An Advent Reflection on Child Abuse.
December 15th, 2009
By Kelly Clark

I just returned from a trip to Australia, where I traveled to take a class as part of my studies for a Master’s Degree in Theology—a course I am taking as I consider my own vocational direction, and not because of the child abuse cases I regularly file against churches.  I was glad to get away “down under,” to jump into academia, to wander about in Melbourne in the warm sunshine and friendliness of the Aussies, glad, especially, to get away from child abuse for a few days.  Or so I hoped.

My first day there—the first Sunday of Advent, as it happened–I found myself unexpectedly in a beautiful Catholic chapel at Newman College on the campus of the University of Melbourne, listening to a stunning Advent choral concert.  I pondered the ironies: me, a lawyer who has sued the Catholic Church for nearly twenty years, but also a Christian man hungry for spiritual truth and beauty, sitting among these devout Catholic people, enjoying their hospitality.  Twice in my life I have almost joined the Catholic Church, once only about 8 years ago, well after I had begun to do this kind of work, and once as a young law student; neither time have I been able to make the leap from Canterbury to Rome—from Anglicanism to Catholicism—the last time because I simply could not get around what I have learned in the child abuse cases.  But as I sat at Newman College in Melbourne, listening to Palestrina, to Thomas Talis, to Bach and Handel, I was for a few precious moments free from the agonies of the child abuse cases, free from worry about my clients– about their addictions, their depressions, their suicides– free to bask in the beauty of the Christian celebration of Advent in a Catholic chapel.

But as I walked out and headed over to the chapel at Trinity College—the Anglican college at University of Melbourne—for another service, this one a celebration of the Eucharist for the First Sunday of Advent, I thought about the day in a few weeks when I would take the deposition of the Archbishop of Portland, asking him about the actions of Father H, one of his priests who has abused children.  I thought about the questions I would need to ask him, about the way the Archdiocese of Portland has treated child abuse survivors, both historically and in litigation over the last two and a half years since the Archdiocese emerged from bankruptcy. Any of you who have followed these blogs will recall my frustration at the broken promises—promises to treat abuse victims with understanding and Christian compassion, to expedite the legal process to find resolution and healing— promises all broken in a return to scorched earth tactics in litigation.  I wondered how the same great faith that produced the beauty that I had just witnessed at Newman College Chapel could also produce a church that would repeatedly violate the Spirit of its Lord in allowing children to be abused, and then in abusing them again when they seek justice.  I considered the words of Jesus in Matthew 25—“whatever you have done to the least of these my brothers and sisters, so you have done to me”—and in a rush of anger I found myself wanting to shout those words at the legal teams for the Catholic Church and demand that they also consider them.  I quieted, then, and  prayed for guidance, for humility, lest I become too self-righteous or judgmental—I who have also failed to live up to my calling so many times, hurting so many people along the way. 

I found myself wishing I could ask the Archbishop of Portland to come sit with me at Newman Chapel, and then again at Trinity Chapel, to take in the choral anthems and to break the holy bread together, and then to talk about these things, not as trial lawyer and deponent, but as two Christian men trying to solve a problem.  I found myself thinking we could probably settle this case—probably all of the cases– in twenty minutes, focusing more on the healing of my client and the treatment for this sick priest than on anything monetary, which is not what my 17 year-old client cares about anyway.  I wondered if it might not be just that easy.

But then I reminded myself what my friends so often tell me—that I am often highly naïve and too trusting, and that I should just stop hoping for things that can never happen.  Probably they are right, I thought.  But still, as I turned up the sidewalk towards the doors of Trinity College Chapel, I felt immensely sad.  Sad for abuse survivors, most of all, but also sad for a broken church, for broken promises and for broken people.  And so I sang the opening hymn at the Advent Eucharist—“O come, O come Emmanuel, and ransom captive Israel”—with all the air in my lungs, with a broken voice, and with tears in my eyes.

www.NPR.org
By Frank James

By Kelly Clark
October 23rd, 2009

So I was in the middle of a mediation in Portland yesterday on a case of abuse of a boy by a Methodist Church minister, when I received a call from a Minneapolis reporter.   It seems that a local Scoutmaster was arrested on charges of abusing several of his Scouts. See story at  http://www.startribune.com/local/south/65205132.html?elr=KArksUUUoDEy3LGDiO7aiU.

The thing I don’t understand,” she said, “is why these kids don’t say anything to anyone?  What sort of power do these pedophiles have that causes otherwise intelligent children to keep silent about what is happening?”

It is one of the regular questions I get asked:  Why don’t they tell?

What I told her was along these lines. I have had clients tell me that the abuser threatened them: one young man told about how his physician, who was regularly abusing him during medical checkups, took a scapel and laid it alongside the 12 year-old boy’s scrotum and said: “if you ever tell anyone what is  going on in this room, I will slice you open just like this– do you understand me?”   Often it is like this, a direct threat. Sometimes it is indirect: Bad things will happen to me if you tell; or bad things will happen to you.  Something will happen to your family.

Many times, abusers play on the spiritual or religious beliefs of the child: this is between you, me and God. What you have told me, and what we have done, is all covered by the seal of the confessional, and if you ever tell anyone, you will commit a mortal sin.

Sometimes it is relatively subtle:  this is our little secret.  What we share is special, and so do not ruin it by telling anyone.

The most baffling of all was this:  a man in his 40’s told me why he, as a 16 and 17 year  old boy never told anyone about the fact that his priest, a highly popular figure in and around Portland, was regularly sodomizing him.  “You need to understand that Fr P was the best thing that had ever happened to me. I was nothing, then he came along and made me special.  I was his favorite, he paraded me around to other priests, to bishops, to business leaders, as such ‘a fine young Catholic boy’—I couldn’t imagine losing all that. In fact—and this is the most shameful thing of all—I gloried in it.”  Gently I told him, “You are not the first person, or the first child, ever to trade sex for love and attention. You are not the first and you won’t be the last. Don’t blame yourself.”

And that’s what I say now when anyone asks me why these kids don’t tell.  It is what I say to defense lawyers, judges and juries who want to know why they don’t tell. I explain it to newspaper reporters who have that question.  Some kids are threatened, directly or indirectly. And the most heinous threat of all, in my view, and the most effective, is that if you don’t do what I want you to do, then I will withdraw my love.

Back to Minnesota,   I have a sick feeling in my stomach that between the Scouts, the church, the bus route, you’re going to end up with dozens of victims, maybe more.

By Kelly Clark
October 22, 2009

I never get used to stories like this and it is never anything but devastating to me. Child abusers have social intelligence regarding kids that is off the charts. They know how and when to threaten, to charm, to bribe, to trick kids into believing that what we are doing is okay, that you shouldn’t tell anyone. The Scouts know this, because they have more experience with child abuse than anyone in the country, and have for about 50 years. But if– and I don’t know this yet– but if they didn’t share that knowledge with the parents and the kids, if they didn’t train the kids, train the parents, on the way these perps operate, then they have failed the kids and the parents. If a child molester sees even a slit of light, he will extort it in a minute. The Scouts know this, so there is really no excuse for a failure to train– if that is in fact what happened.

I have a sick feeling in my stomach that between the Scouts, the church activities, and the bus route that this man held, you’re going to end up with dozens of victims, maybe more.

Read more here:

//www.startribune.com/local/south/65205132.html?elr=KArksUUUoDEy3LGDiO7aiU

French ‘Minister of Culture’ Frederic Mitterrand Finds Childhood Sexual Abuse Still Not Acceptable—Even to ‘Sophisticated’ European Morals.

By Kelly Clark, Child Sexual Abuse Attorney
Portland, Ore.

American political junkies often use a phrase to describe a politician’s secure standing with the electorate: “He’s a shoe-in—that is, unless he gets caught sleeping with a dead woman or a live boy.”   In other words,  Senator Bulbousnose will surely win, unless, that is, he steps across the unspoken final lines of decency we all know about—necrophilia and pedophilia being two  of them.

So, there are two things that amaze me about the unfolding scandal in France: first, that the Minister of Culture, Frederic Mitterrand, would think that his lurid book accounts of “paying for boys” in Thailand could fly under the radar and not matter to his public career; and, second, that it almost did.

In case you haven’t read about this unbelievable story, here is a quote from the Times Online, dateline October 8:

“President Sarkozy’s new Culture Minister, Frédéric Mitterrand, was struggling to save his name and possibly his job last night amid a storm over his past accounts of paying “boys” for sex. The nephew of the late President Mitterrand, who is openly gay, was thrown on the defensive after opposition politicians homed in on a memoir in which he described his delight in visiting brothels in Bangkok.

“I got into the habit of paying for boys … The profusion of young, very attractive and immediately available boys put me in a state of desire that I no longer needed to restrain or hide,” he wrote. The autobiography, La mauvaise vie (The Bad Life), was a critically acclaimed bestseller in 2005 and Mr Mitterrand, 62, a popular television presenter, was praised for his honesty. It rebounded on him this week after he leapt to the defence of Roman Polanski, the filmmaker, who was arrested in Switzerland for extradition to face a Los Angeles court for having sex with a girl aged 13.”

Now, let’s ignore the obvious about-face he has done in the last day or so, trying to play down what he has written. After all denying the obvious is what politicians do– although trying to say that admitting that he paid for sex with boys doesn’t mean that he paid for sex with boys may set a new standard.

No, I want to ponder the two aspects of all this that I mentioned above.  First, how did someone who wrote this—in 2005—get  appointed to a high post in a European government?  Surely he did not think no one would notice: he is, after all, the highly visible nephew of former President Francios Mitterrand and a TV personality in his own right.  No, it seems he was doing what a lot of celebrities do, which is to write a lurid autobiography “revealing all” to boost sales through shock value.  Surely he intended the world to know that he was tantalized and hooked by the Asian sex trade. He wanted people to know…

No, what is amazing to me is that he thought that this admission would shock people in no different way than, say, talking about drunken nights on the town or lurid sexual escapades of the kind we have grown used to with celebrities.  But that  he thought he could just cruise on in as Minster for Culture—that’s so rich in irony I can’t even know where to start— after admitting to deep-seated pedophilic behaviour is just stupefying. I don’t know whether this says more about the man’s flawed political judgment,  or about how far Western standards for decency have fallen.  After all, let’s not forget, that this book was published 4 years ago and up til now there had been no blow up.   He actually thought he could get away with it.

This brings me to the second source of amazement—he almost did. In fact, had it not been for the controversy over Switzerland’s arrest and the US’s extradition demands of filmmaker Roman Polanski for sexually abusing a 13 year old girl, we old-fashioned types in the US might not ever have heard about Mitterrand’s pedophilia.  But the fact that Europe heard about it and there was no uproar for nearly five years surely says something fundamental about the way those ‘sophisticated’ societies think (the condemnation by the avant garde of the US in fashionable circles for Polanski’s arrest is no less indicative).  Is it really okay for a major public personality now become public minister to have engaged in pedophilia?  Note that there is no indication that he has acknowledged in sorrow the wrongness of his behavior, sought help, amended his way of life.  This is not a story about a guy who couldn’t find forgiveness when he asked for it. This is about a guy who didn’t—apparently didn’t—even realize that what he had done was fundamentally wrong… even by the standards of Senator Bulbousnose… even by standards of European ‘sophistication.’  

Boy—no pun intended—did Mitterand get the surprise of his life. There are still some things that politicians, even in Europe,  can’t do. Thank God.

Blog Author: Kelly Clark
Date: February 1, 2009 in Brainstorm NW

“I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”   -Thomas Jefferson

Big Government. Not since Ronald Reagan was President or Vic Atiyeh was Governor have Oregonians seen a concerted effort to stop the growth of government—and both of those honorable men failed in that task. And in the November elections– whatever else they did—the voters gave the Democrats the reins of government, unchecked even by a Republican chamber in national or state legislative halls. Now, it is no part of my purpose to discuss the political map. 

But one undoubted consequence of the elections is that Big Government will get bigger.  That is the way that Democrats (and, apparently, judging from recent years, Republicans, too) tackle big problems.  So, in an age of Big Government how do we protect our liberties?  There are really only three tools our constitutional structure has for this challenge: representative government—where the people can remonstrate against excesses of public power through their elected representatives; a free press—which, theoretically at least, can shine the light of day on abuse of power by government; and the jury system—through which those on the wrong end of the Big Government stick can seek to hold public agencies accountable.  It is this last, a potent jury system, that I believe needs to be defended, now more than ever.

Even before I became a trial lawyer, as a conservative I believed in the jury system. Then, over the past decades, as a conservative and a trial lawyer, I have seen time and again how large institutions are afraid to have their oppressive conduct proven to a jury. It does not really matter whether the institutions are private—banks, mega-corporations, insurance companies, or public—land use agencies, regulators, electoral bureaucracies.  All these institutions can and regularly do run over our liberties. Ask anyone who has been on the receiving end of Oregon’s land use system, or whose business has been shut down by an overzealous bureaucrat, or whose idea for a ballot measure has been drubbed into the ground because some elections official misused his or her power. All these citizens will tell you that, sometimes, their only hope for accountability and justice is to plow through the legal system to get the matter before a jury.

So I am always baffled when I hear conservatives talk as if the jury system was the invention of some liberal interest group, and needs to be weakened.  Why would we weaken it?  Because sometimes juries get it wrong?  Well, so what?  Is that any reason to take power away from one of the last remaining checks against public power?  If voters “get it wrong” in some election, the solution is not to take power away from the voters– though some liberals and elections officials seem to think so. No, the voters retain for themselves the right to be wrong: it is one of the risks of constitutional government. Or, if some political movement is patently offensive, even dangerous, to our ideals of life, do we pass a law that restricts its members’ ability to speak out? Of course not—at least we didn’t used to, before political incorrectness became a crime—for we believe in free speech, and we believe that in the marketplace of ideas, the true and wise ideas will eventually win out.So why is it any different when it comes to the jury system? I certainly do not argue that juries always get it right; our system cannot guarantee justice—but it does guarantee a chance at justice. And it is the knowledge of that “chance” that acts as a restraint on Big Government.

Some conservatives seem to trust the wisdom of the common man when it comes to self-government: free speech, free elections and the initiative system, but not when it comes to the jury system. On the other hand, many liberals seem to believe the average citizen perfectly capable of deciding even the most important legal case, but then they turn around and don’t trust that same citizen to wield the full power of the initiative, or even the vote—apparently believing that the people really are not smart enough, fair enough or wise enough to govern themselves. They-these conservatives and liberals-are elitists, all.

We must ask ourselves whether we really believe in the ability of free citizens to govern themselves.  If we do, then we need to keep our jury system strong. Make no mistake—Big Brother would love to see it weakened.  Then, not only will He continue to run roughshod over reluctant or captive legislative bodies, and not only can He keep seducing or manipulating our free press, but He will run over us, and the liberties of our families and our businesses as well. Indeed, He can do so with impunity, for He knows He will never have to answer to a jury of free citizens.

Blog Author: Kelly Clark, attorney
Date: August 3, 2008

No one was more hopeful than I, fifteen months ago at the conclusion of the bankruptcy of the Archdiocese of Portland. I believed– and I now see that I WANTED to believe– the promises of Archbishop John Vlazny, of his advisors and his lawyers. Those promises talked of treating victims of sexual abuse by priests with compassion. They offered hope that, in the future, the Archdiocese would be open and forthcoming about the records of past criminal conduct by pedophile priests and the bishops who covered up for them. Archbishop Vlazny himself led a mass of healing and reconciliation, again offering words of sorrow, repentance and new beginnings.

As I say, I believed these words. I stood shoulder to shoulder with the Archbishop and his lawyers, congratulated him on doing the right thing in resolving cases and in making the hard decisions to open the files of the past. See news articles here. I gave presentations and wrote articles on it all. See here. As a person of Christian faith, albeit a very flawed and broken one, I was particularly pleased that we– my clients, other abuse survivors and their lawyers– had held out for a nearly unique commitment and promise from the Archbishop that he would open the files of the past. I believed that this church could not achieve healing and reconciliation for itself, its members and its victims without shedding its old habit of secrecy, and so I was delighted at the promises. I was even proud, thinking that my clients, other abuse survivors, and I and other lawyers had really accomplished something, that we had helped change an institution that had failed to live up to its own best ideals, and certainly to the example and words of its Lord. “A new era of openness” I foolishly called it.

Well, how things change. Now– over a year later– now that the lights of the TV cameras are off, now that the media and the public aren’t watching, now that the Archdiocese does not need the cooperation of plaintiffs or their lawyers to get out of a self made mess of a bankruptcy, now that the plaintiffs bring claims one at a time– instead of dozens and scores at a time, as before– my, my how things have changed.

Compassion for victims? The Archbishop and his lawyers are litigating new cases like any other powerful corporation with a pack of insurance lawyers. He has attempted to force plaintiffs to use their full names in public litigation, breaking the time-honored practice, virtually unanimously agreed upon by all institutions facing child abuse cases (Boy Scouts, the Mormon Church, schools, etc), that recognizes that plaintiffs in these cases are crime victims, are covered with the shame of child abuse, and do not need or deserve to be identified publicly. For news coverage of this incredible move, click here. When confronted publicly about this in court papers and by the news media, the Archbishop and his spokespersons have responded in ways that are, at best, simply disingenuous–claiming that all they were doing was leaving it up to the Court. Well, that just isn’t so. The fact is, courts NEVER raise the issue on their own. It was the Archbishop’s move, and only that, that tried to force survivors to use their names publicly. Fortunately, a humane and common sense federal judge saw through the tactic, and refused to countenance it.

A new era of openness? The Archbishop and his lawyers have fought full disclosure of the files of the pedophile priests tooth and nail, and even as late as July, 2008, were filing papers in bankruptcy court and in federal court to protect the files of such notorious pedophiles as Fr Thomas Laughlin. Even in the process of mediation and arbitration of the issues relating to openness, the Archdiocese sought to secret the entire briefing and arbitration of the agreement to release files. Yes, that’s right– in a proceeding where the sole issue was the Archbishop’s promise to open old files and change old ways, he sought to have the proceeding itself kept secret! And, although the Archdiocese and its lawyers quickly point to the “thousands” of pages of documents they have publicly released, a comparison of that which they have publicly released with that which is actually in the files that they routinely must turn over to plaintiffs in litigation, shows that they continue to be quite selective in what they release. Just one example suffices; concerning Laughlin. In litigation they turn over thousands of pages of documents, because they have to. Yet, as of summer 2008, what they have posted publicly on the internet concerning Laughlin is sparse and selective. Even more staggering, as recently as late July 2008, they filed papers in bankruptcy court ON THE SIDE OF FR LAUGLHIN, as he personally objects to further public release of his files. Once again– as with bishops going back 40 years– a bishop of the Archdiocese of Portland sides with Fr Laughlin against the interests of abuse survivors and against the full truth coming out.

Choosing a new way? In the face of new claims of abuse against some of the same old perpetrators– Laughlin, Grammond, etc– the Archbishop refused offers of pre-litigation mediation time and time again, instead choosing to litigate each case as vigorously and aggressively as possible, ignoring the cruel impact that such a tactic has on abuse survivors, who most of all want and need closure and justice. He even had his lawyers resist early and global mediation suggested by the federal judge overseeing the new litigation, arguing instead for a litigation-heavy approach that undoubtedly was intended to wear down victims with the brutal tactics and unending delays of litigation.

The fact is that, for the Archdiocese of Portland, nothing has changed. In my view, the Archbishop has broken, or stretched to the breaking point, virtually every one of his bankruptcy promises. It is really no different than the bishops before him, and their promises to “handle” problems of abusive priests. After years of litigation, we learned what that meant: it meant nothing. It appears now, as to Archbishop John Vlazny’s promises at the conclusion of the bankruptcy, it still means nothing. No one is more disappointed than I.