santa Fe, what happened was the students themselves were voting, and they were electing their own student to give any talk on anything, but it always turned out to be a talk on religion. So the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in our favor, with Breyer, Kennedy and O'Connor all coming over to our side. They said: "What we're having is a majority vote that allows them to use the machinery of the state to invoke their religious beliefs. We're not going to allow that."

They also referred to another case that they decided simultaneously, Southworth, which spoke about viewpoint neutrality. "The whole theory of viewpoint neutrality is that minority views are treated with the same respect as are majority views." Again, if you look at that with regard to the pledge, clearly the minority view that there's no god is not given the same respect as the majority view when we say we're "one nation, under God."

All of these cases taken together show that in the law, at least as it now stands, we are the Goliaths. All law is on our side, there is nothing against us. So I still think quite strongly, although some people think I'm wrong, that we're going to win.

There've been a whole bunch of Ten Commandments cases lately. All of you have certainly heard of the one in Alabama, which I'll get to in a minute. It's estimated there's about 20 active Ten Commandments cases right now. There was the case that we've just heard about with Margaret Downey in Pennsylvania, Third Circuit. She won it in the district court level, which was great, but she did get overturned in the court of appeals. Her case involved a Ten Commandments plaque put in the courthouse in the 1920s. A previous case in the Third Circuit, about a Ten Commandments plaque dating to 1918, was also lost. What they said was, "These are historical. They're not invoking religious belief, you can hardly see 'em, it's part of the building now, and so we're going to let it slide." They kind of got grandfathered in.

I think that's wrong. At some point in time this was stuck in there for religious purposes, and that act should be fixed. But they didn't see it that way. It's not the end of the world for us, it certainly doesn't say that people can start putting Ten Commandments monuments and plaques around anymore.

Most of the Ten Commandments monuments being litigated were put up by a group called the Fraternal Order of Eagles, which has an acronym: FOE. I don't know if that's intentional! The Eagles is a group that generally does good stuff, they give to diabetic foundations and kidney diseases and everything else. But in the 1950s when Cecil B. DeMille directed "The Ten Commandments" and Charleton Heston came down from the mountain, the Eagles got together with DeMille and decided to put up these monuments. I actually contacted the Grand Wizard or whoever it is, and he told me that it just became cost-prohibitive, so they've stopped doing that. But there still are these plaques and monuments around, and these are being litigated frequently.

There's a case in Adams County, Ohio. That one went our way. They had these Ten Commandments monuments in four high schools, and those were ruled unconstitutional. There was one, Adland v. Russ, in 2002, involving a monument they wanted to place at the Kentucky capitol building, which was ruled unconstitutional by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Another involved the Summum religion. I don't know how many of you have heard of Summums, but it's a religious group in Utah, and is about 30 years old. The Summums did something I think was very wise and I would recommend that anybody who litigates these cases in the future do the same thing. They were in the Tenth Circuit in Utah--and the Tenth Circuit had already ruled that monuments with the Ten Commandments were okay in certain circumstances. They went to the city of Ogden, Utah, which had a Ten Commandments monument displayed. They called it a violation of the Establishment Clause, and said if you don't grant relief by getting rid of this thing, what we want you to do is put up our thing. We have seven principles, and we want to put up a monument with our seven principles.

They won. They lost on the Establishment Clause ground, but they won on the grounds of free speech and the violation of viewpoint neutrality. The city was saying, "We're going to take the Judeo-Christian monument, it's okay, but we're not letting other people put up theirs." The court said, "You go back and figure out a way for them to get their seven principles put up or you get rid of the other."

I actually went to Utah and met with the Summums, and it was an interesting time. The group that I met were mostly Korean, and they do a lot of proselytizing, and we went out to the city of Ogden--not to one of the finer areas of the city. They were looking for people to convert, and they found this guy, he was sitting on the curb and playing these bongos, somewhat disheveled and not very happy-appearing, didn't seem to be too bright. They invited him back to their meeting hall and gave him some Korean food. Interestingly, they gave him a lot of Bacardi, kind of got him drunk. I remember him playing the bongos and kind of a humming and making these sounds and it was startling, because when they first came up to him he looked kind of lost, and all of a sudden he converted to Summum, and you could see this confidence come over him, this sense of aplomb that would come when some dumb, numb and glum Summum slum bum, would hum and drum with dimsum and rum.

(Actually, that's not a true story.)

One of the monuments the Eagles donated was in La Crosse, Wis. La Crosse is an interesting name; I guess it's better than La Jesus, but not too much.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation has taken on that case and they won at the federal level so far. So way to go, Freedom From Religion.

I think it's hard to talk about Ten Commandments cases without mentioning Judge Roy Moore in Alabama. Judge Roy Moore had prayers before his sessions, and he put a Ten Commandments plaque on his wall in his lower courtroom. The ACLU was absolutely right to challenge him. The problem was Judge Roy Moore got very famous and became known as the Ten Commandments judge and was consequently elected to be Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.

I think the case with Judge Roy Moore really highlights why the Establishment Clause is so important. This man is not only a citizen, not only a lawyer, not only a judge, not only a justice in the State Supreme Court, but the chief justice of the State Supreme Court, who was ordered by the federal government to take this thing down and refused. What would give somebody the gall to do that? Only religion, only belief in God. He's convinced that he's right and he's willing to totally forego the law for the rest of society. That's an incredible thing. I think the fact that he did that should be a warning. That's why we need the Establishment Clause. He is the best advertisement we have.

Probably the most important thing about the case is that every time something like this happens, God contacts me. He called me up (which is something because I have an unlisted number), and he said I should write another song, so I wrote another song for Judge Roy Moore.

This is the world debut of the song, hope I don't choke. Because this is a song about something done in the South, I'm going to do this with a Southern accent. But because I'm from New York, it's South Bronx.

(Performs "Roy's Rock")

So now I want to talk about two other cases of mine. First I'll talk about the one against congressional chaplains. There's a case called Marsh v. Chambers, 1983, in which state legislative chaplains were challenged, and the litigant lost. Ernest Chambers was a legislator out in Nebraska, who was forced to listen to chaplains every time the Nebraska legislature met, and brought suit against that. The case got to the US Supreme Court, and Chief Justice Burger wrote the opinion. There's nothing in the opinion about what the Establishment Clause means. Clearly, the Chief Justice couldn't write about what the Establishment Clause means, because it certainly means that you can't have tax-paid chaplains coming in and giving religious prayers before congressional sessions. So Burger didn't even bother to discuss the Establishment Clause--I guess he was precluded from discussing that.

Instead he said, "Look at the history." And he came out with what's a good point, at least on first blush. In 1787, the Founders met and came up with our Constitution. The deal was that if they got nine states to ratify it, we would have a United States. On June 21, 1788, New Hampshire became the ninth state. We had a country. At the end of 1788, Congress first met, they had the electoral college, they elected George Washington president, and on April 30, 1789, Washington was inaugurated as president.

We still didn't have a Bill of Rights at that time. We still only had the Constitution. It wasn't until June 8, 1789, that James Madison first even proposed the Bill of Rights. During the summer of 1789, they finalized the wording for the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to our Constitution, and on Sept. 25, they sent the text out to the states to ratify. The Bill of Rights wasn't ratified until December 1791.

What Chief Justice Burger said was, "If you look in the record, on Sept. 22, 1789, three days before the final wording of the Bill of Rights was created, the same people who came up with this wording voted to pay for chaplains. Whatever the Establishment Clause means, and I'm not going to discuss it because I'd lose this case if I do, the fact that the same people who came up with the wording and voted for the Bill of Rights also voted to pay the chaplains, shows that clearly it doesn't mean you can't have chaplains."

However, it's not really the complete argument and doesn't give the complete history. First of all, those people, we know, were politicians, and we saw what happened in the pledge case--99 out of 99 senators went out and said, "This is a horrible thing." A large portion of those senators are lawyers and I'm sure they understand the issues here, yet there wasn't any question. They're politicians; they can count. Ninety-three percent of the population believes in god and you don't want to go against that. I don't think there was any difference back in the 1700s. The fact is: the chaplains were actually instituted before we had the Bill of Rights. They were put in place in April and in May 1789 in the Senate and the House respectively.

So before the Bill of Rights had ever been introduced, we'd put chaplains into our government. What politician's going to say, "Oh, let's get those chaplains out of here"? He's going to lose his job. So that's a very good reason to understand why chaplains would still be there. Chaplains fail all of those tests that I mentioned for the Establishment Clause, so this seems to be an unconstitutional practice. Justice Brennan wrote a really good dissent to Marsh, but it was a 6-3 decision against us.

We've seen since that time the problems that come with chaplains. Four years ago we put a Catholic chaplain in the House--the first Catholic chaplain, tremendous problems with that. Danny Hastert, who was speaker of the House, said, "In all my years in this Congress I have never seen a more cynical, more destructive political campaign than occurred with trying to get a Catholic chaplain in the House." If there's anywhere where we don't want this sort of religious controversy, it's in the halls of Congress. That's another reason why I think Marsh should be overturned.

There's the question of original intent. First of all, there is a question as to whether original intent was the "original intent." Did the Framers want to bind the future for hundreds of years--or thousands of years, however long we last--with what they were seeing back in the 1700s? I think the answer is clearly no. I like to think of it in terms of the Internet. If we came up with laws now in regard to the Internet, who in their right mind would think we'd want those laws applicable in the year 2200? You've got to be nuts. Things change and I think that they certainly had that in mind.

The other thing is we never can know what the Framers intended. There were 55 separate men who came up with the body of the Constitution. By the time the first Congress met for the Bill of Rights, there were about 116. There was no original intent. They were very different individuals. One of the first individuals in the first Congress was Rep. Thomas Tucker from South Carolina. One of the things the first Congress passed was the resolution to go to President Washington to declare a day of thanks. That's originally where we got Thanksgiving. Thomas Tucker said: "You can't do that. We don't have the power to pass a law like that or pass a resolution because we are forbidden from getting involved in religious matters. And this is a resolution to thank God. We can't do it."

Remember, this had to be ratified by the people, so it doesn't even matter what these original Founders had in mind, it matters what the people had in mind in every one of the states. So we'll never know what original intent is.

Even if we did know what original intent was, we frequently don't abide by original intent. The Alien and Sedition Acts were passed in the 1790s. You got put in jail or fined if you wrote bad things about the government. Those acts would clearly be unconstitutional today under our First Amendment jurisprudence. If we think that original intent can be measured by what these men passed in Congress, those men in Congress passed the unconstitutional Alien and Sedition Act. They also had death as a penalty for counterfeiting. They had 39 stripes (whippings) for altering any court records.

Marbury v. Madison, possibly the most famous case, was about the fact that those original founders, those original members of Congress, passed a law that was unconstitutional. So what they did, the laws they passed, even though they created the Constitution, may not in fact coincide with the Constitution.

We have a letter from John Adams saying the first chaplain, who was established during the constitutional convention in 1774, was put in place for political reasons, that we were using religion for politics. That's exactly what we don't want to ever happen. Duch� was the first chaplain, an Anglican. Remember, the Anglican Church was the Church of England back then. John Adams said this was a masterful stroke. By getting an Anglican minister to come out on our side, they thought that we got a lot of people to support us. So it was using religion for political purposes.

The other thing that I find astounding is that the Supreme Court will say, "Well, we have to stick by this original intent idea." The Supreme Court's first pledge case was in the 1940s, before "under God" was added. This was a case of Jehovah's Witnesses who don't pledge, who said they can't pledge to flags. They got expelled from school in 1940 in the Minersville case, and the Supreme Court upheld it.

Now let's think about it. The Supreme Court in 1940 had the benefit of the briefs and the cases that had progressed in the district court, and the court of appeals. They had months to go over this argument, they could discuss it with their clerks and among themselves, and they came out and said, "You can expel them because they won't salute the flag." Three years later they completely reversed themselves. They overruled Minerville. They reversed themselves after all that thought, and recognized they made a mistake. The Framers put together a whole country--it wasn't like they were just focused on this one thing--and didn't have nearly the amount of time that this Supreme Court had in these two particular cases. How come we can't say 200 years later that their decision to have a chaplain before the Bill of Rights was passed is inapplicable today?

The other case I brought is the inaugural case. Actually Prof. Dershowitz wrote about it right after it had occurred. On January 20, 2001, Pres. Bush had two Christian ministers come in giving very Christian prayers. Prof. Dershowitz wrote that the first act by the new administration was in defiance of the Constitution, which it was. I just want to read you the prayers that were read. I didn't tune in to this for any reason, I just happened to be home, put on the TV. Rev. Franklin Graham was the first speaker, he gave the benediction, and Kirbyjon Caldwell gave the invocation. Billy Graham was supposed to come, but God works in mysterious ways. Billy was sick. So Franklin substituted for him and he said:

"Let us pray. Blessed are you, our Lord, our God. Yours, O God, is the greatness and wonder and glory and the splendor and the majesty, for everything in heaven and earth is yours. Yours, O Lord, is the kingdom. You are exalted as head over all. Wealth and honor come from you. You are the ruler of all things. In your hands are strength and power to exalt, and to give strength to all."

Just starting with "Let us pray" already violates the Constitution. Then he ends:

"Now, O Lord, we dedicate this presidential inaugural ceremony to you. May this be the beginning of a new dawn of America as we humble ourselves before you, and acknowledge you alone as our Lord, our Savior, and our Redeemer."

Doesn't end there:

"We pray this in the name of the Father, and of the son the Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen."

This is in the middle of our inauguration! This is incredible. Then we have the other person, this Kirbyjon Caldwell. (This was President Bush wanting to show us how he respects diversity; Kirbyjon Caldwell is an African-American pastor, and is to alliteration where Jesse Jackson is to rhyme.) He went like this:

"Let us pray please. Almighty God, the supply and supplier of peace, prudent policy and nonpartisanship, we bless your holy and righteous name. Thank you O God for blessing us with forgiveness, with faith, and with favor. Forgive us for choosing pride over purpose, forgive us for choosing popularity over principle, and forgive us for choosing materialism over morals."

Then he thanks Bush and ends:

"We respectfully submit this humble prayer in the name that's above all other names, Jesus the Christ, and all who agree say Amen."

This is at our inauguration. It's incredible! After I had the oral surgeon put my teeth back in my jaw, I decided to file this suit. I already had practice, I had filed the pledge case, so it was pretty easy. I filed a lawsuit, and we should hear from the Ninth Circuit soon on assigning an oral argument in that case. We'll see what happens.

When I filed in district court, the government argued that I didn't have standing, saying I live in California, and they gave these invocations in Washington, D.C.

The judge didn't buy that one. They then said, "Well this is covered by Marsh v. Chambers." I said, "No it's not, it's covered by Lee v. Weisman in Santa Fe," and they said, "No, no, Lee v. Weisman is about graduation, which is important." The judge responded, "Are you saying that the inauguration isn't important?"

I'll just give you a little history. The first inauguration was with George Washington and was in City Hall in New York, New York, the capital at the time, down on Wall Street. The building had this balcony and George Washington came out to the balcony and took the oath. The oath of office is in the Constitution, and there's no "So help me God" in there. George did that on his own. He pulled out a bible, which they didn't even have prepared, someone had to go to the Masonic Lodge and get a bible. He then went into the City Hall, he gave a speech to Congress, and then the whole entourage left the City Hall and walked about a half a mile to St. Paul's chapel, where there was a chaplain. Bear in mind again this was April 30, 1789, before Madison had even introduced the Bill of Rights, so we had no First Amendment to violate. Nobody knows what the chaplain said. As far as we know, he may have said, "Y'know, I think we should have separation of church and state here." In any event, he gave his speech, it's not been recorded, and from that time on until 1937, there was not another chaplain at a presidential inauguration. If you read Chief Justice Burger's opinion in Marsh v. Chambers, he talked about the "unambiguous and unbroken history of more than 200 years." Well, we don't have that with presidential inaugurations. So I don't think Marsh v. Chambers applies at all.

I made that argument, and the judge seemed to buy that. So then he looked for another issue, as he clearly didn't want to tell the president of the United States that he's violating the Constitution. So he said during our hearings, "George Bush says 'God Bless' at the end of everything, do you want to get rid of that?" Of course, I said, "Yes, I do want to get rid of that, but he has his own free exercise rights, it's a different issue, I'm complaining about this bringing in of chaplains."

So the judge kind of gave up on that one, too. Where the case now lies is a separation of powers issue. This is a really interesting thing. Does the judiciary have the right to tell another branch of government whether or not it's violating the Constitution? I had thought that'd been covered in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, but it isn't actually that clear. There are cases that kind of make you wonder what the judiciary can do. Anyhow, it's in the court of appeals, and we'll see if they uphold that idea.

Finally, we have Justice Souter, who in Lee v. Weisman, that case with the graduation prayers, said it's clear that these are politicians and politicians can raise constitutional ideals on one day and turn their backs on them the next. So the whole basis we have for Marsh v. Chambers is no longer tenable. That's why I brought the case and hopefully that'll overturn Marsh.

Michael Newdow, M.D., graduated in 1974 from Brown University with a Bachelor of Science degree in biology. He went to medical school at UCLA 1974-1978, interning at Kings County Hospital Center in Brooklyn, N.Y. He has worked as an emergency physician since 1980. Other occasional positions included work as a "Project USA" physician serving Native Americans at Indian Health Service Facilities, and as a cruise physician. From 1985 to 1988, he attended law school at the University of Michigan. He continues to do ER work to support his legal actions to defend the First Amendment and parenthood rights. He has one daughter.

%780 %America/Chicago, %2004

Amicus Curiae Brief by FFRF

No. 02-1624

In the Supreme Court of the United States








Attorney forAmicus Curiae
3120 S. Xenia Street
Denver, CO 80231
(303) 671-2490

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. is a nationally recognized nonprofit charitable and educational corporation existing under the laws of the State of Wisconsin. The Foundation is a leading advocate promoting the constitutional separation of church and state on behalf of atheists, agnostics, and nonbelievers. The issues presented in the case at bar are of great importance to the Foundation and its constituency.1

In 2001, there were an estimated 29.5 million adult citizens in the United States who did not believe in god or adhere to organized religion. This constitutes more than 14% of our adult population and the number is growing.2 THE GRADUATE CENTER, CUNY, AMERICAN RELIGIOUS IDENTIFICATION SURVEY, KEY FINDINGS, p. 3 of 20 (2001). The U.S. military includes many such nonadherents and the oft-cited adage that "there are no atheists in foxholes" is untrue. Many atheists fought with valor and faced death in World Wars I and II, Korea, Vietnam, and subsequent conflicts.

It is an affront to these citizens that their country's official pledge of allegiance includes specific reference to a divinity. Many of them want to affirm their devotion to the United States but they cannot, in conscience, declare loyalty and pay homage to a god in which they do not believe. As a consequence, they are seen as outsiders in their own country, even when they have risked their lives to defend it.

There has been an increasing intrusion of religion into this nation's body politic which is causing major divisions among our citizenry. According to the ZOGBY/REUTERS INTERNATIONAL POLL (August 11-13, 2000), there is a growing climate of intolerance in this country toward atheists and nonbelievers. Government endorsements of religion compound this problem by creating the impression that God is an integral part of our system of government and that rejecting this notion is tantamount to treason. It has thus become fashionable to condemn those who refuse to recite a formal pledge to God as "unAmerican."

The Foundation's constituency believes that "under God" in the pledge of allegiance is disrespectful to many thoughtful, churchgoing Americans who are of the opinion that the merger of God and country cheapens the religion to which they subscribe. The phrase is anathema to many devoutly religious Americans who believe in Allah, some other divinity not known to them as God, or in multiple gods. The United States is a "melting pot" of diverse cultures and religions. It is, indeed, "unAmerican" to impose upon its citizens a Judeo- Christian God as a condition of pledging fealty to their country.

It is not enough to say that those who, in conscience, cannot tolerate the oath to God are free to omit the objectionable phrase from their recitation of the pledge, or stand aside and say no pledge at all. A major purpose of the pledge is to unite Americans as "one nation indivisible" in a common bond of respect for flag and country. Belief or nonbelief in God has no part in this.

Interest of the Amicus Curiae

Table of Contents

Table of Cited Authorities

Summary of the Argument




Consent of Parties




Allen v. Wright,
468 U.S. 737 (1984)

Engel v. Vitale,
370 U.S. 421 (1962)

Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing,
330 U.S. 1 (1947)

Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Ed. of
School Dist. No. 71, Champaign Cty.,
333 U.S. 203 (1948)

Lee v. Weisman,
505 U.S. 577 (1992)

Lemon v. Kurtzman,
403 U.S. 602 (1971)

Lynch v. Donnelly,
465 U.S. 668 (1984)

Newdow v. U.S. Congress,
292 F.3d 597 (9th Cir. 2002)

Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe,
530 U.S. 290 (2000)

Torcaso v. Watkins,
367 U.S. 488 (1961)

Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United
for Separation of Church and State, Inc.,
454 U.S. 464 (1982)

Wallace v. Jaffree,
472 U.S. 38 (1985)

West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette,
319 U.S. 624 (1943)


36 U.S.C. ¤ 186

4 U.S.C. ¤ 4

Other Authorities:

101 CONG. REC. 4384 (1955)

(May 18-23, 1994)





The addition of the phrase "under God" to the pledge of allegiance in the mid-1950s undeniably turned a secular pledge into a prayer-like religious ritual. Pledging fealty to a divinity is an essential manifestation of religious worship. This Court has repeatedly held that conducting such rituals in an elementary or secondary public school setting violates the Establishment Clause.

This case is further exacerbated by the fact that the pledge, with its inclusion of a deity, is authored by the State and is set forth in haec verba in the United States Code. Thus, the pledge is not only a religious ritual, it is a ritual prescribed by government. God is not merely endorsed by the government; acknowledging God is commanded by the government. This leads to the inescapable conclusion that "under God" in the pledge renders it unconstitutional on its face.

"Under God" in the pledge of allegiance is especially harmful to nonbelieving parents who strive to pass their values and heritage on to their children. The effect of the phrase, particularly on young, impressionable children, is to interfere with parents' mentoring of their offspring. This violates parents' right to the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Every citizen has a stake in public education. That is why all taxpayers support the system regardless of whether or not they have children in the system. It is entirely inconsistent with this concept to say that only custodial parents have standing and all other taxpayers do not. Respondent Newdow is obligated to pay state taxes to support the public school system which his daughter attends. That, alone, is sufficient to give him standing. It would be unconscionable to condition Newdow's standing on his custodial status with regard to the child.


If there is one point that this amicus wants to make above all others, it is that atheists, agnostics, and others likeminded are as sincere in their (non)religious beliefs as, for example, are Roman Catholics in the blessed sacraments, Jews in the holy Torah, or fundamentalists in the Bible. Dutiful nonbelieving parents teach their children long-held family values about atheism and religious freedom only to have the children then go to public school and hear their teachers, who are authoritarian figures, contradict this teaching by reciting a loyalty oath to God written by their own government.

We agree with the petitioners, the respondent United States, and their amici that government references to a divinity are "ubiquitous" in this society. But this should provide no solace for the Court, because what this means is that there is far too much religion being espoused by government. Excessive government involvement with religion is particularly sinister because it goes against the grain of the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution which includes the freedom not to believe in God. Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 52-53 (1985) and Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1, 15 (1947).3 It also has the effect of undercutting the efforts of nonbelieving parents to pass on their values and their heritage to their children. Simply because nonbelievers are in the minority, indeed, especially because of this fact, the Court should not condone government interference with their parental rights and should strike down any effort to inculcate young children with the idea that there is or is not a god.

The lower court's dissenting opinion characterizes the issues in this case as "minuscule" and "picayune." Newdow v. U. S. Congress, 292 F.3d 597, 613 (9th Cir. 2002). If that is so, why did all the Senators present at the U.S. Capitol take the unprecedented step of dropping everything to protest in unison against the majority's decision?4 Why did the decision elicit such interest across the land, including outrage from those who are intent upon promoting the concept that this a god-fearing, Christian nation? The answer is obvious -- the issue is of grave, indeed, overriding concern to those who want the pledge to remain as it is. This is a matter of great importance to those on both sides of the issue.

Contrary to the picture presented by those supporting it, the pledge of allegiance does not have an unblemished history. In the years before World War II, many states, including West Virginia tried to force the pledge (pre- "under God") upon their citizens, including those whose religious convictions prohibited them from saluting the flag and uttering loyalty oaths to secular icons. This Court held such coercion to be unconstitutional in West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).

In 1954, in the midst of the infamous McCarthy hysteria, the U.S. Congress passed and the President signed legislation that added "under God" to the pledge. 5 Their reasoning was that communism was atheistic and, therefore, unAmerican, and that the United States had to put God on side against this godless menace. 6 It is little wonder that, even today, nonbelievers are looked down upon by many of religious majority.

With the addition of "under God," the pledge allegiance has placed nonbelievers completely out of mainstream. Patriotic, taxpaying citizens are isolated from society merely because they do not happen to believe in divinity, a right which is guaranteed to them under Constitution. Wallace v. Jaffree, supra, and Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing, supra, and cases cited in footnote 3.

The arguments advanced by the petitioners, the United States, and their allies supporting "under God" in the pledge of allegiance are shameful and, in the end, self-defeating. There is page after page of rhetoric about how this nation has such a rich religious history. No acknowledgment is made of the equally rich history of atheism, agnosticism, and nonbelief. No time is spent emphasizing the fact that, because of the genius of the founders of this nation and their sincere belief that government and religion ought to be separate, religion has thrived in this country like nowhere else on earth.

Ignored is the fact that, although most, if not all, of the framers of our Constitution were deists, they carefully and deliberately authored a document that established a government of the People and did not mention, much less subordinate it to a divinity. To be sure, some documents from American history, such as the Declaration of Independence, the Gettysburg address, etc., make specific reference to a god. But that is not what this government was founded on. The framers were intelligent enough to realize that for this nation to truly be free, they would need to put aside their personal religious preferences in favor of a secular government. They were painfully aware of the abysmal history of societies that mixed religion with civil governance. They had had enough of statesanctioned religions and all their attendant evils.

The historical documents and practices cited by the petitioners and their allies that refer to a divinity cannot be equated with the pledge of allegiance. It is pure sophistry to assert that, if this Court outlaws the pledge of allegiance as currently worded, it will somehow make the Declaration of Independence or the Gettysburg address off-limits in public schools. These are documents which form a part of this nation's history and are properly the subject of public school education.

The pledge of allegiance is entirely different. It is not "educational." It is a loyalty oath. To have God added to that oath offends our Constitution and the freedoms this country stands for. To force nonbelievers either to indulge in hypocrisy and voice the pledge or make them stand aside from the majority in silence is a Hobson's choice that is repugnant to our heritage of freedom. Certainly, for grade school students who are years away from adulthood, this can hardly be called a "willing" exercise. 7 If the custodial mother in this case wants her daughter to pledge an oath to God, let it be done at her home or in a church, not under the influence of a governmentprescribed setting.

In recent years, the judiciary has adopted an increasingly accommodating attitude toward religion. In doing so, we question whether sufficient attention has been given to the other side of the issue, i.e., freedom from religion for atheists, agnostics, and nonbelievers. Prevailing thought seems to be that the latter are entitled to no accommodation whatsoever and that a secular nation is, by definition, hostile to religion.

Nonbelievers do not take the position that government should be hostile to religion. It is not contended that the pledge of allegiance should affirmatively say that this is not one nation under God or that the national motto should be "In God we do nottrust."8Nonbelievers simply seek balance -- and balance is best struck by neutrality. Even if one were to subscribe to the theory that accommodation can be neutral, care must be taken to avoid it from tipping over into favoritism.

The pledge of allegiance, as currently phrased, favors religion and is punitive to nonbelievers. The addition of "under God" has made the pledge a prayer-like religious ritual whereby impressionable schoolchildren publicly stand en masse and declare loyalty to a nation under and, therefore, subservient to God. This violates a long line of decisions by this Court which extend over sixty years.

In Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1 (1947), Mr. Justice Black, speaking for the Court, spelled out basic principles applicable to the Establishment Clause including the right of every citizen to be free from government coercion to "profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Id. at 15. In the almost sixty years which have elapsed since Everson, the Court has not budged from this bedrock principle.

Fifteen years after Everson, the Court struck down a public school prayer authored by a local board of education. It rejected the argument that non-denominational prayer was permissible under the Establishment Clause and it likewise rejected the contention that, because pupils were not required to recite the prayer, Establishment Clause prohibitions did not apply. Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962).

This line of cases culminated in Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992) in which the court held that a private prayer delivered by a rabbi at a public school commencement was unconstitutional and Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000) where the Court struck down a student-led prayer recited before a public high school football game. In each case, the Court held that a finding of coercion was unnecessary in evaluating the constitutionality of public school prayer.

These decisions are not limited to the technical definition of prayer. The Court has included within the ambit of Establishment Clause jurisprudence not only prayer but the transmission of "...religious beliefs and religious expression..." Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. at 589, or anything which "...establishes a (state) religion or religious faith, or tends to do so." Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 678 (1984), quoted in Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, supra, at 302. In essence, the Court has put these factors on the same footing as prayer.

Without question, the pledge of allegiance, with its inclusion of a deity is a religious expression and it establishes, or tends to establish, a religion. It is authored by the state, is codified in federal law (4 U.S.C. ¤ 4), and must be recited in haec verba in public schools under the jurisdiction of the Elk Grove Unified School District. God is not merely endorsed by government; acknowledging God is required by the pledge. The United States is declared to be under and, therefore, subservientto God. This is absolutely repugnant to the Constitution. See Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971).

Petitioners argue that the pledge is not a prayer because it "... (cannot) be construed to be a supplication for blessings from God nor can it be reasonably argued that it is a communication with God." Petitioners' brief, p. 31. Amicus for the United States makes a similar contention to support the thesis that the pledge is not the "functional equivalent of prayer." Brief for the United States, p. 43. These arguments constitute a misreading of the Court's decisions. The Court has not preoccupied itself with prayer. Rather, it has looked more broadly at the question of whether a challenged activity is a religious practice or would establish or tend to establish a religion. Lynch v. Donnelly, supra. The Court has given recognition to the fact that it would be putting form over substance to say that prayer is a religious exercise that the Establishment Clause reaches but affirmations of belief in and/or allegiance to God are not. 9

WEBSTER'S ENCYCLOPEDIC DICTIONARY (1990) defines (1) pledge as "a solemn promise," (2) allegiance as "devotion, loyalty, the duty of a subject to his sovereign," and (3) worship as "homage paid to God." From these definitions, it becomes obvious that the pledge of allegiance at issue is, in reality, an act of worshiping a deity. Subservience is the hallmark of the relationship between God and those who worship God. This dovetails with the pledge of "one nation under God" clearly signifying that God is master and this nation is the servant. It is the very antithesis of our Constitution which bases the United States government on the authority of "WE, THE PEOPLE."

Whether it is a prayer, an act of worship, or merely a religious exercise, "under God" in the pledge of allegiance puts the United States in direct confrontation with citizens who do not believe in a divinity. It is an inapt phrase in a pledge whose purpose should be to unite, not divide, the nation. It should be struck down by this Court.


Respondent Newdow was found to have standing by the Court below and this Court should not disturb that finding. At issue is a religious practice required by the law of the state in which Newdow resides and pays taxes. This alone is sufficient to confer standing without regard to whether Newdow has custody of the child in question or even has a child enrolled in the public school system. Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1, 3.

Every citizen has a stake in public education. That is why the system is supported by all taxpayers, not just taxpayers who have children enrolled in school. To hold that standing is limited to those who actually have custody of a child in public school is inharmonious with the principles on which public education in this country is based. It would serve to disenfranchise taxpayers who are obligated under law to subsidize the school system merely because they are childless. Curricula could include instruction that glorifies Nazism and such taxpayers would be powerless to seek redress in the courts.

Respondent Newdow is the biological parent of the student involved and he is under a State court order to support the child. Even though he may not have custody, that is not pertinent to the issues before the Court. Newdow has every right to object to school programs which he deems unlawful regardless of what the custodial mother may say. He is not stripped of his constitutional rights merely because of a State court's custody order.

Newdow also has the right to take every reasonable step to pass on his values to his daughter even if they do not conform to those of the custodial mother.10 Government infringement of that right meets the criterion for "injury" required by the Court's decisions in Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, 454 U.S. 464, 472 (1982) and Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984). Newdow is not asking this court to control what the mother teaches the child, but to control what the father finds constitutionally objectionable in the public school system.

This brief is accompanied by the written consent of the parties pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37.3(a).

Wherefore, it is respectfully submitted that this Court affirm the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Respectfully submitted,

Robert Reitano Tiernan
Counsel of Record
3120 South Xenia Street
Denver, CO 80231
(303) 671-2490
Attorney for Amicus Curiae

February, 2004

I, Sharon R. Chamberlain, being duly sworn, do hereby make the following affidavit:

1. I am the President and sole owner of Chamberlain Research Consultants. I have been in the polling business since 1988.

2. Chamberlain Research Consultants (CRC) is an independent, full-service market research firm. We are located at 4801 Forest Run Road in Madison, Wisconsin and have been in business since 1988. The firm has been solely owned by me since June of 1990; prior to that, it was a branch of Matousek and Associates, where I was a partner.

3. Wisconsin Interviewing Services (WIS) is the field service owned by CRC. The field service includes a phone bank and focus group facility. WIS is responsible for the actual collection of data. CRC is responsible for research design and analysis. CRC/WIS employs approximately six full-time and 25 to 50 part-time people at any given time.

4. CRC/WIS clients include: school districts, utility companies, political candidates, lobbyists, restaurants and food manufacturers, trade associations, ad agencies and design firms, marketing firms, insurance companies, government agencies, law firms, new product developers, newspapers, and radio stations.

5. CRC was contracted by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. to conduct a poll on the use of the phrase "In God we Trust" as seen on U.S. currency. The poll was conducted with 900 adults across the nation. The number of surveys was chosen to provide a sufficient margin of error, in other words, approximately ±3%.

6. CRC purchased a random sample telephone list from Scientific Telephone Samples (STS) in California for use in this study. STS was instructed by CRC to draw the numbers proportionately to population across all 50 states. The sample was generated so that unlisted phone numbers were not excluded from the sample.

7. Quotas were set for gender based on the most recent U.S. Census data available (1990: 52% female, 48% male). The gender constraints were placed on the sample because past experience has shown us that the proportion of women who answer the telephone is higher than the actual proportion of women in the population.

8. The poll was in the field May 18-23, 1994. All surveys were conducted from a supervised phone bank. Over 10% of the interviews were monitored by a supervisor through our special phone system, and/or called back for transcription verification. Over 10% of the keying-in data entry was also verified.

9. Among the employees of CRC and WIS who assisted with this survey, in addition to me, were: Janeen Potts, Interim Field Service Director; Rod Padley, Supervisor; Ryan Randall, Supervisor; and Nicole Wyrembeck, Senior Analyst.

10. Attached as Exhibit A is the survey form with raw data, exact questions and their responses.

11. This poll establishes that the majority of those surveyed believe that the phrase "In God we Trust" is religious, as opposed to non-religious, and endorses a belief in God. As for endorsing religion over atheism, almost 11% of the respondents did not choose yes or no. Of those who did give an opinion, the majority agreed that the phrase does endorse religion over atheism.

12. The margin of error for this poll was ±3.22% at the 95% confidence level.

13. This poll was conducted in accordance with generally accepted standards in the industry.

Further, the affiant sayeth not.

Sharon R. Chamberlain

) ss.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 14th day of September, 1994.

Jacklyn M. Sande
Notary Public

My commission expires: 2-19-97.

Job #132
May 18-23, 1994 Sex: Male
48% Female 52%

Sample Size = 900

Margin of error: ±3.22%

Hello, this is ________ from Chamberlain Research. Tonight we're doing a one minute survey with people across the nation. Am I speaking with someone who is over the age of 18? (If not, ask to speak with someone who is, terminate if none).

The United States is currently working on redesigning US currency. The topic of my three questions is the motto "In God we Trust," as seen on US currency.

1. Is "In God we Trust" religious or non-religious?
Religious.......................................550 61.1%
Non-religious................................271 30.1%
Don't know................................... 79 8.8%

2. Does "In God we Trust" endorse a belief in God?
Yes................................................641 71.2%
No.................................................217 24.1%
Don't know.................................. 42 4.7%

3. Does "In God we Trust" endorse religion over atheism? Yes................................................480 53.3%
No.................................................322 35.8%
Don't know.................................. 98 10.9%


I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.

He descended into hell.

The third day He arose again from the dead.

He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.


1 No counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part. No person or entity, other than the amicus curiae, its members, or its counsel, made a monetary contribution to the preparation or submission of this brief. There is no parent or subsidiary company to be listed.

2 The number of nonadherents to religion more than doubled between 1990 and 2001.

3 See also Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961) and Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Ed. of School Dist. No. 71, Champaign Cty., 333 U.S. 203 (1948).

4 Even the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor did not provoke such a response.

5Two years later, legislation was enacted (36 U.S.C. ¤ 186) making "In God We Trust" our national motto. Congressman Bennett of Florida, who introduced and managed the legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives, stated: "At the base of our freedom is our faith in God and the desire of Americans to live by His will" and "As long as this country trusts in God, it will prevail." 101 CONG. REC. 4384 (1955).

6Apparently, some of our legislators had forgotten that, in the sixty plus years before the pledge was changed to include a reference to a divinity, the United States was victorious in two world wars, had survived a major depression, split the atom, was instrumental in forming the United Nations, and emerged as the most powerful nation on earth.

7By definition, children in elementary school and most high school children cannot be "willing students" because they have not yet reached the age of consent.

8In 1994, this amicus commissioned a survey which was conducted by an independent research firm. The results of that survey, which polled a representative cross section of the American public, showed that over 70% of the respondents were of the opinion that "In God we Trust" constituted endorsement of a belief in God. Yet, "In God we Trust" remains this country's national motto. For the Court's information, a copy of the survey results is attached hereto as Appendix A. CHAMBERLAIN RESEARCH CONSULTANTS, SURVEY RE: "IN GOD WE TRUST" (May 18-23, 1994).

9THE APOSTLES' CREED, attached hereto as Appendix B, is the major statement of faith in the Roman Catholic Church and is repeated in every mass. It would not meet Petitioners' and the United States' definitions of "prayer" because it is only a declaration of belief and not a "communication" with God. However, no one would seriously argue that it would be constitutionally acceptable to have teachers leading students in reciting this creed in a public school setting. The pledge of allegiance is more offensive to the Constitution than the Apostles' Creed because it not only implies a belief in God, but it is also an oath of fealty to God.

10The mother, of course, is entitled to do the same.

By Annie Laurie Gaylor
Copyright 1988, Annie Laurie Gaylor

The first nonfiction book addressing the religious scandal of molestation of minors by members of the clergy was "Betrayal of Trust: Clergy Abuse of Children" by Annie Laurie Gaylor, which was published by the Freedom From Religion Foundation in 1988. Although the book is now out-of-print, and cites cases dating to the 1980s, it unfortunately is not out-of-date; all too little has changed since the first public exposure of pedophilia by priests and pastors. "Betrayal of Trust" (92 pages) documents the patterns of denial, inaction, cover-up, collusion, "forgiveness of sins," and blame of victims endemic in many church congregations and denominations.

The entire book (now out of print) is reproduced below.

"He's a respected member of our community. . ."

". . .one drop of ink in crystal clear water. . ."

"Hey, Father, we've got a little problem. . ."

"It's not our job to judge . . . it's the Lord's job."

"He's a wonderful person. He's got our support 100 percent."

"When he preached, his face was just shining like an angel."

"It's not for you to judge. That's for God to do."

"He's a good man. If he did this, he will have to answer to God when he dies."

"I thought he was doing the right thing, because he was a priest."--Eleven year old boy victim

"I feel like my church has betrayed me."--His mother

"We have the right to know if an abuser is living among us."--Letter to editor

"Something like this can destroy a person."--Parent

"Being a preacher, we thought he was a good man."--Father of girl victim

"This is the worst case of sexual abuse I've seen during my 30 years in law enforcement."--Sheriff

"He wrapped himself in religious piety, used his position in the church and the community to shield himself and . . . to find children . . . to seduce them."--U.S. Attorney

"The defendant used his position of trust to get these girls."--Prosecutor

"Dressed up in sheep's clothing, he is a wolf that preys on our children."--Prosecutor

"This family turned to the church for help, and all the doors slammed shut."--Victims' Attorney

"I think the Catholic Church has its atonement to make as well. They helped create you."--Judge

"Priests now have a license to sexually betray their parishioners and the church will turn its back on innocent victims."--Attorney

"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns or figs of thistles?
"A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
"Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."
--Matthew 7:16,18,20

"Since the primary motive of the evil is disguise, one of the places evil people are most likely to be found is within the church. What better way to conceal one's evil from oneself, as well as from others, than to be a deacon or some other highly visible form of Christian within our culture? . . . . I do not mean to imply that the evil are anything other than a small minority among the religious or that the religious motives of most people are in any way spurious. I mean only that evil people tend to gravitate toward piety for the disguise and concealment it can offer them."
--Martin Buber
Good and Evil

". . . [Regarding] the convention that clergymen are more virtuous than other men. Any average selection of mankind, set apart and told that it excels the rest in virtue, must tend to sink below the average."
--Bertrand Russell
"Religion and the Churches," 1916
(Philosopher/ social critic)


This publication is dedicated to Sherry,
three times the victim of religious men,
and to the multitude of children
betrayed by "pillars of the church."


The author is indebted to newspapers and reporters in North America for disclosing the facts on clergy abuse of children, sometimes involving exemplary investigative journalism in the face of heated controversy. The author is also grateful to the many readers of Freethought Today who conscientiously clipped and sent in many of the news accounts used in this book, as well as to several individuals, especially former minister Dan Barker, for encouraging an activist stance.


Chapter 6 -- SEE NO EVIL
Chapter 10 -- HEAR NO EVIL
Chapter 13 -- ALL MANNER OF EVIL
Chapter 15 -- CONCLUSION

INTRODUCTION: A religious scandal

This is a book that had to be written, not one that I or our organization had ever sought to publish. It started writing itself when, through the pages of our monthly newspaper Freethought Today, we started chronicling the alarming and startling number of criminal cases involving ministers and priests who are molesting children. The sources are unsolicited clippings from area newspapers sent in by our relatively small readership. A brief sampling from over the years:

Case, 1982: A Louisville, Kentucky pastor convicted of sodomy and sexual abuse of young boys testified anonymously before a Senate subcommittee in April, 1982, about hunting boys for sex. He recounted how he had cruised areas where teenaged boys congregate in St. Louis, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Cleveland and Louisville. He received a suspended sentence in March 1982 of 10 years in prison and was given five years' probation. (Source: Lexington Herald, 4/2/82)

Case, 1983: Rev. Wilbert Thomas, pastor of the Christian Alliance Holiness Church in Trenton, New Jersey, was indicted on charges of conspiring to control his congregation through criminal acts, including sexual assault, lewdness, involuntary servitude and beatings of women and children. He was convicted in 1985. (Source: Trenton Times, 2/83; 1985)

Case, 1984: Denouncing the "high degree of viciousness and cruelty" in the crimes, a judge sentenced Rev. Lawrence Gerard Smith, a priest, to eight months in prison. Smith, who was convicted of molesting Vietnamese boys he worked with in Hayward, California, was accused of taking advantage of their inability to speak English. (Source: [Lehighton, Pennsylvania] The Times News, 3/1/84)

Case, 1984: Rev. James E. Wynn, pastor of Mount Pisgah Baptist Temple in Asbury Park, New Jersey, was sentenced to 22 years in prison for sexually assaulting two young girls who were members of his congregation. Wynn was diagnosed as a "compulsive, repetitive sex offender" by doctors who examined him. The girls ranged in age from nine to 13 at the time of the assaults, which occurred at church or in the minister's home. The pastor steadfastly maintained his innocence. His attorney Charles Frankel told the judge at the time of sentencing that his client "stands before your honor with a clear conscience head unbowed." The church fired him from his duties a month after his conviction. Superior Court Judge James Kennedy stated that "these offenses involved the most drastic breach of trust anyone can imagine." (Source: Newark Star-Ledger, 10/13/84)

Case, 1985: Rev. P. Henry Leech, one of three Roman Catholic priests in Rhode Island accused in 1984 of having sex with children, pleaded no contest in August 1985 to eight counts of sexual assault, including sodomy and battery. (Source: Newark Star-Ledger, 8185)

Case, 1986: Baptist Rev. Bobby Harold Epps of Starke, Florida pleaded guilty in May, 1986 to performing a lewd and lascivious act in the presence of a child under the age of 16. He was convicted of fondling a girl in a church office, and masturbating in her presence when giving her a ride home following a church activity. (Source: Gainesville Sun, 5/28/86)

Case, 1987: Father Robert William Klein of Brainerd, Minnesota, was found guilty on December 18, 1987 of third-degree sexual conduct involving children. Klein possessed a collection of 650 photos of boys modeling underwear or wrestling, and was described as "on the spectrum of what it means to be a pedophile." The priest/child molester used treats such as cookies, trips to Dairy Queen, and a treehouse in his backyard to lure youngsters. County Attorney Stephen Rathke said Klein might be a good, generous man, but "unfortunately, he's also a child molester." (Source: Brainerd Daily Dispatch, 12/18/87)

Case, 1988: Rev. William S. Barrett, a rector of Episcopal churches in Moreau and Fort Edward, New York, pleaded guilty to providing alcohol and drugs and showing pornography to two 14 year old boys with whom he engaged in oral sex. Barrett's crimes were particularly shocking to those who knew him since he had made a 20-year volunteer career of supposedly helping troubled youths. He was a certified foster parent for eight years, and had founded Project STRIVE in the late 1960s, a program for troubled youths. Barrett was known as a very religious man, who offered prayers during class reunions. (Source: Schenectady Gazette, 1/15/88)

On the average, three or four such reports cross my desk every week. All of these reports continue to stun me: priests, ministers or other "men of God" flagrantly abusing large numbers of children or young adolescents under the very noses of devout, unsuspecting parents, during church events and on church property, while churches cover up or rationalize abuse, and church members not uncommonly side with the abusers by blaming the victims.

When you read about a case of child molestation by a priest or minister, it may seem like an isolated phenomenon. But based on a study of child abusers by Dr. Gene G. Abel of Emory University, what appears to be a single aberrant case actually may involve hundreds of victims of the same pedophile. Even if crimes by sexually abusive clergy were confined to those documented in this book--a sampling of some of the criminal and civil cases reported by newspapers mainly in the years 1986 and 1987--the problem would be staggering. In recent major scandals in the Catholic dioceses, publicity from one case usually has led to the exposure of a network of pedophilic priests whose actions have gone unprotested by church superiors. This makes public exposure a vital part of prevention of future crimes.

Some readers may protest that spotlighting clergy criminals is taking a cheap shot, or may even object that it is "religion-bashing." This book carefully outlines many reasons why it is not unfair to place clergy abuse in the spotlight. Betrayal of Trust documents the special advantages clerical abusers have with their church, the state and with child victims. The most important reason for this book, however, is that "while Nero fiddles, Rome burns." Unpleasant as it may be to face, there are pedophiles among the clergy who are harming children at this moment. Even if some in our society consider it a topic beyond the pale, only awareness can help these children.

Hypocrisy is yet another major issue that must be addressed when sexual abuse by clergy occurs. When a profession claims a "calling of God," divine guidance and moral superiority, it begs for close scrutiny. Clergymen portray themselves as of a higher moral caliber, which makes their crimes at minimum newsworthy, even, arguably, worse than others.

It is everyone's business to protect children, the most vulnerable group in our society. Only when the public is aware and educated about this hidden abuse can we prevent future abuse. Church-going parents, and those who depend on church organizations for child care, Scouting and other social activities, should not be kept in ignorance of this aspect of child sexual abuse, particularly if it happens in their church! The parents of children who have been victimized by ministers and priests need to know their children are not the only ones. Groups already set up to deal with sexual victimization need to be fortified in their efforts to stop abuse when a clergyman is involved. The media need to be aware that the problem is not isolated to one sensational case in their community, or to some case buried in the back pages of a local newspaper.

It is true that pedophiles seek refuge in professions other than the clergy that can also provide access to children (but none giving them quite the prestige the typical minister receives). The Committee to Protect Children from Abusive Clergy would welcome more public attention focused on all aspects of child abuse, including incest or the problem of pedophilic coaches, police officers or pediatricians. This book, however, is restricted to those cases involving pedophiles under the cover of the church, for the excellent reason that, as documented here, churches are essentially providing sanctuary to pedophiles among their official ranks. The emotional reaction of the public to this problem, the modus operandi of such abusers and the psychology of denial when a pedophile is a priest or minister make the crimes of sufficient complexity to warrant special attention.

The Committee to Protect Children From Abusive Clergy was formed when it became clear that no one appears to be policing the clergy, that in fact most churches have dealt with such crimes in a callous and irresponsible manner. Church officials have looked the other way, or ostracized families who have complained about clergy abuse. Through the details gleaned from documented cases, patterns emerge. Certain refrains are heard repeatedly. From Victims: "I thought it must be right since he was a priest." From Victims' Families: "Being a preacher, we thought he was a good man." From Abusing Ministers: "I was only trying to help this family." From Defenders of Molesting Ministers: "We are taught forgiveness of sins."

As this book was nearing completion, the subject of molestation within the ministry took on a sudden, timely prominence, with the national syndication of several articles about the crisis of molesting priests within the Catholic Church. Associated Press Religion Editor George Cornell included the problem in his list of the top ten religion stories of 1987. Even religious pollster George Gallup spoke out in late 1987 against child sexual abuse in the church: "The most heart-rending thing is that our children are defenseless. The church should be the protector of children. But sometimes, incredibly, the ministers are themselves the molesters. And when such cases have surfaced their fellow clergy or hierarchy have hidden the facts. But the church could give a gift to children . . . the knowledge of how to protect themselves against child molesters. . ."

The problem is by no means confined to the Catholic Church. But with its financial liability for sexual abuse--with estimates at $1 billion in damages by 1995--and the massive stonewalling and cover-ups as documented here, the problem is seen in the Catholic Church at its worst. In some dioceses, pedophilia truly appears to be viewed by some Catholic officials as a way of life. Decisions by the Catholic Church to flagrantly ignore abuse or even reward pedophiles with greater responsibility over children, prompt the question of whether the church has tacitly condoned pedophilia. Why? To risk alienating its dwindling supply of priests? As a bizarre twist on a sexist attitude that priests must "sow their wild oats"--like that typical rationalization of a parent protecting a rapist son? Is child molestation a pillar of the priesthood? Without it, would its male hierarchy and doctrine of celibacy crumble? These are not unfair questions, given the Catholic officials' awe-inspiring track record of inaction, indifference and collusion.

The facts can speak for themselves. Full documentation of recent criminal and civil court cases involving pedophilic clergy is presented here, in an overall context of understanding pedophilia, wherever it occurs. The cases selected are not inclusive--to list all of the data collected by the Committee to Protect Children from Abusive Clergy to date would be prohibitive and reading them all would be numbing--but they are representative. An appendix summarizes up-to-date professional advice on "protective behaviors" and "antivictim training" with resources suggested.

Betrayal of Trust: Clergy Abuse of Children is written not just as an exposŽ and sourcebook but as an aid to parents, educators, churches and professionals dealing with this facet of child sexual abuse. This hidden abuse needs to be fully exposed, documented and halted. (A caveat: A rational approach is required. Sensitivity, precaution and education are in order, not hysteria, or even, as has occurred in some places, a paranoid witch-hunt looking for "Satan worshippers" or "occultists." In the cases documented here, the only "demons" are those which may exist in a pedophile's threats to terrify a religious child into submission. These cases involve "the priest or minister next door," and the abuse can be detected and prevented.)

The privilege, prestige and power of pedophilic priests and pastors has been maintained at the expense and pain of children, who may suffer all their lives because of this betrayal of trust. It is time to protect children from abusive clergy.

--Annie Laurie Gaylor
January, 1988

"I have been betrayed by my church"

They are like victims of incest, taken advantage of by a person in authority and then trust has been betrayed.
--Attorney Gloria Allred

Several case histories

Faye and Glenn Gastal of Louisiana, devout Catholics, were overjoyed when their seven year old son became an altar boy. They were especially pleased that Rev. Gilbert Gauthe, their son's priest, took a personal interest in him, inviting him on outings and sleepovers at the rectory for "religious training." They did not connect this new friendship with their son's altered behavior. Nor did anyone, even doctors, connect it to the need to hospitalize him once for unexplained rectal bleeding. Father Gauthe, incidentally, visited the boy in the hospital, bringing a present.

Only several years later, when another family went public with the shocking news that Father Gauthe had molested their son, did the Gastals learn that the same thing had happened to their child.

The sexual reign of terror imposed by Father Gauthe upon the Gastal boy started with sodomy on his first day as an altar boy. He and other victims were told by Gauthe that sex with priests was a special religious rite for which they had been chosen by God. Gauthe admitted to molesting 37 boys and one girl, although officials suspect him of abusing twice as many children. These children were continuously molested (some as many as 200 times by the priest), and anally and orally raped--during church outings, when alone with the priest, and in the company of other altar boys. Gauthe also pornographically photographed children. The crimes occurred in the rectory, sacristy, confessional, and the priest's camper.

The Gastal boy testified at age 11 that at first he believed that being molested by priests was part of being an altar boy, and that his parents knew what was happening: "I thought he was doing the right thing because he was a priest." Later, the priest guaranteed his silence by threatening that "he would hurt my daddy, he'd kill him." Even after the abuse had ended, he testified that he "feels funny" when his own father hugs him. His mother characterized him as frightened and unable to accept affection.

This boy received a one million dollar award for damages from the Catholic Church on February 7, 1986. His parents received $250,000 as compensation for their pain, and for ostracism and harassment by the Catholic community. Unlike the other victimized families, the Gastals refused to settle out of court with the Catholic Church, and insisted on their day in court. The Church has paid at least $12 million to Gauthe's victims as of late 1987 in 16 cases, with more pending. The priest, who pleaded guilty in October 1985, is now serving a 20-year prison sentence. Gauthe was only one of several priests from the same Louisiana diocese implicated. Trial lawyer J. Minos Simon, retained by one of the families from the Esther-Henry, Louisiana area, publicly subpoenaed diocesan files on 27 other local priests he said had been accused of sexual improprieties. The church responded by admitting liability in the Gauthe case.

When the Louisiana scandal initially broke, the first family to go public with a complaint was forced out of business by the community, which felt it was wrong to "attack the Church in public." When the weekly newspaper, The Times of Acadiana of Lafayette, Louisiana, published an article about the cover-up and editorialized that the local bishop should resign, a monsignor in the diocese persuaded prominent local Catholic businesspersons to boycott the newspaper, costing it a painful $25,000 in lost advertising revenues.

"At first everyone wanted to circle the wagons and protect the church. Then they were afraid the civil suits would be taking money out of their own pockets because they are the ones who support the diocese. Now they want to know what the church has done to make sure this kind of crime doesn't happen again," one church member told the New York Times in 1985.

Community protectiveness toward the Church changed when it was revealed that a bishop and monsignor were aware of child molestation reports against Rev. Gauthe for more than 10 years before his abuse was halted. Attorney Paul Hebert, who represented one of the first families to pursue prosecution of Gauthe, said the church did not react with shock or even concern, although his complaint resulted in Gauthe's removal from the diocese. He said Monsignor Richard Mouton told him: "If the kids would come in and confess their sins, and still want to go forward, we'll see what happens." Hebert's reply was "See you in court."

The church dealt with Father Gauthe's abuse by transferring him. Parents confronted the priest as early as 1972. In 1974, Gauthe admitted to a bishop that he had made "imprudent touches" in "one isolated case." Nevertheless, the following year the bishop appointed him chaplain of the diocesan Boy Scouts. In 1977, more parents complained. Gauthe was directed to seek psychiatric treatment, but in 1978 was transferred to another family parish. The sworn statement of one church official was "I am trained as a priest to forget sins." The enormity of the scandal prompted even the National Catholic Reporter to condemn the cover-ups.

The fallout from Father Gauthe's pedophilic reign continues. A reward of $1.8 million was made in late 1987 to a victim who is now an adult, Calvin John Mire of Intracoastal City, Louisiana. A claim by the victim's wife was dismissed.

Says Faye Gastal about her son's abuse: "I wanted to teach him to be a good Catholic, to believe in God. I have been betrayed by my church." Unfortunately, the Gauthe case, as this book documents, is only the tip of the iceberg. (Sources: Washington Post/New York Times 1985; Miami Herald/Associated Press, 2/8/86; San Jose Mercury News, 12/31/87; Wisconsin State Journal, 12/13/87)

"Priests have a license to sexually betray their parishioners"

Rita Milla was a 16 year old teenager, a devout Catholic whose activities centered around St. Philomena Church, Carson, California, where she sang in the choir and taught religion to young children. Her confessor Father Santiago Tamayo began to reach through the broken screen in the confessional to fondle her breasts. Telling Rita's parents that she was accompanying him on his rounds at convalescent homes, he began to take her to his brother's apartment, where he engaged in various sexual activities. By January 1980, Father Tamayo was engaging in sexual intercourse with her. Then he introduced Father Cruces to her, who also used her sexually. Next he introduced her to five other priests, all of whom encouraged her compliance, flaunting their religious authority over her. Rita told news media that the priests had said sex was natural and that "priests get lonely, too." They assured her that it was morally and ethically right to allow priests to touch her, and to have sex with them. By doing so, they told her, she would help them in their religious work. They used their church position as spiritual advisors, counselors and confessors to induce her cooperation.

She became pregnant in January 1982. Tamayo packed Rita off to the Philippines, telling her parents that Rita would "study medicine," intending that she have her baby in secrecy and leave it there. She was sent only $450 to last seven months. She lived with cockroaches and ate only one meal a day.

"As a result," said her attorney Gloria Allred of Los Angeles, "she became malnourished," and nearly died during a Caesarian section. She gave birth to a daughter in October 1982 and kept her.

Rita said Bishop Abaya of the Philippines visited her at the hospital, promising to help. After she returned to the states and no help materialized, she then consulted Bishop Ward in Los Angeles. His response: there was nothing he could do. Rita said that she still "believed in the Church"--up until that point. After that final betrayal of trust, Rita and her mother filed a landmark "clergy malpractice" suit on February 8, 1984 to establish paternity, set up child support, and sue the priests and the Church for civil conspiracy for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, deceit and clergy malpractice.

"Rita and her mother's purpose in filing this lawsuit," explained her attorney, "is to protect other young women from the pain and suffering caused by priests who abuse their position of trust. Rita's mother feels that Catholic parents have a right to expect a high standard of conduct from their priests, when they entrust them with their children, and this trust must not be betrayed."

The suit also sought to force the church to establish a policy to support children fathered by "fathers." The courts dismissed the case, citing a one-year time limit.

"Her faith in the Catholic Church prevented Rita from bringing suit earlier. Priests now have a license to sexually betray their parishioners and the church will turn its back on innocent victims," commented Allred. However, she filed a new suit in 1987 to represent other women who were similarly seduced as devout teenagers and used by Catholic priests, then abandoned when they became pregnant. "They are like victims of incest," Allred noted, "taken advantage of by a person in authority and then trust has been betrayed." (Sources: Legal brief of Rita Milla v. Los Angeles Diocese, 1984; Los Angeles Times, 3/87; Donahue Show, 11/87)

"Three religious experiences"

The following account is an excerpt of an article written by Sherry Matulis, a writer who is featured in the Planned Parenthood film "Personal Choices." She has testified before Congress about her search for an illegal abortion, after becoming pregnant from rape. Clergy abuse, as this testimony and the two letters which follow exemplify, is not a new problem. These personal histories poignantly reveal how victims' lives are shadowed by abuse occurring long ago:

My first major bonafide Religious Experience, the remembrance of which is thankfully hazy with age, was at the hands (and other appendages) of a master of just such hypocrisy, a deacon of the church and the Dirty Old Man prototype. It's anybody's guess how many youngsters, babies really, this pious old pervert "deflowered" in his time; telling them if they spoke of it to anyone, God would rend them asunder and send the pieces directly to Hell to burn forever.

He raped me when I was five. I know I wasn't the first. I sincerely doubt I was the last. And I also doubt that any of his small victims ever did snitch on him. Threats like being "rendered asunder" and having to "burn forever" have a very ominous ring to the ears of five and six year olds. . .

Seven years after this initial "baptism by fire," we left the little Iowa town and settled in Peoria, Illinois, where, within just a few short months, I had my second Religious Experience; this one falling in the near-miss category. A bit too near for comfort.

I was a very, uh, "developed" twelve going on twenty at the time; and on coming to the Big City, I had discovered that wonder of wonders: lipstick. Suffice it to say that within the more fundamentalist churches, this sort of discovery ranks just slightly below Darwin's. Brazen hussies wear lipstick. Brazen sinful hussies wear it to church. I wore it to church. I believe my reasoning was, at the time, that since I was doomed to Hell anyway, I wasn't about to go without my make-up.

The reasoning was deemed faulty, and the following Sunday the pastor said he wanted to have a talk with me. A private talk . . . After services . . . In the rectory . . . Whereupon, I made yet another discovery. He did indeed want me to remove that horrid lipstick. But in a most unconventional manner.

Well, friends, I hadn't been hanging around the religious set for twelve whole years without picking up some savvy. I mean, we are no longer talking about a dumb, frightened five year old here. I let him get his pants down, all the way down, around his ankles. And then I ran like hell!

But one can never run far enough, I guess. I didn't run far enough, anyway, to escape my third major Religious Experience, some years later . . . I will just say that I was again raped, quite savagely this time, by another religious nut. And this rape resulted in pregnancy. Which, in turn, resulted in my having to suffer an illegal abortion--a sort of "rape" in itself, and no less traumatizing than the original variety.

The following two remembrances of abuse are excerpted from letters by women molested as teenagers by clergymen, and were originally published in the Madison, Wisconsin Feminist Connection, April, 1984.

When I was in high school, specifically 10th and 11th grade, I was very actively involved in a Baptist church in Upper Northeastern Wisconsin. During this time I was very depressed about issues at home. I often sought counsel from my minister and also babysat for his children.

He began saying things that confused me--things about my looks and shape. He also began to touch me--hugs, pats, handholding, putting his arm around me. Although confused, I trusted him and was very needy. He also said things about taking my father's place. This went on for a long time.

Then one night as he took me home he stopped the car and held me, then he began kissing me and saying he wanted to make love to me. I was very frightened and confused--I began to cry and he took me home. Of course, I received the famous last words: "Don't ever tell anyone." I was very upset and felt responsible.

I never told anyone about this until about three years later. I told a counselor at the college I was attending. This college is affiliated with my church and is about an hour away from the church. This lady didn't believe me and broke confidentiality. She and her husband confronted this minister. Of course he changed the story, minimized his part, and blamed me.

My incident wasn't as severe as it could have been but it has affected my life. I am afraid of getting involved with men because I can't trust them.

Here is yet another memory of religious abuse.

Thirty years ago, when I was 12, 1 was "seduced" by a young parish priest to have an affair with him. My friend also was having an "affair" with him. Although there was no intercourse involved there was a lot of hugging and kissing and some petting. We often met secretly in the church or parochial school I attended for eight years. Sometimes we met off the church/school property and went for rides in the country in his car. I always hid on the floor near the back seat where no one could see me.

This young priest asked me to wear a gold friendship ring and he had one too. The rings looked like wedding bands. He asked me to come to be his housekeeper when I finished high school. Of course, even though I wanted to be a nun, I said I would.

Eventually the guilt of my deeds overcame me and I confessed this relationship to a priest at another church. Our C.Y.O. (Catholic Youth Organization) had visited another church for a retreat. The priest I confessed to made me agree to meet him outside the confessional so I could divulge the priest's name. I was very scared, but I did.

Eventually the young priest was removed from the parish and asked to live with the bishop. I never told my parents or anybody for a long time. I was afraid my parents would not believe me or would severely punish me for my acts.

But interestingly enough, neither the priest I confessed to nor the bishop followed up on how I was getting along. I was 12 years old at the time and had to cope on my own with a very unpleasant situation. Needless to say, my self-image was affected by this experience. I also had trouble trusting authority, I guess, for a long time. I was psychologically damaged by the experience.

The pastor of the parish also touched the sweaters and budding breasts of sixth, seventh and eighth graders. When we told our parents that he did this, they thought we were letting our imaginations get out of control. In those days parents stood by adults and kids were not listened to as much as they are today.

Needless to say, I do not have much respect for the clergy. The young parish priest I had the "affair" with eventually left the priesthood, got married and had three children. He is now a principal of a high school. I often wondered what he would do if some clergyman had an affair with his daughter. I'm certain he'd be more than mildly upset.

We must teach women that their bodies belong to them and they owe nothing to anyone. Self-respect is the key. It is difficult to get this message to young girls when society still treats women as second-class citizens. I would warn young women to become suspicious of any clergyman that took an unusual interest in them. He might have sexual intentions in mind. I think that Rita Milla will never be able to collect enough money for the damage that was done to her psychologically.

Sexual abuse Of children

As outrageous as it might seem, there is an open season on children for the sexual predator.
--Roland Summit, M.D.

Sexual abuse of children is a major public health problem, if not an epidemic, conservatively involving an estimated 20 to 25 percent of all children. (Some studies estimate that half of all children are sexually abused in some way by the age of 18.) "As outrageous as it might seem, there is an open season on children for the sexual predator," writes Roland Summit, M.D., an adjunct professor of psychiatry at UCLA and pioneer of treatment programs for child victims of incest and abuse. Statistics are shaky. Depending on the study, one out of every three or four girls, and one out of every five to ten boys, are sexually molested at some point during their childhood. In 80 to 90 percent of the cases, the offender is well known to the victim.

Any incidence of child sexual exploitation must be treated as a public threat, because research indicates that pedophiles do not target just one child. Where one molested child is discovered, there may be 20 or 30 or 60 or even more than 200 other victims of the same assailant.

Discussing the problem of the pedophile who wears a clerical collar--clergymen who prey on children--has been taboo. Pastors, priests, deacons and other religious leaders are a subset of the dangerous class of "respected members of the community" who betray their position of authority and trust by sexually assaulting children. While it is always painful to learn of betrayal of trust by such men, society wears blinders when the crime is committed by clergy. The myths that "men of God" or "good Christians" can always be trusted, are holy keepers of morality and are above suspicion protect clergy molesters from detection. Dr. Michael Cox, director of a sexual offenders program at Baylor College of Medicine, treats more clergymen than people in many other professions. Obviously no one would claim that most clergymen sexually abuse children, or that only clergymen abuse children. But a startling number of ministers, church officials and avowed devout Christians have been convicted of sexual abuse and exploitation of children and teenagers--a religious scandal few wish to acknowledge.

Sexual abuse of children by trusted authority figures is a crime comparable to incest in its betrayal of trust, particularly since offenders usually exploit children in the context of a trusting relationship. Religious language encourages the idea that the church is an "extended family" which meets an individual's emotional needs for love, support and acceptance. Ministers purposely cultivate "father figure" images--Catholic priests are even formally addressed as "Father."

"You've got to be Catholic to appreciate the indoctrination you get as a child," explains George McGrath, an investigator with the Essex County, New Jersey prosecutor's office, who worked on a case involving a priest assaulting boys. "Priests are Christ's representatives on earth."

"The symbolic aspect of the title 'Father' should not be overlooked in understanding the position a priest has in relation to a child," wrote five Lafayette, Louisiana psychologists after interviewing 15 child victims of a priest. "Consider, if you will, the impact on a child [who] is sexually abused during the week, and on Sundays witnesses his parents bowing, kneeling, genuflecting, praying, receiving sacraments and graciously thanking the priest for his involvement in their lives. Such events [make] him believe that such sexual activities have been sanctioned by their parents. The even more astonishing act of molesting the child while in the confessional, followed by granting of absolution to the child, would be expected to inculcate very, very strong feelings of guilt."

The San Jose Mercury News reported that "Katherine R.," a 14 year old girl molested at age 12 in her own home by a priest, told her psychologist, "When I was little and looked up at him, I thought he looked like God."

"When the offender is a well-trusted authority figure," writes Susan J. Kelley, a specialist in child abuse with the Boston College School of Nursing, "the child feels an obligation to obey the offender and comply with their demands . . . the child learns early on in the relationship that he or she is incapable of avoiding the sexual advances of the offender. There is always an unequal power relationship between a child and adult, which is exploited during sexual abuse."

Sexual abuse of children is a crime of exploited power that can continue only in secrecy and when its existence and prevalence are denied. "Child molesters thrive in an atmosphere of ignorance, secrecy, and anonymity. If we are to protect our children from these criminals, we must educate where there is ignorance, reveal where there is secrecy, and identify where there is anonymity," write Robin Lenett and Bob Crane in It's O.K To Say No!

Just as it can be unthinkable that a family member is abusing his own child or young relative, it can be impossible for a church congregation or a victim's own parents to accept evidence that a popular priest or devout minister is sexually abusing minors under his direction.

This is one of the reasons for the widespread cover-up of clergy crimes against children. Clergymen and their supporters may believe that clergy are "above the law" and need answer only to "their God." Doctrines of "sin" and "forgiveness" can be promoted at the expense of the safety and rights of victimized children. As one angry churchgoer put it, "Some people worship preachers."

When denial and disbelief get translated into open defiance of the law and harassment and persecution of families who bravely press charges, the results can sear an already betrayed child for life. When a church or society reacts to a clergyperson's criminal acts by "overlooking" them, or by transferring him to another parish or church (out of sight, out of mind), or by a "wrist slap," that is collusion. The inevitable result is that previous victims will receive no support or counseling, and many children will become his future victims.

Even when a child has the courage to report abuse at the hands of a minister, many people will go to great lengths to deny that such an outrage could have occurred. That is why it is vital to create awareness of the potential for sexual abuse of children. Silence works only in favor of the status quo--to protect perpetrators. Only when society admits that a problem exists and is willing to take sensible educational steps to empower children in all situations involving adult authority figures will children be less vulnerable. Tragedies involving clerical betrayal can only be avoided or minimized if parents realize they need to take precautions toward any authority with whom their children come in contact--including ministers, priests and religious officials.

Awareness is the best prevention. Parents can educate themselves and take steps to ensure that children receive practical and nonalarming instruction in protective behaviors and antivictim training in schools, homes and churches. (Specific suggestions on prevention, detection and resources are included at the back of this book). Empowered children who know they have a right to question authority, to think for themselves, to feel safe all of the time, to be believed, and who know it is okay to say no, are far less vulnerable to exploitation--by any adult in authority.

Facts on child sexual abuse

Researcher, physician and psychiatrist Gene G. Abel of Emory University School of Medicine directed the largest study of pedophiles ever conducted. Over an eight-year period Abel studied 403 child abusers for the Antisocial and Violent Behavior Branch of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). Considered a landmark study, it revealed that 403 pedophiles had molested more than 67,000 children! The pedophilic abuse ranged from indecent exposure and verbal overtures to more serious assault--that involving sexual touch. This study confirmed that little girls were molested most often when all forms of abuse were considered. But it revealed that almost two-thirds of the victims of the more serious offenses--those involving touch--turned out to be little boys. Not only did these molesters prey on boys more often than they assault girls, but they molested shocking numbers of boys. Pedophiles who targeted male victims in this study averaged 282 victims, compared to 23 victims among men who assaulted girls. (However, an earlier study by Abel found that molesters who mainly abuse girls have as many as 60 girl victims.) Other studies, as summarized in a 1986 article by Richard 1. Lanyon, Department of Psychology at Arizona State University, had more traditional findings, with close to three-quarters of male pedophiles victimizing female children exclusively, one-quarter choosing male victims, and a small minority victimizing both sexes. Given these disparate findings and a general consensus that boys greatly underreport molestation, it is vital that no assumptions be made, and that children and adolescents of both sexes receive support and antivictim training.

All research shows that the typical child molester is able to harm large numbers of children without being caught, in part because he has already established a trusting relationship, playing on children's vulnerability, shame, naivetŽ, and loyalty, and fortifying his power to silence them through bribery, coercion and violent threats.

Many of the abusers studied in the NIMH research are "respected members of the community," respected by parents, trusted by children. They are men who often move themselves into positions of trust over children. "Molesters often become youth ministers, day-care workers, Boy Scout leaders, teachers, Big Brothers and pediatricians," according to Dr. Abel and Nora Harlow ("The Child Abuser," Redbook Magazine, August 1987).

Prof. Lanyon summarizes common myths about child molesters: "A number of widely held beliefs about child sexual abusers have been shown to have no substance. Most prominent is the stereotype that child molesters are socially marginal persons or 'dirty old men.' Indeed, the molester is most commonly a respectable, otherwise law-abiding person, who may escape detection for exactly that reason. Furthermore, the median age of first offense is reported to be as young as 16 (Groth et al., 1982). Second, most molestation is done by men who are not strangers, but who are known to the victim, and in fact are often related to the victim (Conte & Berliner, 1981). Third, data and experienced clinical opinion suggest that children do not fabricate accounts of being molested except in rare instances, presumably when there are clear motivations to do so (Meiselman, 1978; Summit, 1983)."

The blame-the-victim syndrome that children invent stories about being sexually abused helps protect the pedophile's "secret." Unfortunately, children are much more apt not to tell, or if they tell, to retract or deny the truth following censure or inappropriate reaction by adults. Most children cannot talk about sexual occurrences unless they have experienced them.

Many people are skeptical of reports of long-term sexual abuse because they assume that children would tell their parents immediately if ever molested. First, remember that a parent might be the offender. Second, it may be very hard for children to tell parents if they have not been given the vocabulary, permission or freedom to discuss their own bodies and personal safety. Children need safety tips on the sanctity of their own body in the same way they need advice about crossing the street or wearing warm clothes. If children have not been educated about their right to say "no," to question authority, to think for themselves and act in their own best interests, they are vulnerable to abuse. A child who has been molested also may be shamed or terrified into silence by a pedophile's threats. He or she may be convinced that something terrible will happen to those they love if they tell.

"Pedophilia" is the clinical term for an abnormal adult sexual desire for children. Although a small percentage are female, most pedophiles are male, which is why this book refers to abusers as "men" and "clergymen." A pedophile is someone who has a deviant sexual preference for children, sometimes male children, sometimes female children, or sometimes both sexes. Pedophilia is not homosexuality. The large majority of men who molest little boys are not gay, Dr. Abel's study shows. "Only 21 percent of the child molesters we studied who assault little boys were exclusively homosexual. Nearly 80 percent of the men who molested little boys were heterosexual or bisexual, and most of these men were married and had children of their own," according to Abel and Harlow. Abel's research confirmed that many pedophiles start abusing children when they themselves are 16 or 17. [Note that the criminal cases cited in this book do not specify age of the assailant. Ages ranged, from the time of discovery of the assault, from 20 years to 77 years. Victims ranged from babies to teenagers. Many of the molesters who were in mid-life had apparently been molesting minors for 20 or more years before they were caught. Age of the assailant appears to be no factor in clergy abuse of children.]

Traditionally, social scientists categorize pedophiles as either "fixated" (those whose exclusive sexual preference is children), or "regressed" (those who have an "appetite" for both children and adults, and will take advantage of children when the situation avails itself, particularly when under stress). "Fixated pedophiles" are typically unmarried (or marry for convenience or camouflage), select boys, premeditate their abuse, deny wrongdoing, and seek children for their primary affectionate and companionate relationships. "Regressed pedophiles" are more apt to impulsively abuse girls, blame alcohol for their actions and feel ambivalence about their crime. Alcohol is often considered a "disinhibiting factor" to the point where professionals remind the public that children should not be left in the care of heavy drinkers.

"It is time to discover that men have many needs that they are too proud and too insecure to acknowledge, and that apparently normal men slip rather easily into exploiting whatever potential sexual object is most available and most easily subordinated," analyzed Dr. Summit.

In a majority of cases, pedophiles do not rely on physical violence, and are distinguished from child-rapists who engage in a one-time violent act with a child they do not know. Children will tend to report sudden, brutal violence even if perpetrated by a respected authority figure (this generality does not necessarily apply to incest, where a child may feel there is no one to turn to). Therefore pedophiles "court" and "woo" victims, testing how passive, obedient and naive a child is before establishing the abusive relationship. A majority of children are not physically injured during molestation. "Fondling"--the sexually abusive touch--is the most common type of childhood sexual abuse. The fact that the harm may not be visible can be used against a child victim, for our adult-protective society often "overlooks" the harm of a touch that does not leave a bruise. Any sexual abuse is a violence against the personhood and psyche of the victim. Abuse also may take the form of masturbation and making the child touch the adult, of exhibitionism, and pornography. Even when molestation is confined to nonviolent touch of intimate parts, the effect can be terrifying to the child. Just as many rape victims report that their greatest fear during an attack is of being killed, child victims may also be haunted by fears of being killed, or of being responsible for the deaths of loved ones who have been threatened by a molester. Disruption of normal childhood and school life may ensue, with general depression or suicidal feelings. Victims may worry about "turning gay," developing AIDS, being viewed and identified by their photos in the hands of other pedophiles, or growing up to become a pedophile.

When the abuse includes oral, anal or vaginal rape, this can be ravaging to an immature body. Consequences of sexual intercourse upon a child can include pregnancy, lacerations, prolapsed rectums or vaginas, genital infections and sexually transmitted diseases. Sexual abuse in this day of AIDS can mean a death sentence for any victim of rape.

The degree of damage which sexual abuse causes physically, psychologically and emotionally to a child will be shaped by factors such as the relationship of the offender to the victim, the type and severity of abuse, how long it continues, the reaction of the people the child tells, and the support available to the child to recover. Depending on these factors and especially when the abuse is discovered immediately and stopped, some children will experience few after-effects. Others have committed suicide as a result, including victims of clergy, as documented later. Sexual abuse is a betrayal that can cheat children not only of their childhood but of a sense of security and self-esteem, instead imposing pain, confusion, shame, guilt, fear and a loss of control. Children, the defenseless victims of a deviant sexual drive, should never have to carry the burden of such a "secret."

Sadly, pedophilia can be a learned behavior. Cyclic pedophilia is a devastating consequence of boyhood molestation. Some researchers believe that most child abusers (physical and sexual) were themselves victimized as children. A Berkeley study found childhood molestation in the backgrounds of more than half of the abusers. The NIMH statistics reveal that although a majority of this particular group of molesters they studied had not been sexually abused, a large minority were. Forty percent of the pedophiles who molested boys were themselves molested as children, while 24 percent who molested girls were themselves molested. For whatever reason, boys who are molested are prone to becoming offenders themselves, although such a life sentence is by no means inevitable, particularly with intervention, support and counseling.

"If you want to use words like 'molester' and 'victim,' then a molester is a victim who grew up," states Dr. Fred Berlin of Johns Hopkins University Medical School.

The medical treatment of pedophilia is still a nascent field. The San Jose Mercury News (12/30/87) summarized the somewhat bleak situation this way: "Success in controlling the disease has been obtained when highly motivated pedophiles agree to take the drug Depo-Provera, which reduces sex drive, coupled with intensive psychotherapy. Even then, however, experts emphasize that pedophiles still must be kept away from children. The only other known deterrents are castration and imprisonment."

Jim Carlson, a Boise, Idaho prosecutor of a pedophilic priest, told the Mercury News, "What's frustrating is that this sickness is so deep-seated that the experts say no one can ever be cured. You've just got to keep them away from potential victims. And they [Catholic officials] didn't do that."

Pedophilia is characterized by some as a disease, at minimum a compulsion that, once started, will not be halted by the abuser without constant, professional intervention. Certainly we know that religious sanctions, prayers and penance are ineffective, often counterproductive responses to this far-reaching criminal and medical problem.

Blindspots about pedophilic clergy

What better way to conceal one's evil from oneself, as well as from others, than to be a deacon or some other highly visible form of Christian within our culture. . .
--Theologian Martin Buber

Why is clergy sexual abuse of children such a problem in our society? Based on an analysis of hundreds of such cases, there appear to be many blindspots which protect or promote child abuse by clergy, and risks which apply uniquely to clergy's victims:

Some pedophiles choose the ministry because it can bring them into contact with children, yet shield them from detection.
We teach people, especially children, to give "men of God" blind obedience.
Clergy have special access to children.
Clergy, whose role includes "pastoral counseling," are trusted and sought after for guidance.
Believers wish to deny evidence of clergy abuse.
Congregations may form a wagon circle, thereby protecting molesting ministers and priests, and ostracizing victims.
Churches may actively cover up, bribe, fail to act or knowingly pass on a child molester to another parish or congregation.
Pastoral counselors may use state/church separation as an excuse not to report evidence of child abuse.
Church teachings of "forgiveness" of sins can be promoted at the expense of victims.
The celibacy of the priesthood can be an exacerbating factor in child abuse.
Boys abused by men face a special stigma in the church.
Since ministers have a lot to lose with detection, there is a potential for escalation of violence.
Religious doctrine can establish and encourage power inequities leading to child abuse.
Why pedophiles may choose the ministry

In their book It's O.K. To Say No!, Robin Levett and Bob Crane write:

"Because the abuse of children is a sexual preference formed relatively early in life, some offenders consciously or unconsciously choose career paths that will bring them regularly in contact with children. Others may volunteer to supervise children's sports or club activities.

"Many," they point out, "are highly respected members of the community. Some are in positions of authority over children-teachers, doctors, police officers, clergymen, coaches."

Note Gene Abel, M.D. and Nora Harlow, "Many child molesters try to move themselves into positions or occupations within the community that will allow them to spend time alone with children without attracting much notice. Molesters often become youth ministers, daycare workers, Boy Scout leaders, teachers, Big Brothers and pediatricians."

Abel's findings include this fact about the typical child molester: "He is often an active Christian who is involved in his church. He never assaults children he does not know; he only chooses children with whom he can first build a trusting relationship."

Abel adds, "Never assume that anyone is beyond suspicion by virtue of his respected position, strong religious beliefs, years in the community or kindness to children."

A personal characteristic which many sexual offenders share is a "rigid and authoritarian background, such as military, religious, or a punitive family," note authors Caren Adams and Jennifer Fay in No More Secrets, a book based on their work with child victims.

Many factors may be involved in a pedophile's attraction to the ministry. As theologian Martin Buber noted, "What better way to conceal one's evil from oneself, as well as from others, than to be a deacon or some other highly visible form of Christian within our culture. . . ."

Sexual repression common to many conservative religions, as well as the strict celibacy of the Catholic priesthood, are exacerbating factors. Organized sexual repression may either attract sexually deviant individuals, or, possibly, create them. The human sexual instinct rarely can be permanently repressed, but it can be perverted. Repressive sexual attitudes may predispose pedophiles toward sexual activities with children, according to research by David Finkelhor, Ph.D. Authoritarian religions which view children as property and place a premium on obedience may attract pedophiles, who like children because exploiting kids allows them to feel powerful.

A religious child's self-concept and attitude toward religious authority may give a clergyman with pedophilic leanings a special edge. Sherryll Kerns Kraizer of the Safe Child Book, who has pioneered the development of sexual abuse prevention, writes: "Many children tell me that their body belongs to God." A young child who assumes his or her body is "owned by God" will be vulnerable to abuse by an esteemed "instrument of God."

How the ministry shields abusers from detection

Molesting ministers exploit their special status and the deference paid to them, using their position to deflect suspicion. It is difficult for many pious people to question the behavior of clergy, whose profession is venerated, set-apart and inviolate. Child molesters in any walk of life attempt to camouflage their conduct and endear themselves to the community by their "good works" and reputation. Molesting clergypersons, simply by virtue of their exalted position, already have the reputation other child molesters must work hard to achieve.

Example: Rev. Jack Law, a Baptist minister in Nashville, was accused of molesting and raping three small sisters during church outings and visits, once raping a five year old girl under a church pew. He was also accused of molesting and raping the sisters at their family's home and during an outing arranged to help him distribute religious tracts. The girls had tried to tell their parents, but were not believed. "Being a preacher," the father said, "we thought he was a good man." Law killed himself in July 1987 when facing trial for abusing the three sisters. (Sources: Nashville Banner, 7/26/86; Tennesseean, 7/10/87)

Example: Brazenly abusive behavior reportedly went unchecked for more than a year when Pastor Charles Brown of London Baptist Church, in Evergreen, Alabama, latched on to a teenaged boy and initiated a sexually abusive relationship by telling the boy he had a mental problem Brown could cure. The pastor's prescription: to get "closer," ply the boy with drugs, and move him into his own home and his own bedroom (the pastor's wife was relegated to their daughter's bedroom). Brown was convicted of a reduced misdemeanor charge in 1987 and was given a suspended sentence, although he was fired from his position as a public school teacher. (Source: Evergreen Courant, 9/25/86; 1987)

Example: Father Lawrence Nawrocki, parish priest of the prospering 5,300-member St. Isidore's Catholic Church in Macomb Township, Michigan, was accused of molesting Catholic boys through his church position. The priest's materially successful lifestyle allowed him to entice victims by inviting parish boys to his cabin in northern Michigan, with promises they could ride fancy motorcycles. The priest had received favorable publicity in the Detroit Free Press in 1986 for holding a "blessing" of recreational vehicles in the church parking lot. "He would go out to a movie with them, show them movies at night on his VCR [and] he also was active in youth sports," said Macomb County prosecutor Carl Marlinga. Nawrocki was accused of molesting two 12 year olds and one 11 year old in the fall of 1987. The sexual abuse occurred in the church rectory and in the church before mass. One of the 12 year old victims had been promised a trip to Florida over Thanksgiving if he received good grades. The parish was reportedly "in a state of shock." (Source: Detroit Free Press, 11/11/87)

Example: Gary R. Martin, who had served as a minister and was a volunteer chaplain for the Indian River County Sheriffs office as well as the Vero Beach Police Department, was charged with molesting 13 boys. He had trusted positions in the community, including an appointment to the school district's sex education committee. His modus operandi was to tell victims he was researching children's growth for a doctoral thesis at Trinity Theological Seminary in Indiana. He pleaded no contest to sexually mishandling three of the 13 boys. In October 1987 he was sentenced to seven years in a state prison with an additional 13 years probation, and ordered to receive treatment for his pedophilia. (Source: Florida Today, 3/1/87; 10/31/87)

Example: Deacon James Nordgren, a Sunday School teacher at Sherwood Park Baptist Church in Irving, Texas, was indicted for aggravated sexual assault of three boys under age 14. He was charged with assaulting the boys at his home after showing them a book with a cover resembling a bible but which contained pictures of nude people. (Source: [Irving, Texas] Daily News; 5/21/87)

Example: Rev. David Lee Taylor, of Grace Epworth United Methodist Church in Bartlesville, Oklahoma, was sentenced to two years in prison after admitting to two counts of sodomy involving a 10 year old boy he was assigned to help through the Big Brother program. Taylor also received eight years' probation and was fined $3,600, as well as being ordered to pay $100 to the victim compensation program. Taylor was the victim's "Big Brother." (Source: Tulsa World, 7/3/87; 10/15/87)

Example: Rev. John S. Lower received three years unsupervised probation for molesting a girl, under age nine, during bible studies at her "home school." (Source: Tulsa World, 4/15/87)

Example: Rev. Paul Margand, a Catholic priest in Lincoln, Nebraska, pleaded no contest to charges of molesting two altar boys, including a 12 year old boy taking private religious instruction. Margand had ordered him to pray lying on his back, then mounted him while continuing to ask the boy questions about Moses. (Source: Lincoln Journal, 7/10/87; Lincoln Star, 11/19/87)

The danger of blind obedience

Teaching children never to question adult authority makes them vulnerable to abuse by any adults--teachers, police officers, babysitters, coaches and parents. "Be sure and do exactly whatever Rev. Smith tells you to do" can be a recipe for exploitation.

Ministers, rabbis and priests--"men of God"--are not merely authority figures, they are "divine authorities." The requirement that no religious teaching or assumption ever be questioned within a church-the fact that most religions are predicated on submission to authorityplaces ministers and priests on a unique pedestal of power. Children approached by ministers whom they have been taught to revere and address as "the reverend," men whom they know to be greatly esteemed by their parents, feel helpless to ward off a threatening or abusive contact initiated by such a person. Children, seeing that clergy have special status and naively believing ministers or priests can do no wrong, are at special risk around a clergy pedophile.

Child abuse prevention activist Kraizer notes, "We need to look at the ways in which we teach our children to be blindly obedient to adults and authority figures. Most children do not know they can say no to a police officer, a teacher, a principal, a counselor, a minister, a babysitter, or a parent when an inappropriate request is made."

The fact that parents tend to be very flattered if a priest or minister pays special attention to their child, or buys them gifts or takes them on outings, also works in favor of an abusive clergyperson.

Most child molesters exploit a carefully cultivated relationship with their child victims, then rely on bribes and threats to silence them, such as: "I'll kill your parents," or "I'll tell the police what you did and you'll to go jail," or even play on a child's misguided loyalty to the molester. Molesting ministers and priests enlist not just these but often more terrifying threats of "the wrath of God," "fear of the church," and "eternal damnation." "Hell" is a powerful tool in the hands of a minister who wants to silence a young victim.

Example: "I thought it must be all right because a priest wouldn't do anything wrong," said a grown man recalling his abuse at the hands of Rev. Allen F. Bruening, a priest in Cleveland. (Source: Plain Dealer, 7/12/87)

Example: A priest in Rockledge, Florida used "fear of the church" and threatened the "wrath of God" to silence his victims. Rev. William Authenreith, of St. Mary's Catholic Church, was given immunity but admitted to years of molesting four altar boys in his bedroom above the church office, in the sacristy, library, and church cars, as well as engaging in sexual catechisms and behavior at the Catholic School. The Diocese of Orlando agreed to pay $490,000 to the family of one of the victims, and settled out of court with two others. (Sources: Orlando Sentinel, 8/5,6/86; Philadelphia Inquirer, 11/8/86; Tampa Tribune, 5/6/87)

Special access to children

Pay close attention to adults who spend considerable 'off duty' time with the same child or children. --Church Mutual Protection Insurance Company

Many parents assume their children could not be safer than when in the care of a clergyman or church institution. Confessionals, youth groups, Sunday School outings, Christian Scouting, Christian day camps and summer camps, church schools and athletics, church nurseries and day/home care all give clergy special access to children and young teenagers--often otherwise unchaperoned. Churches and religious groups often successfully bid for public tax dollars to set up their own religious agencies providing foster care, detention centers, halfway houses, or "homes for unwed mothers." Chaplains have special access to these as well as public facilities. Sexual abuse of children commonly occurs on church property: the sacristy, church offices, church-owned cars and residential dwellings, as well as in church homes or even the homes of trusting families of abused children. Molesting priests, for instance, have often invited a young boy for weekend trips, "sleepovers" at the rectory and similar outings which might otherwise be forbidden or would normally cause parental suspicion. Parents who are protective of daughters may not worry if the man alone with them is a minister. Parents may even heartily approve of an adult man spending a great deal of time alone with their son--if the grown-up is a "man of God" or a "good Christian."

"Pay close attention to adults who spend considerable 'off duty' time with the same child or children," advises the Church Mutual Protection Insurance Company. Dr. Gene Abel suggests that one difference between a nonabuser and a child molester is that the molester will manufacture many excuses to be alone with a child (or group of children). Abel also advises that if an adult is interested in spending more time with your children than you are, he may be a molester. If he seems too good to be true, he may be. Certainly "sleepovers" should be carefully scrutinized!

Example: Priest Richard Galdon pleaded guilty to molesting more than a dozen parochial schoolboys when serving as chaplain to three religious Boy Scout troops, where he participated in outings. Galdon sodomized one altar boy about three times per month over a period of a year after playing a strip card game. Yet another victim had been regularly molested over a two year period while watching television with the priest. He admitted to engaging in oral and anal sex with boys for 17 years. "I'm convinced, based on my investigation, that the Church knew about it," said District Attorney's investigator George McGrath, who spoke with 18 of his victims. "He'd molest a kid tomorrow if he could." Galdon was sentenced to 25 years in prison, although his defense attorney asked that Galdon be allowed to remain at the Foundation House in New Mexico, a Catholic center for the care of pedophilic priests. "He gave his life to the service of others. He has, except for this offense, lived a law-abiding life," argued attorney Peter Manahan. Prosecutor Edward Bilinkas said Galdon's vocation should be weighed as an aggravating factor in deciding his punishment. "This man was put in a particular position of trust. He violated that trust and because of this he should be held more accountable." Criminal Assignment Judge Sidney Reiss of Superior Court in Newark said the sentence would show "the safety of our children cannot be compromised even for our reverence for men of the cloth." Galdon was remanded to the custody of the state Adult Diagnostic and Treatment Center in Avenel, a corrections facility for sex offenders. (Sources: Newark Star Ledger, 3/5/87; 10/29/87; San Jose Mercury News, 12/30/87)

Example: Mormon Sunday school teacher Thomas Eugene Dawkins was accused of "the worst case of sexual abuse I've ever seen during my 30 years in law enforcement," according to Richard County Sheriff Frank Powell of Elgin, South Carolina. "I'm not sure how a child can cope with something like this." Dawkins was accused of brutally torturing and raping a girl over a two-year period starting when she was 13, terrifying her into submission by cutting her, showing her body parts he kept in jars, and threatening to dissect her. Much of the abuse occurred during church outings, or during privately arranged meetings. Dawkins denied guilt, instead, according to reports, "praying and reading from the Book of Mormon." South Carolina Circuit County Judge John Hamilton Smith termed the abuse of a "sadistic and macabre nature." Dawkins was found guilty and sentenced to 60 years in prison in November 1986. (Source: [Columbia, South Carolina] The State, 4/25/86; 11/8/86)

Example: Rev. Gordon Taylor of Keizer, Oregon was indicted for sodomy, sexual abuse and furnishing obscene material to minors. His reported victims were teenagers at a home for "wayward kids" which he directed. Charges were dismissed but prosecutors said they would reopen the case pending the location of a teenaged boy considered a key witness. (Source: Oregonian, 5/3/86; 6/17/86)

Example: Monsignor Rudolph Galindo of San Diego settled out of court after establishing a pedophilic relationship with a young Vietnamese teenager whom he took on countless weekend stays--even a 14-day cruise, and lavished more than $10,000 in gifts and benefits. Red lights were flashing all over the place--yet who would suspect a monsignor? (Source: San Diego Union, 12/29/85)

Example: Retired priest and part-time chaplain Father Edmund John Boyle pleaded guilty and was sentenced for a felony charge of lewdness involving a terminally ill, mentally retarded and mute 12 year old boy at the Riverside Hospital for Skilled Care in Reno, where Boyle worked as chaplain. (Source: Los Angeles Times, 4/25/87; Reno Gazette, 10/10/87)

Example: Priest Carmelo "Mel" Baltazar continually used his clerical access to dominate and exploit boys under his care. He was kicked out of the U.S. Navy as a chaplain and was transferred from three dioceses for abusive behavior, before finally being prosecuted for luring two teenage boys to his church house in the Diocese of Boise, Idaho. He was charged with molesting them by plying them with liquor, drugs and pornography. At a church position at Queen of the Valley Hospital in Napa, California, he molested a boy on a dialysis machine. Despite this, the Catholic church in Boise hired him as chaplain at St. Alphonsus Regional Medical Center. They took no action after an Episcopalian minister reported to Bishop Sylvester Treinen that Baltazar had fondled a boy in double-leg traction, Bishop Treinen compared Baltazar's behavior to that of a car that, "no matter how well you take care of [it]" occasionally has a flat. Baltazar was sentenced to seven years for sexual acts with a teenaged boy whom he met in the psychiatric ward. Judge Alan Schwartz said at the sentencing: "I think the Catholic Church has its atonement to make as well. They helped create you." (Sources: The Idaho Statesman, 11/20/84; San Jose Mercury News, 12/30/87)

Example: Catholic priest Rev. Donald Stavinoha pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting a nine year old boy in a church van owned by Immaculate Heart of Mary Church, Houston. Police officer Gerardo Gamez caught the priest in the act of abusing the boy, and reported ordering to him "keep your hands where I can see them. Pull the little boy's pants up and step out of the van." "Oh, my god," was the priest's reply. The victim's mother, informed of the incident, began crying and told police that for the past two years the priest had taken the boy on trips, supposedly to see movies, go to church or to play video games. Jurors sentenced Stavinoha to almost 10 years in prison. "At issue was the fact that he held a position of authority and trust, like a police officer, a teacher or a scoutmaster. I find it very offensive when a person uses that position to commit a crime," said jury forewoman Jacqualine Brown. "Hopefully the little boy will recover from this eventually--also the mother. They trusted this man, and he wasn't trustworthy," said juror Mildred Ridgeway. Prosecutor Jim Buchanan said, "Dressed up in sheep's clothing, he is a wolf that preys on our children." (Sources: Houston Chronicle, 1/6/88; Lufkin Daily News, 1/11/88)

Example: Ron J. Steckbauer, an Ocean Beach, California video arcade owner who ran a bible study group for boys and chaperoned them on weekend trips to Arizona, was arrested on molestation charges. Police believe there may have been more than a hundred individual molestations committed against 15 boys between the ages of 10 and 14 years. Steckbauer was also charged with failure to register with local police as a convicted sex offender. The bible study was reported to be his modus operandi and cover for finding victims. (Source: Los Angeles Times, 12/10/87)

Example: Rev. Bill Peckham, of Springfield, Illinois, known nationally for his work with the poor and homeless through Contact Ministries, pleaded guilty to two felony counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse and a reduced misdemeanor charge of sexually abusing a 14 year old boy. The victim, a ward of the state, reported the abuse on January 1, 1986. He was then "wired" to secretly tape-record conversations with the minister, which led to Peckham's arrest on January 5. Peckham also founded the Holy Fools Clown Ministry, which has chapters all over the nation. Although Peckham could have received three to seven years imprisonment for the felony charges, he was given only four years' probation, and was sentenced to a year in jail for the misdemeanor charge. (Sources: [Alton, Illinois] Telegraph, 12/3/87; Peoria Journal Star, 1/7/88)

Example: Religiously authoritarian men are considered high-risk candidates as foster fathers, yet who would question a minister's motives in taking in foster children? Rev. John Janney Sr. pleaded guilty to molesting three male foster children, following a wild attempt to elude authorities by fleeing to another state, during which time he tried to murder his wife and commit suicide. Ironically, as a pastor of the Calvary Bible Baptist Church, Bridgeton, New Jersey, he had been an outspoken opponent of humanist literature which he said would "corrupt the morals of youths." (Source: Bridgeton Evening News, 12/26/85)

Example: Church deacon Harley Francis of Powers Drive Baptist Church in Orlando was convicted of molesting six girls, ages six to 13, whom he met through his Sunday School class. The elderly deacon bribed them with gifts and told the court he couldn't understand how people could misconstrue his "kindness toward children." (Source: Florida Today, 4/26/86)

Example: Rev. William Henwood, pastor of the Jericho Independent Church in Honesdale, Pennsylvania, pleaded no contest to charges of sexual contact with a 10 year old girl. He had molested her in his own home, as well as on the school bus he drove for the church. The little girl explained to investigators, "He'd drive with one hand." (Source: Scranton Times, 10/9/87)

Example: Rev. William Bosley of Kenosha, Wisconsin, was sentenced to 55 years in prison for sexually abusing a six year old girl in his church while her blind mother was cleaning the building. Bosley founded the Sunrise Church of God in Christ, Waukegan, Illinois, in 1969. He also pleaded guilty to sexually abusing the child's 12 year old sister in the home of their grandmother. The sentencing took into account Bosley's recent conviction for firing a gun into a car. He had served a 28-month sentence for sexual abuse of an 11 year old girl in Washington state 20 years before. Sentencing Judge Walter Block stated: "He took his position, duty and responsibility and used it to facilitate his criminal behavior." Assistant state attorney Victoria Rossetti, of Lake County, stated: "These people trusted him. He helped them, but he continuously violated these young girls." (Source: Chicago Tribune, 10/22/87)

Example: Rev. Francis Guy Haight, principal of the Baptist Christian Academy in Monroe, Wisconsin, pleaded guilty to a reduced number of charges of sexually assaulting four young girls at his church school. He had had sexual contact with up to 11 girls at his school on an almost daily basis. Haight admitted the abuse was "happening pretty near everyday" and that he could not "even begin to estimate how many times this occurred." Most of the abuse took place in his office. A five year old girl said she was molested in her preschool program at the church. An 11 year old was abused when Mrs. Haight sent her to the office, telling police that it "kind of hurt." She didn't tell, she said, because she was scared. A 12 year old said the contact began when she attended summer bible school, where the minister molested her once or twice per day. One former student said she left the school after the eighth grade to avoid the constant abuse. Two victims said the minister would molest them by touching them under their dresses. As principal, he required that all girls wear dresses as part of the school dress code. Haight had been asked to leave a previous job under mysterious circumstances. Apparently the school had not made inquiries. Haight's attorney William Lansing said Haight plea-bargained in order to spare the children from testifying in court. "He's a very religious man," Lansing said. Haight's views on religion and compassion toward children obviously did not preclude constant sexual exploitation of them. (Sources: Wisconsin State Journal, 11/12/87; 1/9/88)

Example: David B. Harrington, a respected educator and principal of the Hebrew Academy of Greater Washington, was sentenced to 25 years in prison for molesting six boys through the Big Brothers program. Harrington was honored by President Reagan at a White House reception in 1986, and had been named Montgomery County's Big Brother of the Year. Upon arrest in February 1987, he fled the country, disappearing with money entrusted to him by a student travel agency, but surrendered to authorities five weeks later. His past included faking his own death in 1970 when Vermont officials were investigating charges that he had molested children. Previously he had served 30 days in a Connecticut jail for child sexual abuse. Harrington pleaded guilty in the D.C. case to molesting six boys, ages 10 to 17, by plying them with beer and wine and allowing them to watch pornography. A prosecutor said Harrington videotaped sex acts with the boys. Judge James S. McAuliffe called him a "classic fixated pedophile." Harrington said he was himself a victim of child sexual abuse. (Source: Washington Post, 12/1/87)

Example: Rev. Billy Walker of Sheepfold Ministries shelter home for transient and displaced workers in Lamar, Colorado abused his position of trust in order to molest a seven year old girl. He received eight years in prison. He had fled the state upon discovery, but was arrested later in Lake City, Florida. The judge recommended that Walker receive counseling and treatment in prison for pedophilia. Walker had three prior felony convictions for child sexual abuse. (Source: Rocky Mountain News, 10/25/87)

Example: Rev. Gary Willard Hambright, a Southern Baptist, was charged as a daycare worker with sexually abusing 10 little boys and girls at the U.S. Army preschool at its Presidio base. Four of the tots had contracted the sexually transmitted disease of chlamydia. A grand jury spent 10 months investigating charges. (Source: San Francisco Chronicle, 11/5/87; Wall Street Journal, 11/16/87)

Example: Rev. Robert Henry, of San Luis Obispo, California, a married man with two grown children, was accused of seven felony counts of child molestation, resigning from his position as Ventura church rector and dean of a school. Described as a "well-known and respected community figure," he was charged with molesting two boys in 1984 and 1985 during private counseling sessions at the school and church office. (Source: Los Angeles Times, 10/23/87)

When counseling turns criminal

Members of the clergy are sought out for both psychological and spiritual counseling, affording them the opportunity for great power and influence with their counselees.
--1985 Legislative Report Minneapolis Task Force on Sexual Exploitation by Counselors and Therapists

Priests, ministers and other pastoral counselors are in an ideal position to exploit trust. All counselors are in a position to potentially abuse the trust of those who turn to them for help, an issue which has drawn discussion and action by professionals in the secular field. Studies show that 10 percent of counselors admit to sexual abuse of clients, while half of the counselors report they have seen clients who were sexually abused by others in their profession. There has been some discussion in some churches about the exploitation of women in pastoral counseling, but no public discussion about clergy who use their counseling status to prey on children.

Clergy are often in contact with depressed, vulnerable parishioners. Believers are taught that ministers and priests have a special calling to help people. Believers are expected to confess and confide deeply personal feelings or problems. The Catholic Church sets up a ritual confession in which children are encouraged to reveal possible "sins," setting up the opportunity for children to be inappropriately questioned by priests on intimate or embarrassing subjects. One woman wrote a poem recalling a painful episode at the time she was 12, when a priest asked her prurient, leading questions from the confessional, such as "Do you touch yourself there?"

Syndicated advice columnists routinely recommend that people seek ministerial help, yet there is no guarantee a pastor who counsels has had any professional training. To be a legal minister, someone simply has to be ordained by a local church that is recognized by the state. The church can have any requirements, or no requirements. Some people who call themselves ministers are merely self-appointed or self-ordained, claiming "ordination from God." While some ministers actually have professional counseling licenses or academic credits, others have none. Just because a pastoral counselor has a higher education or a license does not guarantee he is a nonabuser. Whatever can be imagined happens--both the best counseling situations, and the worst. . .

Example: Christian psychologist Charles Markham Berry, a married man with children, esteemed in his community as a war veteran and upstanding Christian, was convicted of child molestation and child pornography in Atlanta. He had founded his own Christian-oriented counseling clinic, where he preyed on troubled boys and orphans from the Christian City Home. He assured them that their parents or guardians were aware of his "treatment" methods. He took boys to a warehouse where he kept a camera, tripod and a mattress on the floor. When "treating" a convicted molester, Markham forced him to use his own name to order child pornography from Europe for Markham's use. He kept detailed accounts of his molestations on a computer. As US Attorney Stephen Cowen said: "He wrapped himself in religious piety, used his position in the church and the community to shield himself . . . to find children . . . to seduce them." (Source: Atlanta Constitution & Journal, 7/18/86)

Example: A civil lawsuit charges that a priest, Rev. John Surprenant, chaplain at the College of St. Teresa in Winona, Minnesota, forced a female teenager to have sex with him for three years, and exploited other students. Leah C. Wurthmann said she sought counseling for a personal problem in September 1982 and was referred to the priest. He was "held out to the students . . . as someone to whom students could go for personal as well as school-related counseling." She said she became "emotionally dependent" and "unable to withhold consent to sexual contact" during psychotherapy. The suit charges that he "repeatedly and wrongly sexually exploited other students and has engaged in unpermitted sexual contact with other students who sought counseling with him." It was the second case in 1987 charging the Winona Diocese for negligently failing to prevent a priest from committing sexual abuse. (Source: Minneapolis Star-Tribune, 10/30/87)

Example: Army chaplain Lt. Col. Anthony Longval was convicted of sexually abusing young women whom he hypnotized before abusing. "He's a hypocrite who prayed on Sunday, and preyed on young women during the week," said the Army prosecutor. (Source: Yakima [Washington] Herald Republic, 6/8/86)

Example: When Rev. Ronald Lane Fontenot, a priest, was suspended from the diocese of Lafayette, Louisiana after complaints of child molestation, he moved to Seattle. Fontenot got a job counseling teenagers addicted to drugs and alcohol at the Deaconness Medical Center's Nancy Reagan Care-Unit, where he victimized boy patients. He was charged with, and pleaded guilty to statutory rape and immoral communication with minors. "Something like this can destroy a person," said the parent of one victim. Fontenot was sentenced to one year in jail and two years in a treatment program. (Source: Spokane Chronicle, 2/9/86; Seattle Intelligencer 2/13/86; Port Angeles Daily News 6/19/86)

Example: A minister in Santa Barbara, California was accused of sexually preying upon women molested as children, by offering them "special services" ostensibly to overcome painful childhood memories. (Source: Santa Barbara News-Press, 8/1/87)

Denying evidence and circling the wagons

. . . the problem of child molestation is so terribly upsetting, adults have a powerful desire to deny that it exists.
--Gene G. Abel, M.D. and Nora Harlow

Parishioners may deny symptoms or evidence of abuse by clergy. The pressure to deny is enormous when a liked and respected clergyman is involved. Many people, raised to hold what is often such a disproportionate respect for the clergy, cannot even begin to grasp the possibility of such crimes. It simply does not "compute." They may have too much emotional investment in their religion to cope with the shocking reality, sometimes even if they witness the abuse, and even at the expense of their children's well-being.

Example: A mother in Tampa, Florida walked in on Rev. Fonville Gandy when he was placing his hands on her son's genitals. She accepted his (unacceptable) explanation that he was "discussing anatomy" with the youth. This mother realized the truth when Rev. Gandy was later arrested for other molestations, and she testified against him at his trial. Gandy was sentenced to five years in prison for molesting another 11 year old at the Ecumenical Counseling Center. (Source: Tampa Tribune, 6/26/86)

Example: A mother learned her young boy had played strip poker under the direction of Rev. Allen F. Bruening, a Cleveland priest involved in a 20-year scandal and cover-up. The priest told her "strip poker was a good way for the kids to relax and get acquainted." The diocese never disputed the allegation, but their only response was to pay for a few hours of counseling for the family, who were successfully intimidated from further action, especially after being falsely assured the priest would be kept away from children. "I wish I would have gone to the police . . . today I'd do it differently," said the father. The same priest had boys involved in many other inappropriate activities. Following exposure, many victims came forward to recount such abuse as skinny-dipping trips to a bathhouse where the priest sexually touched them. Had more families questioned their boys about the excessive amount of time spent in the company of the priest, had more families complained, and had the one family that complained pursued its complaint past the level of the Diocese, Bruening's abusive behavior might have been stopped in the first year, instead of after the second decade. One victim, who recalled his humiliation at being one of four boys forced to strip in gym class to allow the priest to "demonstrate how to use a jock strap," commented how "really devastating" the episode was. Another victim said, "I'm sure there were more parents who knew but were afraid to do anything about it because he was a priest. He may have been a sick man, but I'm sure he knew right from wrong." Rev. Daniel Nealon, a priest in Elyria, said Bruening's deviant sexual behavior was widely known. (Source: Plain Dealer, 7/12,19/87)

Example: Rev. David Ray Miller was indicted for sexually molesting a little girl from his congregation for two years. "We can't weigh the damage," said Police Chief Larry Barmore. Yet her parents were so intimidated by the prestige of their daughter's assailant that they had to be talked into pressing charges. The exposure came none too soon. Miller had been in the process of opening a church elementary school. (Source: [Smithville, Texas] County Times, 9/24/87)

Example: When a 17 year old boy was challenged to a "test of manhood" by his priest, Rev. John Joseph Mike Jr., of St. Louis Catholic Church in Maryland, he was hung upside down from a basketball backboard and whipped. His parents, who called the police, initially backed away from pressing charges because the priest was such a well-known figure. He eventually pleaded guilty. (Source: Washington Post, 9/25/87)

Example: Episcopal priest and military chaplain Rev. Thomas Evans Dobson was convicted of pushing methamphetamines in exchange for sexual acts with young boys in Seattle's street culture. His attorney defended him on the basis of his religious career, and because he is a "family man who has children." Charges of pedophilia stuck in Dobson's case--but the abuse continued undetected for so long precisely because of the perceived incongruity of someone of his status victimizing homeless boys. (Source: Seattle Times, 6/4/87)

Onward, Christian soldiers

Since clergy have traditionally been immune from criticism by outsiders, their congregations and fellow clergy may attack families who expose a pedophilic priest or minister. Ignorance also plays a role in such self-protective behaviors: uninformed people may believe it is a tragic, isolated occurrence. Believers are programmed to respond in the defense of their religious leaders: "Judge not, that ye be not judged" (Matthew 7:1). This same bias may extend to some religionists in the criminal justice system, who may be more lenient toward a convicted child molester who is a respected religious leader pleading fervent religious beliefs. Church-run rehabilitation centers where the Catholic Church urges that molesting priests be sent instead of to prison, are also a way of "circling the wagons."

Example: The Martin family of Savannah, Georgia was hounded when they charged their youth minister, Rev. Jerry Sidell, First Christian Church of Jonesboro, with molesting nine children, including their two sons. "They just wanted us to keep it quiet, to let the church elders deal with it in their own way. It made me sick to think that if they hadn't gone to the police, that Jerry could go somewhere else and start raping more kids," said Mrs. Martin. A "friend" visited them to suggest they consider "sacrificing a few [their sons] for the good of all [the church]." She told the press, "I don't think it would be right for me to sacrifice my boys by clamming up, keeping quiet, moving out of the city, not doing anything in order to save the reputation of the church. I couldn't sacrifice my two boys for the sake of that church or anybody else." Sidell had molested their sons for two years. He pleaded guilty to four counts of child molestation and one count of enticing a minor for indecent purposes and was sentenced in September 1984 to 10 years. The Martins and another family sued the church and Sidell for $3 million to pay for psychiatric rehabilitation plus damages but settled with the church for less than $5,000, agreeing to seek no further legal action. On April 25, 1984 Sidell pleaded guilty to another count of abuse, stemming from an incident in which he had taken the older Martin boy to Stone Mountain Park and molested him in 1981. He received another 10 year sentence to run concurrently. Following the convictions, the Martins received abusive and threatening phone calls from church members. The family has since become active in the California-based Society's League Against Molestation. (Source: Atlanta Constitution, 4/26/84)

Example: The Rev. Clyde L. Johnson, pastor of the largest Baptist church in Petersburg, Virginia and a popular city council member for 14 years, was convicted of the rape and sexual battery of four girls, aged nine to 16, in his congregation. Despite the conviction, and Johnson's cruel and slanderous statements about the young girls made in an effort to protect himself, he received continuous religious support, including prayers, rallies, money and special services. "The bottom line is that all of us . . . has [sic] some skeletons in his closets. That's not our job to judge. It's the Lord's job," said clergy supporter Rev. Kenneth Arrington of the Union Fellowship. One church member, Melvin Harwell, who was angered by this widespread support of a child rapist, commented: "Some people worship preachers." (Source: Washington Post, 4/24/87)

Example: A 16 year old Nashville boy filed a civil lawsuit charging that he was not only sexually assaulted at a children's camp but that others conspired to silence him. The boy had been recruited to work at the camp by Rev. Ron Teed, Family of Faith Lutheran Church. Following an assault by the minister, the complainant said he sought safety and protection from another counselor, who detained him on behalf of the minister. The boy reported that he was then subjected to an all-night meeting alone with his assailant. (Source: Tennesseean, 6/4/87)

Example: When her son "Jake" was molested by a Cub Scout leader, "Madeline Smith" noted: "I taught Sunday School, and yet my neighbors acted as though I had the plague. I received absolutely no support from the people at our church either. "Michael Jones," Jake's molester, was very well liked there. ". . .[After his arrest] our minister immediately went to his house to comfort his wife. But the minister never came to our house or offered support to any of the 10 families whose children were Jones' victims. Eight of those families eventually left the church." (Source: Redbook Magazine, 8/87)

Example: Priest and parochial school teacher Rev. John Anthony Salazar was left in his position by the church even after a mother reported molestation of her son in 1985. In 1986, when he was reported to police for sodomizing a 13 year old boy, it was learned that officials at the Los Angeles diocese had been told of a similar allegation three months before, yet had done nothing. "There was at least one more victim because the church didn't do anything," said prosecuting attorney Kenneth Wullschleger. Salazar was sentenced for molesting two altar boys at St. Lucy's Catholic Church in East Los Angeles. Before the sentencing a letter-writing campaign was conducted by 100 faithfuls, including mothers of some of his other victims, asking that Salazar not be imprisoned. The judge sentenced the priest to six years in prison, taking into account the extent of his abuse of boys. In this case, the priest had the sad background of having been molested by his mother as a child, but showed little understanding of his role in recycling that abuse, claiming in classic pedophilic behavior that he was "in love" with the boys. An $11 million civil suit was brought by one family. (Source: Los Angeles Herald, 7/31/87; San Jose Mercury News, 12/30/87)

Example: Over the objection of prosecutors, Circuit Judge Robert H. Mason reduced a 25 year prison sentence he had imposed on a pedophilic priest in 1986 to only five years' probation. He also ordered Rev. Peter M. McCutcheon, found guilty of sexually abusing three youths from 1981 to 1985, to spend at least a year in a Catholic-run treatment center and halfway house, called the Foundation House, in Albuquerque. He had spent 13 months in the Maryland Diagnostic Center in Baltimore, part of the state prison system, after pleading guilty in December 1986 to five counts of sexual abuse. Mason, a judge in Prince George's County, Maryland, also ordered that the priest take Depo-Provera--a drug diminishing sexual desire, not work in a situation putting him in contact with children, and make restitution to the families. However, Assistant State's Attorney Robert Harvey objected to the sentence reduction as special treatment. "He is still a pedophile, still a potential danger to the community. This program won't guarantee he'll be out of the community." When Mason originally sentenced the priest to 25 years in prison, he had told him, "It's very important for [the victims and their families] to see you walk out of here in handcuffs on the way to jail." The 1986 sentencing had followed five hours of emotional testimony. The parents of victims said the priest had manipulated and confused their sons, and doctors and counselors had stressed that McCutcheon, who had been assigned to parishes in Waldorf and Chillum, was a pedophile, alcoholic and drug abuser in need of therapy. Mason defended the sentence reduction by saying that if McCutcheon had not been a priest, he would probably have been freed without treatment for his illness. (Source: Washington Post, 1/14/88)

Example: Rev. Donald VanLiew, pastor of the First Christian Church, Kentland, Indiana, was sentenced to 300 hours of community service and five years informal probation for one count of child molestation. He was given such a light sentence because he had no prior record. Originally, his sentence was proposed as a $1 fine and court costs! That his friends and family did not regard the offense as a serious reflection on the minister was indicated by his mother's comment to the press: "This isn't easy for us to take. We have a reputation to maintain, and it's not true anyway." (Source: Journal and Courier, Lafayette-West Lafayette, Indiana, 12/23/87)

Example: Church youth minister Timothy J. Ganzel was spared a flve-year prison sentence (receiving one year in jail and probation instead), because the judge said he took into account a courtroom full of relatives, friends and church members. Ganzel molested a teenage boy in Wisconsin Grace Baptist Church, Racine, Wisconsin. (Source: Capital Times, 4/21/87)

Example: Fred Beihl, an employee of the Oklahoma Conference of Churches, raped and sexually assaulted four little girls between the ages of eight and nine, and received a 240-year sentence--despite the testimony in his favor of several religious leaders including Episcopal Bishop Gerald N. McAllister. The judge said, "We're not going to have a fifth little girl that he rapes and sodomizes." (Source: Tulsa Tribune, 8/29/86)

"Hey, Father, we've got a little problem. . ."

At a time of heightened national awareness of the problems of child abuse, the Catholic Church in the United States continues to ignore and cover up cases of priests who sexually molest children, according to court records, internal church documents, civil authorities and the victims themselves.
--Reporter Carl M. Cannon
San Jose Mercury News

A church may actively cover up, bribe, fail to act or knowingly pass on a child molester to another parish or congregation. Cover-ups in the Roman Catholic Church have been disclosed in Dallas; San Antonio; Portland; Green Bay, Wisconsin; Allentown and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Springfield, Illinois; several dioceses in Louisiana; Washington, D.C.; Orlando and Pensacola, Florida; Los Angeles; San Diego; Anaheim and Ventura County, California; Quebec; St. Paul-Minneapolis; Cleveland, Ohio; Jackson, Mississippi and other areas. It is only recently--following extensive and embarrassing civil lawsuits--that some elements in the church have even called on members to report suspected cases of child abuse by priests. Priest and Catholic attorney Thomas Doyle characterized the church's typical reaction as: "A guy [priest] would be called in by his bishop who'd say, 'Hey, Father, we've got a little problem,' and they'd send him for treatment somewhere or ship him off to another parish." The church's new defense has been that priests who molest are really "independent contractors," thereby, so the argument goes, relieving the church of legal responsibility. The fallout is ugly when a faithful, devout family is hit with the appalling news that their child has been sexually exploited by a trusted parish priest or other church official. Understandably expecting the same feelings of outrage to be shared by church administrators, parents in case after case have been figuratively slapped in the face when they turned to the church to stop the abuse, and ensure that it would not happen again. San Jose Mercury News reporter Carl M. Cannon, who conducted a three-month investigation into 25 dioceses, wrote a two-part series (December 30-31, 1987) called "Priests Who Molest" in which he noted:

"Confronted with complaints that priests have molested children, some Catholic dioceses have responded by attempting to discredit those who made the allegations. Catholic officials have sought to seal court records, attacked newspapers and impugned the motives and even the sanity of those who have brought complaints against priests . . .

"Keeping details of the cases secret has been a consistent church priority, according to court records, families of victims, law enforcement officials and attorneys who have sued the church. And those who bring it out in the open risk retribution."

Cannon concluded that "in more than 25 dioceses across the country, church officials have failed to notify authorities, transferred molesting priests to other parishes, ignored parental complaints and disregarded the potential damage to child victims.

"To the devastated families, to the lawyers who are suing the church and to Catholics who are pushing for a national church policy, the churches' reluctance to address the problem is a time bomb waiting to detonate within American Catholicism."

The Mercury News quoted Ken Wooden, a child-abuse expert from Vermont, calling it "the liability trail." Wooden explained, "You get a doberman pinscher attorney, he sniffs the trail. Who does it lead to? It leads to the bishop who reassigned the priest. Then they pay."

Huge settlements and pay-offs have, in some cases, been made to ward off further investigation. For example, the diocese of Orlando paid $3 million to families of four victims, according to estimates by attorneys Sheldon Stevens of Merritt Island and Charles E. Davis of Orlando, not only because of diocese inaction but because of evidence that at least five other priests had been exposed by child victims since 1974. "We established that there was a record in that diocese going back 15 years of homosexual molestation of children and that the diocese had chosen to handle it by looking the other way," Stevens told the Mercury News.

To cover up is criminal conspiracy. To hide and harbor a criminal and actually watch abuse continue without lifting a hand to stop it, to let loose an abuser on an unsuspecting public, is being an accessory to terrorism. It is supremely immoral.

Example: The Plain Dealer newspaper, following its exposŽ of a Catholic cover-up of three pedophilic priests, called the Cleveland Diocese's actions similar to "playing musical chairs." Case 1: The Church offered one family $50,000 to silence them after their 14 year old son was sexually assaulted in 1981 by Rev. F. James Mulica of Kirtland, Ohio. In spite of assurances to the family that the priest would not be allowed near children, he was reassigned to family parishes, and only briefly sent for alcoholic rehabilitation. Case 2: The mother of a youth molested by Rev. Joseph Romansky was offered a condominium, a van and a job--all of which were withdrawn when she filed a $6 million suit against the church. The priest had typically invited boys to the rectory for a sleepover, then out to McDonalds for breakfast, and bribed them with money gifts. Case 3: Priest Allen F. Bruening [see Chapter 6] was accused of separately molesting two brothers as children who were 20 years apart in age. The priest also invited a friend who was a coach to participate in the abuse. The Cleveland church officials brought out the "self-employment" defense to plead they were at no fault in this case of a criminal "independent contractor." (Source: Plain Dealer, 7/12,13/87; San Jose Mercury News, 12/31/87)

Example: A Catholic couple in Newark, New Jersey charged in a lawsuit that when they told the diocese that their two sons had been molested-one subsequently committed suicide-" members of the Newark archdiocese advised the plaintiffs that they would be provided with financial assistance to help with their medical bills ... provided that this matter was not made public." When the father confronted the assailant, a Franciscan Brother of the Poor, the man "first denied what had occurred, and then claimed that he had been seduced." [See Chapter 11] (Source: San Jose Mercury News, 12/31/87)

Example: "Charles R.," the father of a 12 year old girl molested by a Florida priest in 1983, was outraged when he learned the same priest had been accused of molesting two other girls six years earlier. He said, "If he's not causing a problem--they do nothing. If he's causing a problem, they move him to another state." (Source: San Jose Mercury News, 12/30/87)

Example: Charles E. Davis, a Catholic attorney practicing in Orlando, sued his own diocese in a case involving two molested boys. At first, he said, "I'd give the church--my church--the benefit of the doubt. Finally, I realized this was a cover-up that went all the way to the bishop. It's one thing to have a bad priest. It's another thing to have the whole hierarchy corrupt. And I told my wife: We will no longer go to a Catholic Church." (Source: San Jose Mercury News, 12/30/87)

Example: A grandmother of a 13 year old altar boy molested by a priest in Florida initially reported the abuse to Catholic Social Services in Pensacola, and was assured by them that they would report the abuse to the state--as mandated by law. They never did. (Source: Miami Herald, 8/2/86)

Example: Father Andrew Christian Andersen, Diocese of Orange, California, continued regular contact with altar boys for three years after a mother reported to church officials that her son had been abused by him. The church never reported anything. He was sent for some counseling, but quickly resumed molesting, and was not removed from positions involving the supervision of boys. Andersen was reported to authorities by a psychiatrist counseling a 13 year old altar boy. Following his conviction, the priest was hugged by a church pastor and dozens of parishioners. Many in the congregation wrote letters asking the judge to pardon the priest; none wrote letters expressing any sympathy for the victims, including one whose family was forced to leave the church. Andersen was found guilty of 26 counts of child molestation and received five years' probation on the condition that he go to a church-owned treatment facility in New Mexico. (Source: Los Angeles Times, 11/25/86)

Example: A U.S. Attorney's report about Timothy Slevin, of Washington, D.C., a convicted child molester, former priest and church employee, said: "[We are] unable to comprehend how the church could . . . still interpose him [a known pedophile] with young boys in a church-ordained activity." Slevin was sentenced to three to 12 years after pleading guilty to four counts of sodomizing a boy at Sacred Heart Catholic School. A suit against the church for $200 million was settled out of court. (Source: Washington Post, 4/13/86)

Example: Rev. Robert Foley, an Irish priest posted in Anaheim, California, was accused by a mother of molesting her son during a camping trip. Foley warned his victim that "the devil would get him" if he told. The priest was merely transferred to a different parish, although ongoing civil suits continue. (Source: Grange County Register, 8/11/87)

Example: Priest Alvin L. Campbell from the Diocese of Springfield, Illinois, admitted to molesting boys for more than 20 years, forcing himself on victims, then giving them lavish gifts to keep them quiet. "They handled it the way they handle every other problem," said Ray McGrew of the Illinois Division of Criminal Investigation. "They remove the problem to someplace else and forget it." Campbell was sentenced to 14 years' prison after pleading guilty to sexually abusing seven boys when pastor of St. Maurice Parish in Morrisonville. Reportedly, the same diocese paid $2.5 million to three families victimized by Father Walter Weerts, sentenced in 1986 to six years in prison for performing oral sex on three teenage boys. The same pattern of transferring the priest from parish to parish had occurred. (Source: San Jose Mercury News, 12/30/87)

Example: When the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette wrote about efforts by the western Pennsylvania dioceses to seal court records on molestation cases, Catholic officials accused the Post-Gazette of waging "a subtle campaign of Catholic-bashing." Said attorney Ken Kilbert, of Pittsburgh, "What the church has effectively done in these cases is seal up what happened. This wasn't an isolated case. It's happened all over. You never do find out anything about these cases. It's an effort to keep them shrouded in secrecy." (Source: San Jose Mercury News, 12/31/87)

Example: Rev. William Authenreith (mentioned previously) was transferred from parish to parish after parental complaints about him were stifled. No action was taken despite a four-month church investigation in 1983 revealing that he used "uncouth, vulgar language" at school, often questioning children about sex and pornography before their confirmation. The grammar-school children at All Souls church school in Sanford, Florida had a standing joke that if altar boys turned their backs on him, they would be pinched or patted. Teachers demanded an audience with the vicar general, Father King, to complain about Authenreith's lewd behavior. Lorraine Mandeville, an office aide and cafeteria worker for five years at All Souls, wrote to school officials on March 30, 1984 reporting that the priest was telling dirty jokes and having improper physical contact with her son and other teenagers. She received no answer, except a notice four months later that she was being let go. The excuse was that the hot lunch program was being discontinued, although it never was. When the father of three boys molested by Authenreith reported the crimes to his parish priest at St. Mary's, he said the priest recommended prayer and told him, "It's not for you to judge. That's for God to do." Authenreith, whose history of molesting boys began when he was in the sixth grade, had told at least four other priests, one a monsignor, about his behavior--but nothing was ever done. He also mentioned his sexual activities in confession. In May, 1983, an anonymous letter about Authenreith's behavior to St. Mary's pastor Terrence J. Farrelly went ignored. When a lawsuit was filed in 1985, Authenreith was sent to a House of Affirmation in Massachusetts and was suspended as a priest. However, the state inexplicably had given him immunity from prosecution, so he was never convicted of any criminal offenses. (Source: Orlando Sentinel, 8/5,6/86; San Jose Mercury News, 12/31/87)

Example: Rev. Donald Roemer, a Ventura County, California priest, had "confessed his sexual attraction to young boys" to church officials well before being arrested for child molestation. Civil suits by parents of victims alleged that one child was molested in a confessional and another during a camping trip when he asked Roemer's help in saying his prayers. Roemer pleaded no contest in 1981 to three counts of child molestation involving boys in the church, and admitted to several other molestations. He was committed to Atascadero State Hospital, then released in 1983 and placed on 10 years probation and ordered to pay the boys' counseling fees. (Sources: The Recorder, 2/27/87; Orange County Register, 1986)

Example: A lawsuit charged the archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis and Winona with a cover-up conspiracy to ignore 25 years of known pedophilic action by priest Rev. Thomas Adamson. The suit charged that church officials were told by a psychiatrist that Adamson's condition was "incurable" as early as 1967. He started molesting Catholic altar boys in 1962. As early as 1963, the suit charged, the bishop of Winona Diocese was informed of this, yet named the priest an associate principal the following year. He was given some therapy and transferred again, yet he continued sexually abusing boys, which was reported to his superior. In 1976 he was reassigned to work with altar boys. As late as 1986 officials publicly denied knowledge of Adamson's sexual contact with boys. (Source: Minneapolis Star/Tribune, 2/5/87)

Example: A woman told authorities in 1983 that she saw her 12 year old daughter being sexually touched by Father Eamond O'Dowd, of the Orlando, Florida diocese. During a sermon from the pulpit in church a few days after O'Dowd's arrest, Father Richard Steinkamp, in the presence of the victim, said that the allegation was a "terrible accusation," that he could vouch for O'Dowd's character, and that the priest would be "vindicated." Yet Steinkamp later admitted in a deposition that six years before, two sets of parents reported that O'Dowd had improperly touched the breasts of one girl and touched another in a way that had alarmed her. The family of the 12 year old sued the diocese. Their response was to offer to settle, with a threat to sue both the lawyer and the girl's father if the offer was not accepted. (Source: San Jose Mercury News, 12/31/87)

Example: Rev. Tom Bender was charged in civil and criminal court with sexually abusing a boy in Reading, Pennsylvania when the victim was between the ages of 10 and 15. The child's mother told media, "I was very, very involved with the church, close to all the priests." When Father Tom took an interest in her son's singing and acting, taking him to New York on trips to see plays, she "thought it was great." Yet the boy became depressed, did poorly in school, got hooked on drugs and had to be treated in three different centers. While the mother didn't understand, the diocese knew why. An aide to Bishop Thomas Welsh of Allentown, in threats paralleling the kind of pressure put on victims of incest, warned the boy of the frightening consequences should his parents find out, that his mother "would have a nervous breakdown" and his stepfather "might kill somebody." Bender was transferred to another parish, where he was given direct authority over children. He was able to continue to take the boy on trips for the purpose of abusing him since the parents were still unsuspecting. Finally, the boy told his parents, who confronted the church. Diocese reaction was to send the boy to the same psychiatrist who was treating the priest! The parents demanded that Bishop Welsh defrock the priest and turn him over to the police. According to the suit, Welsh replied: "He's a good man. If he did this, he will have to answer to God when he dies." (Source: Mike McManus/Montgomery Advertiser & Alabama Journal, 12/19/87)

While the Catholic Church has been able to rely on the device of transferring molesters, Protestant churches also have been accused of culpability for knowing but not reporting abuse, or for failing to do proper reference checks when hiring, and similar negligence.

Example: Priest Rev. Francis Papworth, rector of the Santa Rosa Episcopal Church of the Incarnation, was sentenced to seven years for molesting several teenagers at his Windsor home. A $120 million lawsuit was filed against the Northern California Diocese of the Episcopal Church, claiming church leaders knew of Papworth's problems but failed to take action. (Source: San Francisco Chronicle, 9/12/87)

Example: The Church Mutual Insurance Company documents that one of its client churches was forced to pay damages for hiring a married male teacher who abused several young boys in class, and had been convicted for that. "This teacher," the company stated, "had been fired from three other church schools for similar offenses. Reference checks would have revealed this." (Source: Safety Tips on a Sensitive Subject: Child Sexual Abuse--The Church Mutual Protection Series)

Absolution is no solution

Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.
--The Lord's Prayer

People who are ignorant about child sexual abuse may not only deny that a respected member of the community could be an offender, but may blame the child or the child's family. Molesters typically have excellent relations with adults to guarantee that very reaction. While the accused is innocent until proven guilty (or pleading guilty), it is the job of the suspected molester's defense attorney to defend him. The first priority of everyone else should be the safety and well-being of a child who reports being abused. Certainly, at minimum, church members and officials should withhold comments which by implication convict the child.

Sometimes a congregation will not contest the fact that abuse occurred but will evade the issue by calling only for "forgiveness." Believers may insist upon "forgiveness" if one of their flock is accused of sexual crimes. After all, the Lord's Prayer says, "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." The Sermon on the Mount insists: "For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." (Matthew 6:14,15) "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven." (Luke 6:37) A child victim of abuse should not be expected to carry the onerous theological burden of "forgiving" an adult offender. Certainly nobody can forgive a molester on behalf of a victim. Religious forgiveness is irrelevant to the crime of sexual abuse. Sexual abuse is illegal, a crime not only against the victim but the state (that is why there are criminal statutes). The abuse must be halted, the victim attended to and protected from further abuse, and the offender prosecuted. If "forgiveness" is even material, it is only in the context defined here: "a matter of the victim's being able to say that she or he will no longer allow the experience to dominate her or his life--and will let go of it and move on." That definition is offered by Marie M. Fortune and Judith Hertze in their essay, "A Commentary on Religious Issues in Family Violence," Sexual Assault and Abuse: A Handbook for Clergy and Religious Professionals. "This is usually possible," they add, "if there is some sense of justice in the situation (through the legal system). . ." Professionals emphasize that, if victims are to become "survivors," they must heal at their own pace. Ardent believers may want to forgive and forget the problem because it reflects poorly on their church, but the last thing a victim of child abuse needs is more self-protective manipulation by adults.

Fortune and Hertze note that some contemporary religious ideas attempt to "teach that there are very simple answers to the very complex issues that people face," such as sexual abuse.

"Keep the commandments and everything will be fine."

"Keep praying."

"Just accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and you will be healthy, prosperous, popular, and happy."

"Go to services each week."

"Pray harder."

Such teachings, they argue, "set up a dynamic that blames the victims for their suffering."

Mary D. Pellauer, a religious activist who has worked to educate churches about violence, advises in the same handbook for clergy: "We believe firmly that ministers and religious leaders are not appropriate counselors for assailants, whether rapists, batterers, or child sexual abusers. The special skills and expertise required are simply beyond the reach of the ordinary parish pastor . . . . It is extremely easy to be drawn into colluding with the offender's world view and distorted processes. Offenders minimize their behavior so typically that it is essential for a counselor to have the court record of the victim's story (or some other record) available in order to maintain a grasp of reality. This alone requires the coordination of many kinds of information and resources not available to the pastor.

"Indeed, special risks and dangers exist for the parish pastor in dealing with offenders. Without the institutional connections for working as a team with other professionals, clergy may work at cross-purposes with them and so sidetrack the best therapy available. One measure of this difficulty, for instance, is the increasing concern of mental health practitioners whose clients have significant contact with churches. Such practitioners often find offenders appealing to pastors for confession and absolution as a substitute for rehabilitative therapy. This is extremely dangerous. Furthermore, if the victim is also a member of the religious community, the victim may view you as allying yourself with the offender."

Some believers possess a kind of "religious fatalism" which makes it easy to bear the suffering of others. "Suffer the little children. . ." (no matter how those words are interpreted) is no answer to abuse, particularly that perpetrated by clergypersons. Such a reaction invalidates the pain and betrayal of victims, and diminishes and trivializes criminal behavior. When a scandal involving clergy abuse is publicized, it is common for a bishop or church superior to call for "prayers" or "understanding." Child abuse, rape and sexual exploitation are not crimes which can be absolved by prayer or a request for forgiveness.

John Money, M.D., from Johns Hopkins University School of Psychiatry and Medicine, has noted that the Catholic Church has dealt with pedophilia "as a sin requiring repentance, forgiveness, and transferral of the offender to another parish. Elsewhere some offenders were referred to regional psychiatric centers run by the church for the priesthood. There the treatment was, in essence, moral treatment ... It did not succeed." Money reported that the church has made some changes. "In resorting to hormonal therapy for priestly sex offenders, the church has in fact admitted that its own time-honored moral procedures and penances for the control of human sexual behavior are insufficient. It is necessary to resort also to a medical procedure. By calling on medicine, the church has relinquished some of its own absolute authority. The thin edge of the wedge has been inserted." However, as late as 1987, Rev. William Parri, a priest and co-director of the Servants of the Paraclete rehabilitation center, told the Rocky Mountain News: "What we do here is forgive. That means sometimes making some very hard decisions because some things are very hard to forgive. But I think ultimately that forgiveness is what leads to healing." Notes Jason Berry, a reporter for the National Catholic Reporter, "First, bishops are coming out from a tradition of forgiveness. Secondly, they are used to priests being good men, so they're inclined to think they'll get better with a little help. It is a scandal that there is no national policy in dealing with this." Money advocates psychotherapy for priestly offenders augmented with antiandrogenic hormonal therapy. A far cry from "forgiveness."

Christianity teaches "original sin" and the doctrine of human depravity. This can provide an excuse to a religious offender who may blame "Satan" or "human nature" for his offenses, then feel redeemed when regularly seeking forgiveness: "Father, forgive me for I have sinned. . ."

Example: Rev. Edward Stefanich, an Illinois priest convicted of initiating a sexual relationship with a 14 year old female parochial school student, was deemed "a wonderful person" by one parish family man. "He's got our support 100 percent." A bishop declared: "It's not a time for gossip [but for] the need for forgiveness." (Source: Chicago Sun Times, 2/15,16/87)

Example: Rev. James Britton Myers, a Kenosha, Wisconsin minister, was convicted of the heinous crime of raping a little girl at his Christian school over a five-year period, starting when she was age five. Yet his Christian supporters from three states filled the courtroom, and one member of his congregation called the crime "one drop of ink in crystal clear water." (Source: Milwaukee Journal, 4/23/86)

Example: The grandmother of a minister who abducted an 18 year old woman for 24 days and raped and molested her, could only comment, "If you had seen him when . . . he preached, his face was just shining like an angel." This diabolical crime involved kidnapping Maria C. Smith from a shopping mail in Hattiesburg, Mississippi on July 9, beating her with belts and raping her, and imprisoning her bound-and-gagged in the trunk of a car for what a judge later termed a 24-day reign of "terrorism." On August 2, the assailant Rev. Karl Strahan and his father purported to discover the missing teenager, and were touted as heroes. Two days later police realized Strahan was the abductor. He had threatened Smith's life if she had not backed up his story. On February 6, 1987 he pleaded guilty to kidnapping and armed robbery in Forrest County, where he received a 25-year concurrent sentence. The same day in bordering Covington County where he had taken his victim, Strahan pleaded guilty to rape and sexual battery. He received a sentence of life imprisonment on the rape charges and 30 years on sexual battery to run consecutively. Strahan was a licensed Mississippi Baptist minister. (Sources: Jackson Mississippi Daily, 8/6/86; 8/8/86; Hattiesburg American, 2/6/87)

Example: Baptist minister James Luttrell, Bible Baptist Church, Bend, Oregon, was convicted of raping a six month old baby boy. The evidence was incontrovertible, yet another minister outspokenly defended him and paid for his legal help. (Source: Corvallis Gazette-Times, Oregon, 5/8/87)

Example: Wilson A. Mears, Jr., convicted of sexually assaulting his 14 year old stepdaughter, later became a Baptist pastor, and was granted a full pardon by the Florida cabinet. He sought the pardon for his 1977 crime in order to be allowed to serve as a chaplain for the state prison system. He had served 15 months in prison. "If I stood before my God and answer for my crimes, I can certainly stand before my governor and my Cabinet seeking their grace and mercy . . . I've tried to help men with the same crimes I had." He received an appointment as pastor of Pine Grove Baptist Church in Quincey. What does this favoritism say to rape and incest victims, and to imprisoned sex offenders? (Source: Florida Today, 3/8/87)

Example: Youth minister Richard Cole of Community Chapel and Bible Training Center in Burien, Washington, received prison time for molesting a 14 year old boy. A psychologist's report said Cole's religious beliefs allowed him to shirk responsibility for his own actions. (Source: Seattle Times, 7/29/87)

Celibacy and pedophilia

If you tell a man that he's not allowed to have particular friends, he's not allowed to be affectionate, he's not allowed to be in love, he's not allowed to be a sexual being, you shouldn't be surprised at anything that happens.
--Dr. Jay Feierman

Is celibacy a contributing factor?

"If you are a 17 year old male and are attracted to boys, the fact that celibacy is socially sanctioned for a priest may make the priesthood attractive," reports Phillip J. Resnick, a Cleveland psychiatrist who has worked with pedophiles.

Dr. Jay Feierman, a psychiatrist who works at a Catholic treatment center for abusive priests in New Mexico, has met with "hundreds" of priests attracted to adolescents. Feierman believes celibacy is not a "natural state for humans to be in," but that sexual desires can be redirected rather than misdirected.

"If you tell a man that he's not allowed to have particular friends, he's not allowed to be affectionate, he's not allowed to be in love, he's not allowed to be a sexual being' you shouldn't be surprised at anything that happens," says Feierman.

While celibacy is surely a factor in many cases of pedophilic priests, it is no reason and no excuse for it. Many adults for personal reasons or merely happenstance, are "celibate" for all or much of their lives, and live happily and lawfully. Pedophilia is a sickness, not a side effect of celibacy. Professionals uniformly believe pedophilic tendencies emerge by adolescence, thereby predating entry into the priesthood. That said, it is obvious that any factors which might discourage healthy adult relationships and a wholesome attitude toward sex may exacerbate pedophilia. Some people would argue that religious celibacy itself is deviant, because it is predicated on assumptions that regular sexual relations are evil, that women are impure or inferior, and that consensual homosexuality is immoral. Some men under a religiously enforced vow of celibacy who might otherwise acknowledge sexual needs and seek consensual adult partners may feel safer "seducing" little boys or girls. Although we don't know whether the celibate priesthood produces pedophiles, we do know that the celibate priesthood offers a haven to the pedophile, giving him a chance to join a prestigious profession in which he can hide his feelings from himself and others, yet retain close access to children and young teenagers.

What do the experts say? The Catholic Church, writes Dr. John Money of Johns Hopkins University, "becomes a magnet for youths who enter the priesthood having already recognized their sexual status as homophiles, in some instances as homophilic pedophiles attracted exclusively to younger boys. These future priests become seminarians partly in the belief that they will, through religion, gain control over the very sexual desires that they resist or fight against. Eventually, however, they find that theology, prayer, and penance do not have the answer. On the contrary, the sex-segregated order of the church offers a haven to . . . pedophiles, attracted to young boys. . ."

Without offering analysis, Lafayette, Louisiana District Attorney Nathan Stansbury, who learned a lot about pedophilia in prosecuting the notorious Father Gauthe case, said he believes pedophilia is overrepresented in the priesthood. "We'd be in really sad shape," he told the Houston Post (January 17, 1988), "if it was that much of a problem in the general population."

Richard 1. Lanyon, with the Department of Psychology at Arizona State University, writes: "The following factors would appear to be related to good prognosis [of recovery from pedophilia]: (a) manageability of life crises and financial needs; (b) good heterosocial and heterosexual skills and experiences, plus a cooperative and committed adult sexual partner, or the willingness and motivation to learn such skills and find such a partner; (c) motivation and willingness to persist in treatment and follow therapeutic instruction; (d) relative freedom from other disorders such as alcoholism or drug addiction, psychosis, or substantial neurosis or character-disorder; and (e) relative freedom from constrictive religious or moral beliefs about normal adult sexuality." Clearly priests bound to a celibate order automatically strike out on two of five requirements. If a pedophile's only or major sexual experiences involve children or adolescents, and if he is denied legal outlets with consenting adults it will be difficult to recondition his sexual urges and behavior, a goal of treatment involving behavior therapy. In fact, although Catholic rehabilitation centers differentiate between pedophilia and other problems warranting treatment, the priesthood nevertheless regards any sexual attraction to anyone as a problem, regardless of age, commitment or consent--a concern shared uniquely by religious groups demanding celibacy.

"It was once thought that a child molester was interested only in children and that if therapy could stimulate his sexual interest in an adult woman, such as his wife, his obsession with children would disappear. Now we know that, in most cases, the child molester has a normal sex life with his wife but still maintains his deviant sexual interest in children," notes Dr. Abel. It is common to assume that allowing Catholic priests to marry might diminish the problem of child abuse. While such a reform would be useful for other reasons, the answer is not a simplistic one of marrying off molesters! Think what message that sends to the prospective wives! Women are not sacrifices whose wifely duties include policing abusers. The answer is to rearrange the patriarchal equation that gives adult men most of the power while children and women have little or none.

Child sexual abuse, like other forms of abuse, is a crime of unequal power, not a crime of sexual deprivation. Fixated pedophiles clearly only act on sexual attraction with somebody who can't say no--a child. Rape of women is a parallel crime. Most rapists have access to consensual sex yet choose to rape as an act of dominance and violation. Sexual subordination distinguishes all forms of sexual abuse, and obviously is the element that attracts the pedophile to children. When children are empowered with the knowledge and self-confidence they need to say "No!" pedophilia--whether perpetrated by a single or married man--will diminish.

Homophobia and sexual abuse of boys

When a male minister is accused of molesting a young boy or male teenager, some people may react more to the stigma of "homosexuality" than to the abuse of a minor. They may therefore wish to deny that a minister could have committed what they see as a "homosexual act" by denying that the sexual abuse of a boy occurred, or by blaming the victim. For those in the religious community who are strongly intolerant of homosexual relationships involving consenting adults, facing the reality of man-to-boy criminal molestation may be such a taboo that no practical steps are taken to stop an offender or help a victim. Boys who are molested by men or older boys may face ostracism by many in the religious community should their complaint go public, even though they were the victims of a sexual assault or a sexually exploitative relationship.

It needs to be emphasized that pedophilia is a deviant sexual preference for children or teenagers. Most abusers who molest boys will not seek consensual relationships with adult men. It is not homosexuality--it is child abuse. Homosexuality is no more responsible for child sexual abuse than is heterosexuality, and, of course, the vast majority of sex crimes are perpetrated by avowed heterosexuals.

While most gay men are not pedophiles, some critics of the Catholic Church allege that rampant homosexuality in the priesthood is a hypocrisy that indirectly undermines church policy on sexual transgressions. Paul Hebert, the Lafayette, Louisiana attorney who sued the diocese in the Father Gauthe case [see Chapter 1], commented: "In the late '60s and early '70s, the church, in its desire to get new priests, accepted homosexuals--and they knew it. In time, a lot of these individuals took over administrative positions. The result is that if [a pedophile's superior] is not celibate, his willingness to exert discipline is lessened." In other words, a church official who fears exposure for consensual noncriminal behavior which breaks his vows of celibacy may be reluctant to combat criminal sexual behavior by underlings.

The NIMH study of 403 pedophiles led by Dr. Abel revealed that almost two-thirds of the victims of abuse involving touch were boys. The cultural sex stereotype that male children should be "tough" is probably responsible for the fact that many young boys are given even less help in avoiding sexual abuse than young girls, and therefore may be at equal or greater risk. It is believed that the taboo of discussing same-sex molestation means it is grossly underreported. Some experts in the field of child abuse report that when the stigma lessens, the cases of child victims reporting abuse will be made up of equal numbers of boys and girls.

"Unfortunately," write Abel and Harlow, "the societal belief that little boys should be able to protect themselves from child molesters prevails even after the boys identify themselves as victims. During legal questioning, Derek, for example, was asked by a lawyer, 'Well, if you didn't like it, why did you let it go on for so long?' And when Peter's mother, Sara, asked a trusted member of her church why no one spoke to her anymore and why their minister refused to counsel her or say any prayers for her son, the man said, 'Look, every man is approached by some homo. Peter should just have said No!'

"But the adults who made these comments don't understand that a molester makes it impossible for a boy to say no. Unfortunately, society tends to 'blame the victim' in sex crimes when the victim is a child, just as they do when the victim is a woman . . . Never blame the child. Studies reveal that in almost every incident of sexual assault, the victim--whether that victim is an adult woman, a little girl or a little boy--feels in some way responsible for his or her victimization. The child molester knows this and will use this knowledge against his young victims, reinforcing their fear that they are to blame by telling them things like, 'Well, you did come to my room,' or 'You did get an erection.' Children are never to blame for their abuse at the hands of adult men. They must be told that clearly and repeatedly."

Clergy may not report abuse

Confidentiality is not intended to protect abusers from being held accountable for their actions or to keep them from getting the help that they need. Shielding them from the consequences of their behavior likely will further endanger their victims. . .
--Marie Fortune

Clergy may collude with child sexual assailants by not reporting abuse. Clergymen may invoke immunity, the "confidentiality of the confessional," to avoid having to report child abuse. They may protest that the separation of church and state makes them "above the law." Mary D. Pellauer, Barbara Chester and Jane A. Boyajian, who edited Sexual Assault and Abuse: A Handbook for Clergy and Religious Professionals, note:

"In many states, clergy are included among those professionals who must make a mandatory report; in other states, clergy are exempt from mandatory reporting . . . However, even in jurisdictions with a general clergy exemption, it is not generally considered to apply outside of the confessional relationship between penitent and confessor. Thus, ordained persons who are social workers, teachers, or daycare directors, for instance are considered mandatory reporters even though they are ministers." Anyone can and should voluntarily report suspected abuse. Reporting is the only way to ensure protection of the child. Mandatory reporters must personally report suspected crimes. It is not enough simply to report the suspicion to a superior.

Marie Fortune, in "Confidentiality and Mandatory Reporting: A Clergy Dilemma," an article appearing in the handbook for clergy, writes:

"Confidentiality is intended as a means to assist individuals in getting help for a problem so as not to cause further harm to themselves or others. Confidentiality is not intended to protect abusers from being held accountable for their actions or to keep them from getting the help that they need. Shielding them from the consequences of their behavior likely will further endanger their victims. . .

"Neither is confidentiality intended to protect professionals rather than those whom we serve. It should not be used as a shield to protect incompetence or negligent colleagues or to protect us from our professional obligations."

Fortune, who says "quick forgiveness is likely to be cheap grace," lists some ramifications of criminal sexual abuse:

Batterers or incest offenders will reoffend unless they get specialized treatment.
Offenders against children minimize, lie, and deny their abusive behavior.
Offenders cannot follow through on their good intentions without help from the outside.
Treatment of offenders is most effective when it is ordered and monitored by the courts.
The secret of the child's abuse must be broken in order to get help to the victim and offender.
Clergypersons do not have all the skills and resources necessary to treat offenders or to assist victims.
Example: A lawsuit against a clergyman who failed to report sexual child abuse was dismissed by a Denver judge. A young girl who was being assaulted by her adoptive father went to Rev. Lou Montecalvo for counseling. He told her to "get on your knees and pray for forgiveness" for violating the sanctity of her parents' marriage. The father eventually was sent to prison. The girl's attorney called the minister's behavior "an outrageous, intentional infliction of emotional distress on the girl." (Source: Denver Post, 6/3/87)

Example: Church elder Edward Scott Hartley of Community Chapel and Bible Training Center in Burien, Washington, had been told that a 12 year old girl had been sexually molested by her stepfather since she was four, but did not report this information to the proper authorities. The stepfather was eventually sentenced to 10 years in prison, no thanks to Hartley. Hartley was found guilty of violating Washington state law requiring that suspected child abuse cases be reported. King County Superior Court Judge Faith Enyeart ordered him to enroll in a 16-hour program on how to deal with family violence and sexual assault, and to report to her what he learned. (Sources: Peninsula Daily News, 9/18/87; Seattle Post-Intelligencer 12/2/87)

Example: Rev. James Leech, an Episcopalian priest formerly at St. Paul's Church, Minneapolis, was charged with sexually molesting a 15 year old boy who came to him for religious instruction before confirmation in 1985. According to a complaint, he molested the boy at his house when his wife was away. Reports of other victims have surfaced, and a psychiatrist recommended treatment for a drinking problem. In February 1986 Episcopal church officials offered Leech a chance to sign a document saying that he would enter a program at the University of Minnesota for sexual evaluation and/or treatment, and that he would tell his wife everything. If he had signed it, they told Leech he would have been suspended rather than fired. Leech resigned and moved to Massachusetts with his wife. He was charged with criminal sexual conduct on a Minnesota warrant. The youth said that he had not reported the abuse earlier because he was "ashamed and embarrassed to talk about it." Although Minnesota law requires people who have professional relationships with suspected victims of child abuse to report it to authorities, a county attorney was apparently not pursuing the failure of Episcopal officials to report the case. (Source: Minneapolis Star Tribune, 1/9/88)

When the violence escalates

It wasn't worth living.
--Suicide note left by a 12 year old victim of a pedophilic priest

Tragic repercussions of pedophilic abuse include psychological damage, violent vengeance or suicide by victims, recycled pedophilia or even transmission of AIDS. While most child molesters rely on psychological manipulation rather than physical violence to abuse children, there is always a potential for violent force where furtive, criminal acts are taking place and where an offender has a great deal to lose with exposure. When a clergyman is involved in child molestation, he may, because of his position, feet trapped and unable to seek help even if he realizes he needs it. Child sexual abuse is indicative of deepseated psychosexual problems, and is often viewed by abusers as an uncontrollable compulsion. This, combined with guilt and denial, is like a tinderbox.

Example: Rev. Simon Douglas Jr., a minister at an East Spencer, North Carolina church, was charged with murdering a 13 year old girl. Her body was found gagged and bound with wires in a church parking lot. Douglas's record involved a sexual offense in Alabama in 1976. At that time, a babysitter wrote a testimonial that he was a "warm, gentle and courteous Christian-hearted young man who loves his wife and family." (Source: Charlotte Observer, 8/8/87)

Example: An American missionary and her daughter were stabbed to death near American Bible College in Yapeka, Liberia by Baptist seminary graduate Benjamin Moley Morris. He confessed, saying he killed the pair after the mother had caught him trying to molest the child. (Source: Sacramento Bee, 11/30/87)

Example: In 1979, a 12 year old Emerson, New Jersey boy took his own life after a summer spent at a Boy Scout camp in upstate New York where he was made a "virtual sexual slave" of a Franciscan brother, according to a lawsuit by his parents. "It wasn't worth living," he wrote in a note before taking a pill overdose. Attorney David Jaroslawicz of New York said church officials knew the boy and his brother were being molested, but refused to help. "This family turned to the church for help, and all the doors slammed shut." (Source: San Jose Mercury News, 12/30/87)

Example: In April 1987, a 27 year old, "Dennis C." of Orlando, Florida, after having suffered from molestation as a 16 year old at the hands of a priest at Bishop Moore High School in Orlando, hanged himself in his backyard. (Source: San Jose Mercury News, 12/30/87)

The cycle of abuse continues to harm:

Example: Gregory John Riedle, whose civil suit accuses Rev. Thomas Adamson of St. Paul of sexual abuse and the Catholic Church with a cover-up, was himself arraigned for sexually assaulting a two year old girl. (Source: Minneapolis Star Tribune, 11/28/87)

Just as child sexual abuse can be cyclic, it is also possible that victims may grow up to take vengeance for abuse:

Example: A man who was sexually abused as a boy by a church bookkeeper, Raymond Culver, beat Culver to death with a wooden religious statue on April 6, 1987. Donald Carlton, who was convicted of manslaughter, testified that he was "afraid of being raped again." (Source: Detroit Free Press, 8/14/87)

Religious doctrines promote child abuse

Blessed are the meek
--Matthew 5
Religious doctrines encourage power inequities leading to abuse. Christian doctrine emphasizes submission and teaches that exemplary Christians should follow like obedient sheep. The widely quoted verse Matthew 18:3 advises the believer to "become as little children." The classic Christian concept that human nature is innately "depraved" and sinful may be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Viewing women and children as inferior or as property which exists for the use of men promotes abuse. Since all sexual abuse hinges on the unfair use of power against someone "weaker" or of lower status, this makes women and children more vulnerable in cultures where religion promotes their subordination. Belief by men in a deity who is male and has ultimate authority encourages the authoritarian idea that men are more valued, and can do what they like with people who are less valued (women and children). Nineteenth-century feminist Elizabeth Cady Stanton noted in The Woman's Bible: "As long as our religion teaches woman's subjection and man's right of domination, we shall have chaos in the world of morals."

"It is not surprising that women and children are the most frequent victims of assault, when our religious and civil traditions have conspired over the centuries to institutionalize their powerlessness," writes Episcopalian priest Patricia Wilson-Kastner. "The victims of violence, overwhelmingly women and children, have been consistently exhorted in the Christian tradition to be meekly submissive, and obedient."

Here are just a few of the bible verses which promote a sexual double standard for men over women: sexist story of creation Genesis 2:22; men rule women Genesis 3:16; men can have plural wives Genesis 4:19; using women sexually Genesis 16:2; women marked as targets of sexual violence Genesis 19:1-8; rape Genesis 38:2; female servants may be kept and used sexually Exodus 21:2-6; polygyny Exodus 21:10; seduction Exodus 22:16-17; punishing rape victims Leviticus 19:20-22; burning "whores" Leviticus 21:9; women worth less than men Leviticus 27:3-7; women as war booty Deuteronomy 21:11-14; polygyny Deuteronomy 21:15; barbaric virginity test Deuteronomy 22:13-21; stoning rape victims Deuteronomy 22:23-24; women must marry rapist Deuteronomy 22:28; unfair divorce law Deuteronomy 24:1; "thine eye shall not pity her" Deuteronomy 25:11-12; sacrifice of daughter Judges 11:30-40; sexual murder Judges 19:22-29; virgins stolen Judges 21:11-12; God ordering rape 2 Samuel 12:11-12; Lord discovering secret parts Isaiah 3:16-17; women ravished Zechariah 14:2; Jesus tells polygyny parable Matthew 25; men rule over women 1 Corinthians 11:3,4-15; women keep in silence 1 Corinthians 14:34-35; wives, submit Ephesians 5:22-23; Colossians 3:18; women shamefaced 1 Timothy 2:9-15; women talk to husbands in fear 1 Peter 3:1-7.

Bible teachings that may foster child abuse include: The Sunday School story of Abraham almost slitting his own son's throat to show obedience; the story of Jephthah who does burn his own daughter as an offering of thanks to the biblical god; the story of Elisha in which 42 children are slaughtered by bears merely for teasing a bible patriarch; the Mosaic law that "stubborn children" can be killed with impunity (Deuteronomy 21:18-21); and Proverbs' promotion of severe physical punishment. The lynchpin is the lesson that religious authority must be appeased with the sacrifice of children, since after all, the biblical god sacrificed his own son.

Teachings that breed low self-esteem, such as that people are unworthy sinners, may play a role in the immature psychosexual profile of abusers, and may make a religion-influenced child vulnerable to abuse and bribery. Children in particular can be easily cowed by the awe-inspiring concept of a male deity who has a human male conduit (a minister, priest or church official).

The Bethesda Psych-Health Institute in Denver was formed in 1987 to focus on problems of people abusing children in the name of religion, targeting fundamentalist groups where an all-powerful figure tends to lead abuse and demand secrecy and retaliation. The institute believes fundamentalist groups are susceptible because of emphasis on supremacy of the father, submissiveness of the wife and children, and intolerance of other beliefs.

Accepting some religious authority without question as the final word, and affiliating with an authoritarian religion, are characteristic attributes of rapists, according to research by West Florida Professor Dallas Blanchard.

Robert Schuller of the Crystal Cathedral has a favorite saying: "When I am good, I'm good. When I'm bad, I'm human." How would a child molester interpret such a statement? ("It's not really my fault. It's my fallen human nature. I can't help it. Blame Satan, not me.") Molesters can turn to their bible, to Christian pop psychology and to standard Christian doctrine to find concepts about power relationships, authority and sexuality which may bolster their abusive behavior. It is surely not a coincidence that so many offenders are religious or hold a position of religious authority, and that so many victims are raised in devout homes.

Example: An Ann Landers column printed in October 1987 included this letter from a woman survivor of abuse committed "in the name of God."

"My mother and father were experts at it," she wrote. "They quoted the Bible while they flogged away at my brothers and me. I have scars on my shoulders and back, partial deafness and bumps on my head that will be there forever.

"When I was eight, my grandfather began molesting me sexually. He, too, used the bible to justify his actions. He said in King Solomon's time the king had access to any virgin in his kingdom and that King Solomon was the wisest and holiest of men. I realized what was going on when I was about 10. 1 told on him but nobody believed me. I was shunned by most members of my family. The religious people in town thought I was a crazy liar. (Daddy was a preacher.) It has taken years of self-examination to get right with myself and realize that I am a worthy person."

Example: Rebecca Hargrave testified before a grand jury about a devastated childhood and youth spent in sexual slavery to her father, who claimed to be Jesus Christ. Rebellion was met with physical punishment and biblical threats. "He told us he was Jesus Christ. We believed him." Ronald Hargrave, charged with criminal sexual penetration and sexual abuse, was found guilty of rape and incest charges involving two daughters, and was sentenced to two life sentences on January 14, 1988. (Source: El Paso Times, 3/30/87, 1/14/88)

Example: Sex abuse and mind control in the name of Jesus was uncovered at the Holy Way religious commune in Florida. "Brother Bill" Clarence E. Williams, its leader, was convicted of sexually abusing two girls during church ceremonies; inducing the sexual performance of children and other indecent assaults. Williams' commune was established on strict adherence to traditional sex roles and patriarchal rule. (Source: Palm Beach Post, 3/13/86; Tampa Tribune, 4/5/87)

Related religious abuse

Discipline and physical abuse

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.
--Psalms 137:9

The blueness of a wound cleanseth away evil; so do stripes the inward parts of the belly.
--Proverbs 20:30

Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying.
--Proverbs 19:18

Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.
--Proverbs 22:15

Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.
--Proverbs 23:13-14

For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.
--Hebrews 12:6-8

Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.
--Hebrews, 12:11

He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.
--Proverbs 13:24

The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame . . . Correct thy son, and he shall give ye rest.
--Proverbs 29:15,17

These bible verses, promoted from the pulpit, cause grievous harm. Often, religionists will deny the connection between the bible and the religious criminals who act out biblical instructions. Admittedly, most such religious criminals have taken their obedience to the words of the bible to an unusual extreme. But just because the abuses may not reflect well on the bible does not mean the religiously motivated criminal has strayed from it.

Tragedies are regularly reported involving parents or guardians who beat or kill their children because the bible and "God" or "Jesus" tells them to. Bible teachings can warp parents whose literal belief impels them to view normal childish behavior as "satanic." A particularly heartbreaking case involved four year old Angela Palmer of Auburn, Maine, burned to death in an oven in October 1984 because her mother Cynthia Palmer and mother's boyfriend John Lane decided she was "Lucifer." Religious fanatic Bartley James Dobben, of Muskegon, Michigan, incinerated his baby sons in a foundry ladle on Thanksgiving Day, 1987, following a biblical obsession. Below are a few of the cases involving ministers who have physically abused or murdered children.

Example: Rev. Philip Curcio, a Pentecostal minister from Allentown, Pennsylvania, was charged with killing his six week old baby. Curcio told authorities he was deeply involved in studying a bible passage when Benjamin, strapped in a carseat indoors, began crying. He admitted to pushing the carseat violently against the wall, although his statement did not account for the baby's 19 fractured ribs. The infant had multiple recent bruises. The minister's wife told officers her husband previously had dropped Benjamin deliberately, had picked him up by his wrists to carry him, and had hit the baby on the head with a spoon. She said that after the minister had pushed the baby's stomach to "get air out," she heard a cracking noise in his chest everytime he breathed. Curcio stated: "I wanted to be a good minister and give my all." (Source: Morning Call [Pennsylvania], 8/25/87)

Example: Fort Lauderdale evangelist Robert Lettman was sentenced to 15 years for causing the death of his two year old daughter Tanisha, after striking her with a belt. He admitted that he often "chastised" babies with a belt. After his arrest, a neighbor said she had seen him "every day, his bible in his hand, walking with his children." Speaking in his defense, the minister said he wanted to train the baby "as I was trained myself--according to the bible." (Source: Miami Herald, 1/15,24/87)

Example: The New Bethany Baptist Church Home for Boys in Walterboro, South Carolina was raided in connection with mistreatment of children. Sheriffs deputies reported that four young students cried with relief and hugged them when they were rescued. Forty-three boys were taken into emergency protective custody by the South Carolina Department of Social Services after two boys ran away from the school and reported being beaten, handcuffed to beds, and locked in a small, unlit cell. School administrator Olin King had run another boys' school in Longstreet, Louisiana which had been shut down in 1981 on charges of child abuse. All disciplinary practices were based on scripture. Boys were beaten with a plastic pipe called a "rod of correction." Police photographed bruises on the legs of eight New Bethany students. One officer described them as "black welts." A logbook reported beatings, which were administered for such infractions as laughing, failing to march properly and talking back. A three-tiered disciplinary structure involved boys "on bondage" in a "chain gang" who did field work linked together by a rope; "bonded servants" who did chores but were allowed more freedom, and "sojourners" who were excused from chores and allowed to ride horses. All boys were given school work based on biblical teachings. The day started with pushups, prayers and scripture recitals. Little or no contact was allowed with the outside world or parents. Administrators defended their actions by quoting Proverbs 22:15 and similar verses. (Source: New York Times, 6/3/84; Miami Herald, 6/4/84)

Example: Heiress Elizabeth Dovydenas testified that Rev. Carl Stevens told her to beat her children, then two and four years old, with wooden spoons. "Spank a long time to break their spirit. If they get bruised and blistered, you should not worry," they told her. (Sources: Philadelphia Inquirer, 3/31/87; Associated Press 4/2/87)

Example: The book "What the Bible Says About Child Training" by J. Richard Fugate (1980, Aletheia Publications), has been accused of fostering child abuse. It was endorsed by Tim LaHaye, Jerry Falwell and the Association of Christian Schools International. The state of California began investigating it after it was linked to cases of physical child abuse. A quote from the book: "[It] is difficult for parents in our generation to accept the need for the use of physical pain on our children."

Medical neglect and faith healing

Many churches and some major denominations forbid or actively discourage the use of medical care to treat children's diseases or accidents. Jehovah's Witnesses, for instance, forbid blood transfusions. The Christian Science church teaches that people are made well by believing they are well and were never sick in the first place. Some Pentecostal groups likewise teach their believers to avoid doctors, or throw away medication, particularly in conjunction with "faith-healing." Preventable deaths are regularly reported from childbirth complications, diabetes, pneumonia, and even accidents that would have been treatable.

The American Academy of Pediatrics announced in the January 1988 Pediatrics magazine that more children than is commonly thought die because their parents' religion discourages medical help. The academy found that 44 states have child-abuse exemptions limiting investigation and prosecution of religiously motivated medical neglect. Regulations issued by the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare in 1974 required states to write religious exemptions into their child-abuse laws, or risk losing federal funds. Although the requirement was dropped about 10 years later, the exemptions remain intact in most states. Religious groups such as the Christian Scientists and Jehovah's Witnesses argue that the principle of state/church separation protects them from prosecution. However, there have been recent convictions.

Another group working to stop the abuse, Children's Health Care Is A Legal Duty, Inc., was formed by Rita Swan, a former Christian Scientist who, due to antimedical church directives, lost a baby suffering from the most common form of meningitis.

"Why should any group have a religious right to cause 'substantial bodily harm' to a child? No court has ever ruled that the Constitution required religious exemptions from parental duties of care," stated Swan.

Belief in "faith-healing" can likewise result in tragic deaths of children. It can also be a very cruel belief when a devout child stricken with a terminal or crippling disease fails to get better through prayer. As investigator James Randi (The Faith Healers) and others have observed, so-called "faith-healers" rely on sleight of hand and crowd deception, almost always avoiding the persons, especially children, with visibly serious ailments. Children taken to faith-healers can be given a false sense of hope, or worse, be denied the medical attention that could save their lives or lessen their pain or handicap. The fundamentalist belief that "demons" can cause illness, a superstition which the biblical Jesus promoted (Matthew 17:13-18), means that children are sometimes blamed, neglected or abused for being sick or mentally or physically handicapped. In the cases documented below, "faith-healing" has killed or maimed children:

Example: Rev. Antoinette Mason, of Jacksonville, North Carolina, was sentenced in November 1985 to six years in prison for the strangulation death of a four year old boy during a "faith-healing" ceremony to rid the boy "of the devil."

Example: Five church people were implicated in the strangulation death of an eight year old girl during a faith-healing ceremony in Jeanrette, Louisiana, to "exorcize" her from Down's syndrome. (Source: Arizona Republic, 1/11/87)

Example: Andrea Cowan, sister-in-law of Rev. Kevin Cowan of the Rock Zion Baptist Church in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, was indicted in November 1987 for plucking out the eye of a 16 year old boy during a church exorcism ritual. Cowan told police she usually just prayed out "the demons," but in this case resorted to following Jesus's exhortation in the Sermon on the Mount ("And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee."--Matthew 18:9). The boy's parents attempted to nurse the wound at home. The boy was babbling when he entered a hospital several days later with his left eye dangling on his cheek. (Source: Baton Rouge State-Times, 11/3/87)

Of course, the harm extends to adults:

Example: Ella Peppard, 85, broke her hip at a faith-healing service led by evangelist Benny Hinn of Orlando, Florida, and died 15 days later of complications. Hinn knocked another parishioner into her during the service, which consisted of striking people on the forehead and claiming they were "slain in the spirit." Her family filed a $5 million lawsuit noting that the church failed to call an ambulance or even provide assistance, because it was "contrary" to the doctrine of faith healing. (Source: Washington Post, 8/29/87)


Criminal cases involving ministers charged with the rape of adult women, especially those who are vulnerable or handicapped, often parallel crimes of child sexual abuse.

Example: Rev. Raun Barretto of Hackensack, New Jersey, was convicted of sexually abusing a blind woman under his care while he worked as a recreation program specialist for Essex County. He was originally charged with raping three blind women. (Source: Newark St Ledger, 7/15/86)

Example: Rev. Don Shipman was sued by five women who claimed the Baptist director of the Women's Gospel Mission Shelter in Chattanooga raped or abused them. Loraine Shipmen, Lois M. Parr and three other women claimed the minister committed assault and battery while they were staying at the shelter for homeless women and children. (Source: Associated Press, 2/86)

Example: Rev. Gary M. Heidnik, who founded the United Church of the Ministries of God out of his tax-exempt Philadelphia home, was charged with kidnapping, rape and murder. Heidnik claimed to hold services for the handicapped and mentally ill, but appeared to prey on black, disadvantaged or retarded women for sex. Police found three partially-clothed women chained and manacled in his basement, two of whom had been imprisoned for as long as four months and were ill. Police found parts of the dismembered body of Sandra Lindsay, and evidence of cannibalism. He was also accused of electrocuting Debby Johnson and leaving her body in the woods. Heidnik was accused of raping women captives every day, torturing them and feeding them only dog food. A former wife told police Heidnik had imported her from the Philippines, then beat and sexually abused her. She petitioned the court for protection. The petition read: "Defendant is the bishop of the Church of the Minister of God. Defendant uses his position of authority to seduce women into having sex with him." He had amassed a fortune through investments over 10 years using his church to shelter finances from the IRS. (Sources: Washington Post, 3/26/87; Philadelphia Inquirer, 3/26,27/87; Courier News, 3/28/87)

Ministers have sexually abused their own children. Any strong belief in the primacy of the father as the patriarch of the family sets up the kind of authoritarian hierarchy which breeds incest abuse, in which a man believes his daughters (or sons) exist to serve him, meet his sexual and emotional needs, and whose own feelings and rights do not matter.

Example: Rev. Gilbert Hewlett was convicted of the rape, assault and sexual abuse of his 16 year old daughter. The mentally retarded girl had scars covering her face and body. (Source: Dothan Eagle, [Alabama], 6/28/86)

Sexual harassment/exploitation

The opportunities for sexual harassment or exploitation by ministers, priests and other pastoral counselors are rife, as documented in the chapter about ministers who molest children in counseling situations. The booklet "Sexual Contact by Pastors and Pastoral Counselors in Professional Relationships" by the Washington (State) Association of Churches notes:

"The problem of unethical sexual contact, a form of sexual abuse, by clergy and pastoral counselors is becoming increasingly evident. . .

"The problem is manifest generally in sexual contact between pastor and parishioner or pastoral counselor and client in violation of professional ethics. In a pastoral role, the pastor or counselor is in a position of power vis-‡-vis a parishioner or client who is seeking his/her counsel and support. At any time that a pastor or counselor uses the influence of that role and engages in sexual activity with a parishioner or client, it is an irresponsible and unethical act which takes advantage of the vulnerability of a parishioner or client who is in need . . . the church is poorly equipped to deal with a problem that is becoming increasingly evident."

When the female victims are still teenagers or young students, there is a fine line between such unprofessional and illegal exploitation, and outright child abuse. The priest paternity suits argued by Gloria Allred, a Los Angeles attorney, involve women who were gradually seduced or roped into sexual relationships with one or more priests when they were girls of 14, 15, 16, and 17 years of age, then abandoned when they became pregnant.

Example: Bishop Anthinos Draconakis of the Greek Orthodox Church was accused of sexually exploiting the teenaged daughter of a colleague during a three-year relationship marked by hypocrisy and violence. Ten years later Despi Gallas, suffering from anorexia related to the abuse, exposed his crime. She said she originally was in awe of Draconakis, who transferred her father George Gallas to Boston so that Despi could be near him when he became Bishop of Boston. The Greek Orthodox church requires celibacy unless a priest has married before entering the church. Only celibates can become bishops. She left the relationship after Draconakis sought to prostitute her in a mŽnage ˆ trois with an archbishop, and later threatened her with a gun. The Greek Orthodox Church did not punish Draconakis but instead demoted Despi's father. Draconakis, however, was transferred to a position created uniquely for him, "Bishop of Denver." Said George Gallas, Despi's father: ". . . the hypocrisy and double standard of the church just sicken me. They provided him with sanctuary and a graceful exit so he could go somewhere else and do the same thing all over again. We were the victims." (Source: People Magazine, 9/28/87, Rocky Mountain News, Denver Post, 1987)

Example: Peggy Cameron, of Wichita, Kansas, whose third child was fathered by a priest with whom she had had a long-term relationship, has waged a legal fight since 1982 with the priest and the Roman Catholic church to win child support payments. Cameron accuses Father Paul Ziegler of fathering Evonne, born with birth defects. "All the normal remedies are closed off to this woman because the church can hide him, the church can transfer him around, the church cannot turn over part of his salary toward support as it should. This child does not have the same resources that a child whose father was not a priest would have," according to Linda Sorrell, a child enforcement supervisor from Wichita. (Source: Wichita Eagle-Beacon 7/26/87)

Example: The problem of clandestine relationships between priests and women is so common that a support group, "Good Tidings," boasts 1,000 members around the world. The group was formed by Maggie Olson of Des Moines, Iowa, after a friend involved with a priest committed suicide. Olson said the typical pattern is that a priest promises to marry the woman if their relationship is discovered or if she becomes pregnant, then disappears. "There are women who are becoming pregnant, women who are being cornered, women who are being hurt, women who are being physically, emotionally and mentally abused by priests, and the church is protecting the priests," according to executive director Catherine Grenier, headquartered in Canadensis, Pennsylvania. (Source: Wichita Eagle-Beacon, 7/26/87)

Example: Episcopal priest Rev. Robert Mason, of Morristown, New Jersey, was sued by a woman from Mt. Olive who claimed the priest convinced her to engage in sexual relations as part of a psychotherapy program. The woman went to him for marriage counseling, then psychotherapy. "He treated and counseled her for more than a year, during which time he convinced her vulnerable mind that sexual relations were appropriate," said her attorney Herbert Korn. Mason was a licensed psychotherapist. (Source: Newark Star-Ledger, 5/3/83)

Example: Rev. Ronald Wallen, pastor of the First Congregational Church in Redwood City, California, resigned from his post in August 1984 amid charges that he had had sex with half a dozen women in the congregation who sought spiritual guidance. The San Mateo County district attorney's office declined to prosecute him. (Source: San Francisco Examiner, 8/30/84)

Example: Psychiatrist Paul L. Warner, who worked at the Christian Mental Health Center in St. Louis Park, Minnesota, was disciplined by the state Board of Medical Examiners for sexually exploiting two patients. Between 1972 and 1977 he had sexual intercourse with two female patients, including one whom he had hired in order to maintain a long-term affair (ˆ la Elmer Gantry). He had been active in evangelical Christianity for 30 years, and taught Sunday school. (Source: Minneapolis Tribune, 2/5/86)

Rev. Charles L. Rassieur's irresponsible book, The Problem Clergymen Don't Talk About, epitomizes the kind of mindset that encourages exploitation of women by pastoral counselors. Rassieur, a minister, presents the problem in a titillating manner, viewing women counselees as sexual objects, some of whom who are inevitably going to inflame lust in ministers. Rassieur goes so far as to advise ministers generally to confide their "sexual attraction" to women counselees! (He also encourages ministers to confess such passing attractions to their wives.) His idea of discussing a topic which involves a breach of professional ethics is to present a list of physiological signs of arousal! Although his book counsels against initiating a sexual relationship in such circumstances, it buttresses sexist assumptions that men are victims of their hormones and that it is normal and natural for male counselors to view clients as sex objects. It is truly a masterpiece in double messages, showing no understanding of the misuse of power and trust involved, an abuse commonly compared with the crime of incest in its effect on a client. Pastoral counselors who harbor illusions similar to those promoted by Rassieur's book are the ones who need the counseling!

Wife abuse/murders by ministers

The sanction against divorce affecting many ministers appears to lead to murders as an alternate way to end marriage. It can also be the outcome of habitual wife-beating, which is often bolstered by religious doctrine. The religious battered woman syndrome frequently prevents religious women from leaving life-threatening marriages, because of biblical injunctions mandating the submission of wives to their husbands. Pastors' wives may also feel unable to seek counseling which might prove damaging to their husbands' careers. Women may also receive pastoral counseling pressuring them to stay in battering relationships.

Example: Rev. Donald Lewis Clark, pastor of a church in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, committed suicide after being confronted with evidence that he had killed his two wives to collect on their insurance policies. His first wife Phyllis died in October 1981. His second wife Ronaele died in April 1983. (Source: Milwaukee Journal, 6/4/83)

Example: Rev. Robert Tisland, a Baptist minister, died at the hand of his wife Lucile, a battered woman who was regularly beaten, kicked, choked, and abused, submitting to it out of religious conviction. Lucile needed permission to leave the house or drive the car and was never allowed to carry more than 25 cents. During her trial Lucile testified that she had memorized, at her husband's behest, five guiding principles: a woman must obey her husband, view her husband as if he were God and his words as if they were spoken by God, ignore her own feelings and thoughts, view marital problems as a sign that she was not submissive enough, and suffer, as Christ did, in order to help win her husband's salvation. Me? Obey Him?, a book the minister told his wife to follow, instructs "not just to obey a kind and loving husband, but a harsh and mean husband as well." Another book, Woman the Completer tells wives, "Every man's right is to have a completer. That's why God made you." (Source: Minneapolis Star and Tribune, 3/8/84)

Example: Rev. Edward Fairley, a Baptist minister affiliated with the Calvary Baptist Church in Garfield, New Jersey, was convicted of abducting his wife at gunpoint from her workplace on one occasion, and of stabbing her repeatedly with a kitchen knife in October 1983. She spent three days in critical condition and underwent surgery for a punctured lung. Judge Frank Donato, Superior Court, Paterson, gave Fairley five years behind bars, rejecting a stiffer sentence because of Fairley's service as a minister and his lack of a previous criminal record. Fairley acted as his own attorney, lacing his defense with biblical references and claiming temporary insanity. (Source: Newark Star-Ledger, 8/1/84)

Example: Rev. Loduca, a Lutheran pastor from Monahans, Texas, confessed to murdering his wife Mary, although the strangulation was arranged to look like a suicide. Detective work uncovered that the murder victim was a classic battered woman who had reached out in vain to at least three other ministers. Loduca confessed that he murdered his wife to retain his ministerial status. Divorced ministers are usually not tolerated in the Lutheran Church. (Source: St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 7/3/86; 8/86)

Example: Rev. James Allen Lewis, pastor of New Life Church, Burbank, received a one-year suspended sentence and three years' probation for beating his wife. The particular beating was so severe that the court ordered that he pay her medical expenses. A prosecutor noted that Lewis was "held in high esteem in his church and community." (Source: Los Angeles Times, 1987)

Example: Southern Baptist Rev. Grady Young of Port Angeles, Oregon was convicted of the shooting death of his wife Elva Mae, although he had arranged the murder to look like a break-in robbery. The murder weapon was found hidden in his home. Prosecutors said Young ambushed his wife of 38 years because he had grown tired of her and couldn't risk damaging his church position by divorce. (Source: Spokane Spokesman Review, 4/2/87)

Example: Rev. Calvin Haywood, minister of music at Mission Baptist Church, was charged with fatally stabbing his young wife, Terri Lynn, 18 times in the couple's bedroom one week after she gave birth to a son. The minister first claimed someone else did it, then said he was the victim of a satanic force. (Source: Brownwood Bulletin [Texas], 6/4/87)

Example: Rev. Larry McKinney of Batesville, Mississippi shot his wife to death, wounded his stepdaughter, then shot himself. He was pastor of Nelson Chapel Baptist Church in Pope. (Source: Jackson Clarion Ledger [Mississippi], 8/26/87)

"But he's a respected member of the community. . ."

[The Catholic Church appears to be] an organization preaching morality and providing sanctuary to perverts.
--1985 Inside Report
Who monitors the clergy? To whom are they accountable? Clerical privilege continually has been abused, and that abuse finds its most vulnerable victims in children. The sad fact is that not only have clergy been proven incapable of policing themselves, but when crimes have come to the attention of church officials, they have reacted self-protectively, often to stifle information, instead of taking action in the best interest of children.

Almost all literature on sexual abuse of children identifies the ministry as one of the careers which provides a cover for pedophiles while giving them access to children. But churches have been almost uniformly silent on the issue. Only with a rash of civil suits charging church cover-up, negligence and liability has there been any open discussion in the U.S. Catholic Church. Following publicity about suits costing the Catholic Church $12 million in settlements and damages to the victims of one priest, Father Gilbert Gauthe of Louisiana, Rev. Thomas Doyle, a high-ranking Catholic official in Washington, D.C., was quoted in the New York Times calling pedophilia "the most serious problem the church has faced in centuries."

However, Catholic response has been a case of too little, too late. In 1985, a confidential report for American Catholic bishops was prepared by Rev. Doyle, New Orleans lawyer F. Ray Mouton and the late Rev. Michael Peterson. (Peterson, a psychiatrist and president of St. Luke Institute, which treats priests dealing with emotional problems, alcoholism, homosexuality and child abuse, died of AIDS in April, 1987.) Information in the report was considered so damaging that church officials who received it were instructed to return the report without copying the contents. Undoubtedly its authors feared the report could incriminate standard church practice of transferring a molesting priest to another parish with no sanctions or action to block further abuse.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer obtained a copy of the secret report, and published excerpts in November, 1987. The report warned that the church appeared to be "an organization preaching morality and providing sanctuary to perverts." It advised: "The church must remain open and avoid the appearance of being under siege or drawn into battle. All tired and worn policies utilized by bureaucracies must be avoided and clichŽs such as 'no comment' must be cast away. In this sophisticated society a media policy of silence implies either necessary secrecy or cover-up." It advocated such basic and obvious responses as immediately removing molesting priests from parishes, giving them psychiatric evaluation and treatment, and not allowing contact with children. It warned that bishops and other church officials can no longer rely on sympathetic prosecutors and police to skirt the law, without risking prosecution for criminal conspiracy, and that such bishops might be found criminally negligent. It advised bishops to report all cases to authorities, on pain of more costly lawsuit settlements and criminal neglect charges. "Our dependence in the past on Roman Catholic judges and attorneys is GONE."

The secret report was motivated by a fear that the church could face payments in excess of $1 billion by 1995 from lawsuits against priests who molest children and dioceses which let them. Already at least $25 million has been paid in such cases by the Catholic Church. "This will bankrupt the church in some dioceses," suggested Doyle. The report correctly predicted that the church's liability insurance would be rewritten to exclude coverage for damages claimed in cases of child molestation.

The report advocated a crisis management team to officially implement the recommendations. Not only was the report largely ignored at the 1985 National Conference of Catholic Bishops, but it was not put on the agenda for a vote. When it was resubmitted in 1986, it was again ignored. The bishops never adopted any of the common-sense and law-abiding recommendations. Pressed by the media, officials have said the protocol is left to individual dioceses.

Archbishop John L. May of St. Louis, president of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, gave this indifferent answer to a query from the San Jose Mercury News: "Because we have 185 dioceses of different sizes in different states where laws differ, we've decided to leave it to the local judgment of each diocese to handle the cases themselves." Interestingly, this is an inadvertent admission that the church faces the problem everywhere. It also reveals the church's true concern--avoiding action unless its hand is forced by prosecution of a priest or it faces an immediate threat of civil litigation. Sexual abuse, however it is classified in the several states, is nevertheless illegal in them all. Does Archbishop May believe otherwise? Or does his statement reveal the church's primary interest in evading the laws on reporting child abuse, which do indeed differ from state to state?

"Thus," said attorney Mouton, co-author of the report, "this church, which loudly proclaims uniform positions on significant sexual issues relating to the creation of children, did not deem this issue--the sexual abuse of children by its own priests--to be worthy of consideration."

"Virtually every diocese in the country lost its liability coverage for any type of sexual misconduct by priests, teachers, religious lay people," according to Bruce Egnew, president of Ordinary Mutual, an insurance company newly formed in 1987 by 12 western dioceses and archdioceses. Ten dioceses from California and one each from Arizona and New Mexico formed their own liability insurance company because of the loss of coverage. "Having seen the writing on the wall that these things are very, very expensive was one of the reasons we formed our own insurance company," Egnew told the San Jose Mercury News. At least these united dioceses were reported to be working on guidelines to be sent to all priests in parishes, schools, hospitals and any church-owned facilities. (Obviously any guidelines should also be made available to the relevant nuns, Catholic laity and other officials who work with priests.)

"I've been a priest for 25 years, and I think it was a case of 'hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil,' " Father Miles Riley, an official in the San Francisco Archdiocese, said in a 1987 interview with the Mercury News.

There are 185 Catholic dioceses and archdioceses in the United States, with about 53,000 priests. National Catholic Reporter staffer Jason Berry said his research through 1987 showed 130 cases of pedophilia among priests and brothers which were reported to the Vatican Embassy in Washington, D.C. from 1983. Almost all the cases involved boy victims. Ninety-five cases reached civil or criminal court, but in only 18 of those cases was a priest sentenced to any jailtime. "There are a vast number of cases which have not been reported. It is a huge problem for the Catholic Church," Berry concluded, during an interview with the Houston Post. Doyle claims knowledge of about 200 Catholic priests who have molested children in the years 1983-1987. Doyle admitted that as many as 3,000 priests could be pedophiles. That works out to 1 out of 18 priests (or an average of 16 per diocese)--and that is conservative! In 1984, Dr. Jay Feierman, a psychiatric consultant at the Servants of the Paraclete Hospital in the Jemez Mountains of New Mexico, the largest church-owned facility for treating pedophilic priests, testified in a criminal case that the facility had treated 300 priests in the past eight years for "various sexual problems." It began treatment for pedophilia in 1976.

F. Ray Mouton told the media in 1987: "I have consulted with dioceses and Catholic religious orders from every part of the country, and it is my impression that there is not one single solitary bishop or vicar in this country who has not dealt with the problem of a pedophilic priest under his supervision. Conservatively, I would estimate that in the last several years, hundreds of priests and other clerics have been discovered as pedophiles, leaving a trail of thousands of Catholic child victims." How many thousands? If the average pedophilic priest molests 50 children, probably a conservative estimate, this means that even if the problem were confined at present to 200 to 300 priests, their victims would already total 10,000 to 15,000. That is an almost unimaginable trail of devastation. But, if Doyle is correct and there are actually at least 3,000 pedophilic priests, then the number of victims is ten to 15 times greater.

The Plain Dealer, in an editorial following its own 1987 exposŽ of cover-up of molesting priests in Cleveland, expounded: "The church must give families the assurance that the incident won't happen again. It also must realize that the separation of church and state cannot extend to the church's practice of protecting its own from the possible consequences of the law," and criticized the diocese for playing "musical chairs with suspected child molesters."

Syndicated columnist Mike McManus called "This general neglect . . . stupid, fiscally perilous and immoral."

The U.S. Catholic Church might argue that it is taking care of its own problem by setting up various in-house Catholic rehabilitation centers around the country, which go by such euphemisms as "House of Affirmation." There are five "House of Affirmation" centers treating about 200 priests, brothers and sisters a year; the Servants of the Paraclete in Jemez Springs, New Mexico treating 200 to 250 people a year (claiming a third of them being treated for "psychosexual problems involving attractions to women, men or children"); alcohol treatment centers in St. Louis, Albuquerque, California and England; and St. Luke Institute, a licensed psychiatric hospital in Suitland, Maryland, annually treating 60 to 80 priests, brothers and sisters for alcohol, drug and emotional problems.

In some of the criminal cases documented here, the church has successfully persuaded judges to commute a prison sentence in favor of sending a priest to a church center. There is some indication that church-run centers now may be providing up-to-date therapy for pedophilia, which should be a top priority in any sentencing. But the issue is more complicated than that. The Catholic Church has not only promoted their own centers as alternatives to jailings, but has used them to, at times, sweep the scandal under the carpet, and evade detection, prosecution and criminal reporting laws. In many cases only when a family threatens public exposure or a civil lawsuit--when the abuse can no longer be hidden and could damage the reputation of the church--will Catholic officials finally remove a pedophilic priest from a parish and force him to undergo professional therapy. Such action is as tough as the Catholic Church gets. (In cases of expulsion a pedophilic priest is under even less supervision.) Pedophilic priests will "disappear." Families whose children have been victimized can only hope that these priests will not reappear several years later in another parish, free of any criminal record, their abusive past cloaked in anonymity. Catholic policy has been to ignore the secular laws against child sexual abuse and reporting. Instead, it has acted as if above the law, dealing with the crimes as a scandal to keep under wraps.

Furthermore, we only know what the Catholic Church tells us about these centers. In a July 5, 1987 Rocky Mountain News article about the Servants of the Paraclete, officials claimed good success, with pedophilic priests spending 18 months in a program, some treated with Depo-Provera (which requires habitual maintenance to be effective). According to Dr. Feierman, only two or three priests have acted "inappropriately" following treatment. "Every time that happens, it makes us tighten our reins." However, we have to take their word for it. Director Rev. William Perri told the Rocky Mountain News that about 20 men whose problems (including pedophilia) have not responded to therapy may be kept at a center in Albuquerque indefinitely.

Imagine if some other private institution whose employees worked with children discovered a significant number of them were active, promiscuous pedophiles, some of whom even told their victims that the sexual abuse was part of a formal educational program. Imagine if this institution did not report abuse that came to its attention. When the victims of these employees publicly complained, they would be told it was their fault, or that they should keep the problem within the confines of the organization. Anything else was disloyal. What if some of the employees, accused of exploiting teenaged girls, would even disappear in the face of paternity suits? Suppose that this institution's most common response was to transfer the abusive employee to a new district or city, where he would be free to abuse other children. In this scenario, the institution would shuttle a few of its worst abusers to secret treatment programs. When victims and their families took civil legal action, the company would then claim as a defense that its employees were merely "independent contractors." If this organization argued that it was "taking care of its own problem," we would be more likely to accuse it of criminal conspiracy!

The scandal of church cover-up and liability is not strictly a Catholic problem. Dr. Michael Cox, director of a sexual offenders program at Baylor College of Medicine, told the Houston Post (January 17, 1988) that he treats more clergymen than people in many other professions, but he doesn't see priests any more often than ministers from other denominations. "Persons are drawn to certain professions where they're in contact with children--Boy Scouts leaders, coaches, camp counselors, ministers. It's not done on a conscious level." Cox noted there are reliable psychological tests churches could employ to weed out potential sex offenders. Sexual abuse by clergy in all denominations has reached such proportions of financial liability that the Church Mutual Insurance Company was prompted in 1986 to distribute a pamphlet: "Safety Tips on a Sensitive Subject: Child Sexual Abuse." Sexual abuse by church officials "happens at churches of all denominations and at church-operated camps, schools and day care centers . . . And it can happen at your church." The company cited two objectives for releasing its brochure (note that both objectives mention protecting the churches' interests but neither is exclusively dedicated to the child's interests):

"1. Help you prevent sexual abuse from occurring at your church operation, thereby protecting your childrenand shelter you from the serious financial and emotional disruption of legal proceedings.

"2. Minimize the severity of injury to children--and the legal ramifications you may face, when abuse does occur."

Notes Dieter H. Nickel, the president of Church Mutual Insurance Company, "The problem of sexual abuse of children, and the growing wave of lawsuits alleging sexual abuse, is a real one. It is being felt by churches and church-related institutions of all denominations."

The brochure reiterates: "The problem of sexual abuse of children is not someone else's problem. It doesn't just happen in the home, or in some other town, or in public day care centers. It happens at churches of all denominations and at church-operated camps, schools and day care centers. It happens to Church Mutual policyholders.

"And it can happen at your church.

"It is not only the offender who is faced with legal proceedings. More and more churches and their organizations are being sued. Lawsuits, usually filed by the child's parents, have alleged, among other things, that churches were negligent for hiring the offender, in supervising the children, and in failing to take proper steps when cases were reported or suspected.

"Church Mutual's claims files are growing rapidly."

The insurance company lays out seemingly obvious guidelines, such as selective hiring with conscientious screening and contact of references for volunteer and paid employees, especially for any jobs involving children. Inquiries should be made on pending criminal charges, where such questions are legal. The fact that churches have to be told by attorneys and insurance companies to undertake such basic safeguards as contacting all references and investigating gaps in resumŽs is a strong indictment in itself. Even insiders will admit that many churches are notoriously lax in screening applicants, a sloppy habit which is taking its toll on vulnerable members of the congregation. The additional fact that the insurance company is advising that churches check arrest and conviction records and that they fingerprint all church applicants is an admission of the alarming extent of hidden abuse in the church.

Church Mutual's guidelines on supervision include sexual abuse awareness programs, requirements that activities be held not in private offices but in open areas (rooms with windows, open doors when possible, and certainly never locked), that more than one adult accompany children on field trips and related activities, that there is periodic inspection of sites for possible abuse (they even specified searching restrooms and closets), and that a written standard of conduct be adopted (including details on guidelines for transportation of children). Church workers should know, advises this insurance company, that all allegations will be investigated. "Encourage employees and volunteers to limit their physical contact with children," and investigate adults who "spend considerable 'off duty' time with the same child or children."

While some spokespersons and agencies deserve credit for speaking out against clerical abuse, it is a travesty that they have voiced their objections only after their churches are threatened financially. The credit for exposing this hidden abuse rests squarely, as this book documents, with the victims and their families who are forcing accountability in the many churches which have failed miserably at policing their own.

"By their fruits ye shall know them

A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down. . .
--Matthew 7:18-19

This book has documented many horror stories of misused power and betrayed trust. The case of Father Baltazar, protected by the Catholic Church even after sexually abusing a boy helplessly attached to a dialysis machine, and another in double leg traction, epitomizes the ruthlessness of child molesters, the heartlessness of the hierarchy, and the vulnerability of their victims. All child victims, while not usually literally immobile, are similarly at the mercy of the adults in charge of their lives. The egomaniacal and rapacious drives of a molester who blots out all sense of right and wrong, brutally disregarding the pain he is causing children, have often found a parallel in churches bent on protecting themselves at the expense of thousands of victims. That disregard is a malignancy in the church.

Surely the bankrupt notion that religion and its adherents are "above the law" is largely responsible for this state of affairs. In the Catholic Church, perhaps as an arrogant legacy of its centuries-long state/church rule, loyal parents reporting abuse and seeking justice have been accused of "Catholic-bashing." In many denominations families whose trust in a church official has been betrayed have experienced that Alice-in-Wonderland feeling of being called the "traitors." The separation of state and church, a safeguard for freedom of conscience in the United States, was never meant to make religion and its leaders immune from prosecution when they break the law. State/church separation should not mean lack of accountability, allowing "hot" priests or ministers to seemingly disappear. The First Amendment was never intended to countenance an underground network of pedophilia or any other kind of criminal abuse. The insular atmosphere in some churches has provided a virtual license to "Go and sin some more," when malfeasant priests or ministers have simply been transferred or expelled, with no concern for the victims or for the laws of the state. Many churches have exploited state/church separation as a privilege, demanding a preferred status, and the license to raise funds, hire employees and do "business," yet accounting to no one for their deeds. Perhaps it is a form of justice that such churches are now paying for the fruits of their former immunity in civil damages reaching into the millions. They will also pay in loss of reputation and esteem as distrust takes the place of misplaced trust.

The major objective of this book is to document, expose and prevent further child sexual abuse at the hands of clergy. But there is another objective beyond "blowing the whistle." That objective is to raise questions about our society's attitudes toward religion and its (male) gatekeepers. The bible, after all, says, "by their fruits ye shall know them" (Matt. 7:20). The general consensus that if it is religious, it must be good is irresponsible when it winks at religious crime or exploitation. When we worship a patriarchal, male, "Vengeance-is-mine,-saith-the-Lord" deity, when we submit to male conduits of that deity, and when we praise an authoritarian system of controls and a hypocritical morality, obviously we are asking for trouble. If we create and honor a system based on domination and inequality, is this not inevitably going to produce corruption and misuse of power?

If religion or any institution depends on the sexual exploitation or subordination of children or women, then it is better that such institutions should cease to exist. If it is a question of the survival of the institution of the church versus the survival and safety of children, then our allegiance clearly must be with children.

The religious scandal of clergy abusing children should rightfully close some church doors. As a Catholic official has predicted, it will certainly bankrupt some dioceses when victims win civil lawsuits charging negligence and cover-up. The financial threat hangs over every denomination. People should withdraw support from any religious institution which has harbored molesters or neglected or mistreated victims. Churches must be made accountable by their congregations.

In the 1970s and the 1980s we have seen so many crimes of exploitation and violence exposed: physical violence against children and the elderly, rape, battery of women, incest and child sexual abuse by trusted offenders. All of these crimes are cyclic, and have gone on for thousands of years in patriarchal societies where there is a power imbalance between the sexes, and between adults and children. They have thrived in an atmosphere of taboo, of secrecy. Sexual abuse of children and teenagers by clergy, or sexual abuse in the name of religion, is one of the last such taboos. Clergy abusers have betrayed not only children, but have exploited the loyalty of the religious faithful to keep the silence.

This book is intended as a public service. Abuse of clergy privilege is widespread, pernicious--and preventable. Awareness, and a change in the way we teach children to respond to adult authority and religious authority, can avoid a replay of many of the tragic cases described here. This area of child sexual abuse can be ignored only at the peril of children.

Freethought Today will continue chronicling, documenting and exposing these crimes. News clippings, personal letters and accounts documenting such abuse may be sent to: Black Collar Crimes, Freethought Today, P.O. Box 750, Madison WI 53701, .



Many excellent books and resources are available for parents and children on "protective behaviors" and "antivictim training" for children. They suggest techniques emphasizing simple, nonthreatening and practical concepts which children readily understand. Children do not need to be frightened in order to be safe, nor do they need to be terrified with a graphic litany of ways in which they could be abused, and by whom. Proper antivictim training needs to be undertaken in a serious, matter-of-fact way, but should enhance a child's confidence and security, not weaken it.

Peg Flandreau West, director of Protective Behaviors, Inc., suggests a positive four-step antivictim training process she calls "Safe, Adventurous and Loving:"

Step one. "Talk to your child." Your child should know, "You have a right to feel safe all the time. Nothing is so awful you can't share it with someone you trust."

Step two. "Identify body signals: How does your body feel when you're not safe?" Tell children, "You can trust in your feelings when danger is near."

Step three. Talk to your child about "networking"--who would they talk with besides you if they don't feel safe?

Step four. "Persistence." Children should tell an adult that they don't feel safe. If that adult doesn't believe them, or doesn't stop whatever is happening that makes them feel unsafe, they should keep telling adults until someone does believe them, and does stop the abuse or frightening behavior.

"Children who have been taught to think for themselves are the safest children of all," notes Sherryll Kerns Kraizer, author of The Safe Child Book. She advises that children be taught very early that:

Your body belongs to you.
You have a right to say who touches you and how.
If someone touches you in a way you don't like, in a way that makes you feel funny or uncomfortable inside, or in a way that you think is wrong, it's okay to say no.
If the person doesn't stop, you say, "I'm going to tell" and then you tell, no matter what.
If you're asked to keep a secret, you say, "No, I'm going to tell."
If you have a problem, keep talking about it until someone helps you.
The "safest child of all," Kraizer believes, is taught:

Children can and must be responsible for their own well-being at all times.
Children can and should speak up for themselves.
Children are capable of making judgments.
Children should have a positive sense of their own power, know where to get help and know they will be believed.
She unilaterally advises that no "secrets" be allowed, even at home (birthday surprises are fine, of course). Parents, she writes, may inadvertently send dangerous double messages that demonstrate that adult feelings and pleasing adults are more important than children's feelings--such as when children are forced to endure disliked kisses, bear hugs or other adult attentions.

Kraizer advises parents to play "What If?" games with children to give them the confidence to judge puzzling or new situations for themselves. Parents should follow up on a child's unusual questions about adult acquaintances. Such questions probably reveal nothing significant, but communication fosters openness about anything potentially troubling to a child. Parents should ask questions if an adult is paying a lot of attention to a child.

Children need to know they are never responsible for adults who ask for their help (adults should ask other adults, not kids), that they cannot tell by appearance who is "good" and who is "bad," and that, if necessary for safety, they have permission to be rude, impolite, scream, break promises, lie to or disobey any adult or older child who is acting inappropriately or asking them to act inappropriately. Children should not be told of specific people or professions they can "always" trust--such well-meant advice has caused anguish for children told they can always count on someone who turns out to be a molester.

They should be told clearly that no one except the child should touch the intimate parts of their body (educators of young children sometimes specify "the parts a child's underwear or swimsuit covers" especially if that person is an adult or older child who wants to keep it a secret. (Of course pediatricians may need to examine a child but even some pediatricians can be pedophiles. Choose a sensitive physician who allows a parent to remain in the room with younger children, and who respectfully explains what she or he is doing during an exam.) Children should know they should not be asked to touch someone else's body. Parents should also give children a right to privacy in the bedroom, bathroom and when undressing. Sex education is important, Kraizer writes, for this reason:

"The fact is that children who think there is something 'secret' or 'different' about their genital area are more vulnerable to suggestions that they are 'bad' for very normal kinds of play, such as masturbation. This suggestion of 'badness' can be a powerful weapon in the hands of a perpetrator. Being comfortable and at ease with their body is a simple and natural beginning for abuse-prevention training for children."

The other important aspect of antivictim training for children is about adult authority. In the book It's O.K. To Say No!, Robin Lenett and Bob Crane write: "In our society, many adults deserve respect from children. We must teach our children that a few adults may attempt to take advantage of their status.

"Children should be taught that being respected carries an obligation to act in a respectable manner. Respect is a two-way street. The child respects the adult, but has the right to demand respect in return. Children should be taught that anyone who attempts to get a child to do something that the child knows is improper forfeits the right to respect.

"You must keep in mind that misplaced respect is one of the leading contributors to our inability to reduce the number of child molestations that occur. Society is still too willing to excuse this crime when it is committed by a 'respected' member of the community."


"If parents suspect that their child has been molested, it's not enough simply to ask him if anyone has touched him inappropriately," write Dr. Gene G. Abel and Ms. Nora Harlow ("The Child Abuser," Redbook, August 1987). "Parents first need to assure the child that, no matter what anyone has told him, they love him and can protect him. If a child then reveals that he has been molested, parents must also be careful not to react in a way that will alarm him. Instead they should calmly assure him that what happened is not his fault and that they won't let it happen again."

Children, they add, need assurance that "if he does 'tell on' the molester, no one will kill his parents, his parents will still love him, and his parents are fully able to protect him from the molester."

It is important to reiterate that children who report abuse are extremely vulnerable. They perceive the distress of an adult as anger or disgust directed at them, believing that they are to blame for what happened. A child should be assured that they are believed, that a parent is glad they told, that they didn't do anything wrong, that the perpetrator should not have done what he or she did, and that the child will not be left alone with that person again. These reactions will aid recovery. Calm, age-appropriate questions and reassurances are needed. A county social services agency, police, and possibly an attorney should be contacted immediately. If a physician's assistance is required to treat the child or for evidence, parents have a right to ask for someone trained to deal with assault victims and for an advocate to be present. The accused assailant should under no circumstances be contacted directly by the family of the victim, nor should a family agree to meet with him.

Many general symptoms of child distress can also be symptoms of child sexual abuse: bedwetting, clinging behavior, personality change, eating and sleeping disorders, a drop in school grades, withdrawal, regression or infantile behavior, agitation, hyperactivity, somatic complaints. Some symptoms that may be more specific to sexual abuse could include: excessive masturbation, sexually suggestive behavior or explicit knowledge of sexual acts beyond the developmental stage of the child, unexplained gagging, nausea and vomiting, frequent genital infections, and physical trauma to genital/anal area including pain or itching. Difficulty in walking or sitting, torn, stained or bloody underwear, or a diagnosis of a sexually transmitted disease are other signs. So is pregnancy. Fear of a particular adult bears checking out.

For adolescents, additional symptoms can include anorexia, bulimia, fear of pregnancy, overly seductive or attention-seeking behavior, multiple runaways, withdrawal or isolation, suicide attempts, chemical abuse, truancy, drop in academic grades, poor self-image, prostitution.

Taking action

Awareness is the answer, and only a public outcry will bring that about. People concerned about child abuse and sexual abuse of women must demand public accountability by any institution which hides or excuses abusers. Believers must avoid the pitfalls of religious doctrine used to excuse abuse, inaction, or indifferent treatment of victims.

Families and children that report abuse need support. Any suspected child abuser should be reported to your county social services. This can be done anonymously. Reporting to a religious social service that a minister of that religion may be engaging in criminal activity may be like depending on a fox to guard a chicken coop. While any given religious social service may operate ethically and report such abuse to state authorities, there have been instances when this has not been the case. Since ultimately the suspicion must be registered with the state, it makes sense to go to them directly with your suspicion. If you are a professional or other worker covered by state reporting laws, you must report suspected abuse to state authorities. Sensitive medical assistance may be required if there is any possibility of penetration or transmission of diseases. If penetration has occurred or if there are bruises or other visible signs, medical assistance should be sought immediately both to aid the child and to secure legal evidence. Women physicians or those who have had special training can be requested in emergency rooms. Parents may not always be allowed to stay during an examination of a child, but have the right to demand that a trained advocate or nurse accompany the child.

Known child abuse should be reported not only to social services but to the police. Again, victims can request to speak with a female detective. Criminal charges should be filed since offenders respond only to exposure, court-ordered and enforced long-term therapy and monitoring, and the penalties of the criminal justice system. Anything less is ensuring that abuse will continue. Victims of abuse deserve social justice. None of this can be achieved in an atmosphere of secrecy or collusion.

Where negligence, cover-up, emotional and physical harm are involved, civil lawsuits should be undertaken. Churches have only started to acknowledge that a problem exists when their pocketbooks have told them so. Financial culpability will ultimately make church officials and church offenders responsible for their actions.

Responsible clergypersons and church members need to screen their own people, investigate irregular behavior, and make it their personal business to guarantee the safety and well-being of congregation members and children under the direction of church employees. Officials become party to criminal behavior if it is discovered yet confined within the walls of the churches. Churches, daycares, detention centers and other institutions hiring ministers must hold themselves responsible for hiring trustworthy individuals by screening them carefully and continuing to monitor their conduct. The suggestions issued by the Church Mutual Insurance Company are helpful.

Churches must sponsor their own anti-crime educational seminars for parents and children, drawing upon well-trained secular resources, which should be heavily dominated by women counselors and professionals. There are activists within the religious fold whose work can be turned to, such as Rev. Marie Fortune, who has pioneered work to bring sexual and physical abuse issues to the attention of the religious community. She is executive director of the Center for the Prevention of Sexual and Domestic Violence, Seattle, Washington, and is author of Sexual Violence, The Unmentionable Sin: An Ethical and Pastoral Perspective. Most rape crisis centers, battered women's shelters and parental stress centers are available to present programs to churches in their communities. In general, ministers should not be asked to direct such seminars--they should be asked to attend them, along with other church personnel. As Dr. Abel points out, "Even when parents do become suspicious, the molester is usually able to deflect that suspicion because he is often a respected member of the community. Many molesters have told me that the first thing they did when suspicions arose about them was to join the parents and take up the cry that child molestation is a terrible thing and must be stopped." Educating children about sexual abuse should not become another opportunity for an offender to abuse them! It is important that churches be willing to draw from outside the church when special expertise is required. If a minister or church board is unwilling to accept antivictim training by professionals, this is a symptom of a real problem--this church is being run in such a rigid, self-protective and authoritarian manner that there is a strong probability that if abuses are occurring there, the church would offer no accountability.

Seminaries should ensure that all seminarians receive instruction on issues of sexual abuse and violence, and not only screen candidates for the ministry and priesthood, but raise their consciousness on issues that affect the well-being of their future congregations.

As someone who has extensively researched clergy abuse, I strongly recommend that sexual abuse victims avoid clergy counseling, because most ministers are trained in theology, not psychology. If the abuse was committed by another minister, obviously the child or adult victim will be understandably distressed and distrustful, and the minister's allegiance may lie with the offender. In any case, it is advisable to seek the best trained counseling available for sexual abuse or suspected sexual abuse of a child. An untrained counselor, even if well-meaning, may clumsily embarrass a child or adult victim, or be unable to hide his or her own discomfort. It may unnecessarily distress a child, teenager or adult victim to have to reveal painful details to someone they meet on a regular and social basis. Most child victims are acutely self-conscious and concerned that "everyone knows." Most victims blame themselves, and retain residual fears--symptoms requiring professional handling by an unambivalent counselor whose only duty is to help the victim. Trained counselors will better recognize signals of distress and understand what the child is experiencing. Peer therapy involving groups of victims of the same age range is a highly successful aid for victims of any kind of abuse. It is especially important that boys who are victimized receive quality counseling, since a significant number of male victims go on to become abusers. This cycle, while not inevitable, can be avoided by the right attention to a victim's fears and feelings.

Mary D. Pellauer, who taught the first seminary course on violence against women in 1976 at McCormick Seminary in Chicago, and is co-editor of Sexual Assault and Abuse: A Handbook for Clergy and Religious Professionals, makes this caveat from within the ranks of the church:

"Some words of caution are in order. We strongly encourage religious leaders to be supportive of child victims in appropriate ways--to ask about sexual abuse if you see patterns of symptoms, to believe child victims' stories. But working directly in a therapeutic way with children requires special skills. Thus we encourage religious leaders to understand that therapy with child victims is best pursued by a trained child psychologist with experience in sexual abuse issues. Most victims of child sexual abuse and incest reach adulthood without disclosing the abuse they have experienced. Your supportive understanding, especially as a religious leader, can be a deeply important ingredient in the healing process. However, be realistic in assessing the victim's needs and your own skill level. The damage such victims sustain may reach into many areas of life beyond your abilities; they may require long-term counseling."

This book has already mentioned the grave damage that can be done to victims, to offenders and to society by church leaders who inappropriately engage in counseling with offenders.

All parents and concerned citizens should investigate what programs are being used in their schools. If it is one lecture in the auditorium once a year, that is not enough. If the programs are limited to "stranger-danger" that is better than nothing, but not adequate to a problem that is largely perpetrated by family members and trusted "friends of the family." Thorough antivictim training should be a regular part of the preschool through 12th-grade curriculum in every school, public and parochial. Such training will not only help empower children in potential situations of incest or other child sexual abuse, but will help prevent little girls from growing up to become victims of domestic abuse and rape, and send a clear message to little boys that such violence is illegal and unacceptable. There are many excellent programs already available, with no need to reinvent the wheel. Such training can break the cycle of abuse.


Alerting Kids to the Dangers of Sexual Abuse by Joy Berry, published by arrangement with Living Skills Press by the Educational Products Division of Word, Inc. For grade school children (can be read to younger children). Three companionate books from the "Danger Zone" series cover "Dangers of Kidnapping," "Dangers of Abuse and Neglect," and "Danger Zones." "Dangers of Sexual Abuse" can be ordered for $5.98 from Institute of Living Skills, P.O. Box 1461, Fallbrook CA 92028. The set of four books can be ordered for $23.92. A cassette tape read-along is also available for these books.

"The Child Abuser," by Gene G. Abel, M.D., with Nora Harlow, Redbook Magazine, August 1987. Practical discussion for concerned parents of largest study of pedophilia ever conducted.

"Explanations of Pedophilia: Review of Empirical Research," by Sharon Araji, Ph.D. and David Finkelhor, Ph.D. Bill Am. Acad. of Psychiatry & the Law, Vol. 13, No. 1, 1985.

Freethought Today newspaper (10 issues/year) regularly publishes incidents of sexual abuse of children by clergymen from sources around the country. $20/year. Freethought Today, P.O. Box 750, Madison WI 53701. (608) 256-5800.

It's O.K. To Say No! A Parent/Child Manual for the Protection of Children by Robin Lenett with Bob Crane, RGA Publishing Inc. and Frank Smith, 1985. Briefing for parents with illustrated safety anecdotes for children.

"Learned Helplessness in the Sexually Abused Child," by Susan J. Kelley, Boston College School of Nursing. Issues in Comprehensive Nursing, Vol. 9, No. 3, 1986.

Child Abuse Hotline, 1-800-422-4453, sponsored by Childhelp U.S.A., handles crisis calls, provides information and offers referrals to local agencies.

No More Secrets: Protecting Your Child From Sexual Assault by Caren Adams and Jennifer Fay, Impact Publishers, 1979. Good source book for parents.

"Safe, Adventurous and Loving: A 4 Step Anti-Victim Training Process for Grown-ups to Teach Children," by Peg Flandreau West, published by Protective Behaviors, Inc., 1984. Anti-Victim Training for Children, 1005 Rutledge, Madison WI 53703, (608) 257-4855. Ms. West also has developed an insightful, tested curriculum guide for grade-school level.

The Safe Child Book "A Commonsense Approach to Protecting Your Children from Abduction and Sexual Abuse," by Sherryll Kerns Kraizer, Delacourte Press, 1985. First-rate guide for any parent.

"Safety Tips On A Sensitive Subject: Child Sexual Abuse," the Church Mutual Protection Series, by Church Mutual Insurance Company (1986), 3000 Schuster Lane, Merrill, WI 54452 (715) 536-5577. This brochure directly confronts the problem of sexual abuse in the church, with specific guidelines for selecting employees and volunteers, and specific guidelines for people who work with children.

Sexual Assault and Abuse "A Handbook for Clergy and Religious Professionals," edited by Mary D. Pellauer, Barbara Chester, Jane Boyajian. Harper & Row, 1987. Essays compiled on issues of sexual abuse and violence for the use of ministers and pastoral counselors who may be confronted with such issues in their work. One essay, "Responding to Clients Who Have Been Sexually Exploited by Counselors, Therapists, and Clergy," by Jeanette Hofstee Milgrom and Gary R. Schoener, discusses sexual abuse of women by pastoral counselors. The authors have pioneered treatment of victims of exploitation by counselors and therapists, including clergy. They direct the Walk-In Counseling Center, 2421 Chicago Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55404.

"Sexual Contact By Pastors and Pastoral Counselors In Professional Relationships: A Study with Recommendations to Denominational Judicatories," by Washington Association of Churches (1984), 4759 Fifteenth Avenue N.E., Seattle, WA 98105. Deals with unethical sexual contact by clergy and pastoral counselors (no specific reference to child victims).

A Sourcebook on Child Sexual Abuse, edited by David Finkelhor, Ph.D. Sage Publications, 1986. Clinical essays.

"Theory and Treatment in Child Molestation," by Richard I. Lanyon, Arizona State University, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1986, Vol. 54, No. 2, 176-182. Clinical discussion of pedophilia.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, P.O. Box 1182, Washington DC 20013.

"Vatican Sexology," by John Money, M.D. Free Inquiry, Spring 1987.

Your local police department, your local county or state child protective services or social services.

About the Author

Annie Laurie Gaylor is editor of Freethought Today, the only freethought newspaper in the United States, which is published ten times a year by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. She is also the author of Woe to the Women--The Bible Tells Me So, first published by the Foundation in 1981. Woe to the Women is a reader's guide to the bible's treatment of women, complete with bible citations.

A 1980 graduate from the University of Wisconsin-Madison Journalism School, Annie Laurie founded, edited and published the Feminist Connection, a Madison-based monthly advocacy newspaper for women (August 1980-January 1985). As a feminist reporter, she has had a long-time interest in exposing and preventing violence and sexual abuse against women and children.

She wrote Betrayal of Trust: Clergy Abuse of Children because, she said, "It was heart-rending to know about the abuse and report it regularly but to do nothing to prevent future abuse."

She and her mother Anne Nicol Gaylor are founding members of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a national freethought association working for state/church separation.

This article originally appeared in the April 1991 issue of Freethought Today.

One clergyman or church leader every three days was charged last year with criminal sexual abuse of children or young teenagers.

"Even though there's been a little more media attention to this largely hidden abuse, there's no end in sight for these black collar crimes," said Annie Laurie Gaylor, editor of Freethought Today. Freethought Today is the only national clearinghouse for information about this betrayal of public trust by clergy.

Freethought Today studied 106 such criminal cases brought to its attention in 1990. These include cases in the United States as well as Canada, which has suffered so many recent Catholic scandals that one Alberta parent asked: "Is it safe for my son to be an altar boy?"

Two-thirds of the 1990 perpetrators were ministers and priests, the rest church leaders or religious instructors. So far almost all--98%--of the accused have been convicted.

Only one out of 46 "closed" cases ended in a not-guilty verdict. That particular case involved an adult victim.

"Our statistics show that clergy charged with sexual abuse of minors almost invariably plead guilty or are found guilty," noted Annie Laurie Gaylor.

"We conclude that prosecutors only dare to charge ministers--those most respected pillars of the community--when the evidence is very strong."

The study of cases prosecuted in 1990 is an update of a larger study of 250 criminal suits against clergy and church workers in 1988-1989, published by Freethought Today last May.

The 1990 update confirms many of the basic findings of the previous two-year study.

Catholic Vs. Protestant Double Standard

Catholic priests convicted of sexual abuse received lighter sentences than Protestant ministers.

The average priest sentenced in 1990 for sexual abuse received nine and a half years, with a range of 1 year suspended to 45 years in prison. A typical instance of a light sentence involved Father James Arimond, of Milwaukee, who pleaded no contest to abusing a teenage boy. He received a 45 day sentence and 18 months probation and community work. Auxiliary Bishop Richard Sklba said, "The Archdiocese is deeply concerned for each of the parties involved in this case and we pray for healing and forgiveness."

The average Protestant minister got 25 years, with a range of 2 years probation to 180 years in prison.

Typical of these cases was the 4 -year sentence received by youth pastor Douglas Boudinot, of Seattle, who was found guilty of molesting teenage girls on camping trips. King Co. Superior Court judge Susan Agid said: "I can't imagine a much more predatory offense than using his position as a youth minister to sexually abuse the children in the church."

Nonordained church workers tended to get heavier sentences than clericals. The toughest sentence of the 1990 cases went to a lay Protestant, a church nursery school custodian who got 2 lifetime sentences.

Typical Profile

The average age of priests charged last year with sexual abuse of children was 50 years. The range was 35 to 73 years.

The average Protestant minister was 46 years, with a similar range.

Lay Catholics and Protestants charged with sexual abuse were typically caught while in their 30's.

Many Previous Records

Shockingly, 11 out of 46 Protestant ministers charged in 1990 with criminal sexual abuse had prior convictions--almost a quarter of the cases:

All prior convictions were since 1985. Most of the men received light sentences enabling them to return to the pulpit--and continued sexual abuse of children--quickly. Churches are not only failing to check ministers' records, but in some instances are knowingly hiring convicted child molesters.

Five of the 23 nonordained Protestant church workers charged last year had had run-ins with authorities, including one discharged from the Navy for molesting boys.

But none of the 22 priests charged with sexual abuse last year had a criminal record. None of the Catholic lay had records either.

This data suggests that the law and communities tend to regard Catholic religious leaders as "above suspicion." The lack of records for priests may also be due to the Catholic Church's traditional method of dealing with molesting priests suppressing accusations and transferring them to new communities.


Most Catholic priests, as the earlier study found, were prosecuted for molesting boys. In 1990, three-quarters (77%) of their victims were boys.

By contrast, half (51%) of the Protestant ministers were charged in cases involving female victims.

Slightly more than half the overall victims were male.

The typical victim was in his or her early mid-teens. The range of minor victims was 6 weeks (in the case of one chaplain's assistant convicted of raping a baby girl) to 18 years. Ten victims were adult when the alleged abuse occurred.

Almost all of the victims were abused at official church functions, on church property and at rectories, retreats, and camps.


Catholic - Virtually no priest or Catholic lay worker was turned in by the church.

In 38% of the cases, a coverup by Catholic officials or the community was specifically noted in newspaper reports, including church officials refusing to cooperate with the law, pleading for leniency and judges making excuses for priests.

Protestant - In 22% of the cases, cover-ups shielding Protestant ministers were reported, in a variety of denominations. These included out-of-court settlements, defrocking a suspected child abuser but not notifying authorities about the abuse, "spiritual support," complicity, congregations applauding accused abusers, and telling reporters "The whole church knows he's not guilty," and "We're solidly behind him." "Satan can get his claws into anyone," said the friend of an Episcopalian rector accused of 73 counts of sodomizing and abusing mentally and emotionally handicapped boys before church functions.

The most blatant cover-up involved a Salvation Army minister who was permitted to keep his job and given continuing access to children after back-to-back arrests for sexually abusing children at the church.

Using Religion

Defendants often unabashedly used their piety and positions to ask for (and sometimes get) court leniency. Baptist youth minister George E. Baker of Decatur, Illinois, who confessed to molesting 13 year old twins, asked for probation because, "Being a religious person I know I can depend upon God." The judge gave him 3 years in prison. Catholic parish counselor Edmond J. Brown of Rhode Island was found guilty at a trial of raping a girl 3-4 times a week from the time she was 7 to 14 years. He cited his church activities at his trial.

Denomination Breakdown

One-third of the perpetrators were Catholic priests (20.7%) or Catholic lay workers (14.1%). Two-thirds were Protestant ministers (43.3%) and nonordained clerical workers (21.6%).

The 1990 study involved fewer priests than the 1988-89 study, but criminal sexual activity suspected by priests was still disproportionate. Priests make up about 10% of the clergy population in North America, but were 20% of the accused last year, and 40% of the accused in 1988-89.

Of the accused (clergy and nonclergy), 34% were Catholics, the highest in any one denomination, and 18% were Baptist. One perpetrator was a 71 year old Indian medicine man, convicted of raping a woman after a religious ceremony.

This is a not a complete survey of clergy sexual abuse cases from 1990--merely a study of 106 criminal cases coming to the attention of Freethought Today from reports in the daily press.

FFRF is a non-profit, educational organization. All dues and donations are deductible for income-tax purposes.

FFRF has received a 4 star rating from Charity Navigator


FFRF privacy statement


FFRF is a member of Atheist Alliance International.