Perhaps it was an inevitable result of years of litigation with the Catholic Church concerning the priest sex abuse scandal.  Yet, the news that David Clohessy, the national director of SNAP, will be forced to give a deposition in a case involving a priest accused of sexual abuse has caught some by surprise.  Others are outraged that abuse survivors’ correspondence with him about their abuse will be revealed during the deposition. 

The decision to depose Clohessy duces tecum (he has to produce documents in his possession concerning communications he’s had about abuse cases) is a high stakes gamble for Catholic Church lawyers who appear desperate to stop the flow of civil litigation that continues to erode the integrity and reputation of the Church.  While the move may indeed intimidate some survivors from pursuing civil justice, it may turn the tide of public opinion even further (if that’s possible) against the Church.  It reminds me of another bullying tactic employed by these same Church lawyers a few years ago when they tried to force “John and Jane Doe” survivors into publicly revealing their identities as if they were on trial rather than the perpetrators of sex crimes. 

It’s my sincere hope the truth will win the day against such bullying tactics by defense lawyers.  In the end, it’s a legal tactic that reveals desperation rather than any real desire to defend innocence.

Today’s news about the media reports concerning the Catholic Church in the Netherlands should not “shock or dismay,” despite what the Church PR people say..  As a sex abuse lawyer, I’ve seen similar scenarios play out in Portland, Boston, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles, not to mention the numerous occasions I’ve witnessed it with the Boy Scouts of America, the Mormon Church or the Seventh Day Adventist Church. 

An investigation has determined thousands (I’m talking tens of thousands) of children were sexually abused by priests, nuns, brothers, and sisters in the Dutch Catholic Church for the past sixty years.  Officials in the Dutch hierarchy knew about the abuse and turned a blind eye.  Now, they are “shocked, dismayed, and saddened” by the news.  That’s quite frankly a bunch of bull.

 The “sorry but” approach to dealing with this scandal by Church officials is way too little and woefully too late.  Certainly,  it’s what some PR spin firm told them to say, but supposedly these church officials are folks who are men and women of faith.  If they are, then they should remember the ancient prayer, wherein humble people of faith pray for “and for a good account before the fearful judgment seat of Christ, let us ask of the Lord."  Have they no holy fear?  Have they forgotten that, though they may escape our civil statutes of limitations, yet there is another, deeper and more eternal reckoning awaiting us all? 

Perhaps, I’m angry at this rote, mechanical response that shows no hint of belief or faith.  As a Christian struggling with my own defects of character and sinfulness, I am quite aware of Christ’s admonition that we take care the log in our own eyes before we point to the speck in our brother’s eye.  But I also recall that the Master also said:  “It were better for a man that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he be cast into the sea, than that he should cause one of these little ones to stumble,” referring, of course, to little children, always and especially beloved of God.”

We have for a decade now heard various expressions of regret from Church officials.  I have written about this before, in a series on apologies and forgiveness.  But what we have not seen or heard is anything like biblical repentance—metanoia: an about face, a turning around and a complete change.  When we witness that, the Church will begin to recover from this terrible scourge it has inflicted upon herself, and upon thousands and thousands of children.

As so often happens in sexual abuse cases, more survivors come forward as they summon the courage to come forward and publicly face their accuser who sexually abused them.  This scenario is now beginning to play out in the Jerry Sandusky matter as he has been arrested again on two new charges stemming from the sexual abuse of two more minors.  These two boys were also involved in his former charity work Second Mile.  According to news reports, the boys were given gifts as part of the sexual abuse grooming process prior to Sandusky abusing them in the Sandusky residence.

The local ABC news affiliate reported, “The man, now 19 and identified as Victim 9, met Sandusky at a Second Mile swimming event when the boy was 11 or 12, according to new information in the grand jury presentment. Sandusky asked for his phone number, which he then used to ask the boy’s mother if he could spend more time with the boy, and then proceeded to pick the boy up from school and take him to Sandusky’s home for sleepovers.

At the Sandusky home, the boy said he was forced to stay in the basement at all times, and was even brought his meals there by Sandusky and told not to leave. He testified that he had little contact with Dottie Sandusky, Jerry’s wife, and that she never came to the basement. Sandusky allegedly sexually assaulted the boy in the basement bedroom numerous times, including forcible rape. On one occasion, the boy screamed for help, hoping Dottie Sandusky would hear him from upstairs, but she did not come downstairs, he said.

We will stay tuned to see how this all plays out, but those last few sentences tear at the heart, and should reignite our commitment to fighting child abuse and those who allow it.

The decision to compel the Cardinal’s testimony was a hard-fought victory for prosecutors who’d argued that Bevilacqua’s testimony is crucial in their criminal case against Monsignor William Lynn who is the first Philadelphia priest ever to be criminally charged with failure to protect children.  Lynn had been in charge of all sexual abuse reports as well as the investigation of such allegations.  In prior grand jury deliberations, Monsignor Lynn was the target of much grand jury criticism for his handling of sexual abuse cases against Archdiocese of Philadelphia priests during Cardinal Bevilacqua’s tenure as archbishop of Philadelphia. 

Monsignor William Lynn is charged with child endangerment for allegedly transferring priests accused of sexual abuse of minors. Three priests and a former teacher are charged with raping boys.

The scandal that ensued led to the closure of the Vatican Embassy in Ireland as well as a Rome-mandated apostolic visitation led by US Cardinal Sean O’Malley of Boston. 

Brown’s appointment has been characterized as “convention-shattering” by a leading Vatican watcher because the post is usually held by a senior Italian prelate as a reward for years of faithful diplomatic service on behalf of the Vatican.  However, in this instance, the Nuncio will be English-speaking (something that hasn’t happened in the last half century) and has no previous diplomatic experience.  Rather, Monsignor Brown is a close confidante of the Pope and is widely regarded as affable, orthodox, and intelligent.  He’ll need all of these skills if he is to right the Irish ecclesial ship.  The appointment comes a few days before more sexual abuse reports are due from Ireland.

The Irish Catholic sex abuse scandal has been significant and relevant to those of us in the United States for a few reasons:  1)the scope and severity of the abuse is unprecedented and involved at least the tacit compliance of the civil government, and 2)many Irish priests and bishops emigrated to the United States earlier last century and brought with them the same dysfunction of abuse from Ireland.  One need only think of such notorious cases as Oliver O’Grady, Brendan Smyth, and Bishop Anthony O’Connell to recognize the extent to which the Irish sex abuse scandal affected and spread to the United States.

While the appointment of Monsignor Brown (automatically made an archbishop due to his appointment as Apostolic Nuncio) to the important post of traditionally Catholic Ireland has been hailed as a fresh start by some insiders, actions always speak louder than words.  I’ll take a “wait and see” attitude before making a judgment as to the relative merits of this latest appointment.

This is not unlike what we have seen before in different contexts: 

–in 2002, when the Boston Globe broke the story of widespread abuse and cover up in the Boston Archdiocese, very quickly after that we saw abuse survivors stepping forward around the country:  Chicago, Milwaukie, Los Angeles, San Diego, Miami, and other places.  Soon, so many victims—literally thousands of them—had come forward that, within two years, the bankruptcies started: Portland, Tucson, San Diego, and elsewhere, as Church officials struggled to comprehend and respond to the massive scope of the problem.  Representing survivors of abuse at the hands of Catholic priests all around the country, and then representing more than 40 claimants in the Archdiocese of Portland bankruptcy, I saw this first hand.

–last year, in Spring of 2010, when for nearly two months Paul Mones and I tried the Kerry Lewis case against the Boy Scouts of America in Portland—resulting in a nearly $20 million verdict against BSA for its decades-long practice of ignoring child abuse in its programs—my office received over 650 phone calls—yes, that’s right, 650 phone calls in about 10 weeks—from men abused as boys in Scouting, all over the country, from the 1960’s to the 2000’s.  And now, as we are handling cases against the Scouts in over a dozen states, I see the same thing happening elsewhere.

–any child abuse lawyer who does very much of this work will attest that as the scandal at Penn State broke over the last three weeks, more victims have come forward to tell their stories: abuse in the Mormon Church, the Boy Scouts, the Catholic Church, schools, athletic leagues and elsewhere. Indeed, so prominent has been this dynamic that Barbara Bradley Hagerty, NPR’s fine religion reporter, did a story on it (in which I, along with Mitch Garabedian, a fine Boston lawyer, was interviewed), pointing out that the Penn State story was prompting abuse survivors in other contexts to come forward.

All of this is what I call “the Avalanche Dynamic,” and it is something I have thought a lot about.  I’m sure the mental health professionals in the child abuse field can explain the psychological dynamic, but what I have seen is that, for most child abuse survivors to come forward and break their silence, to tell someone—their spouses or parents, their counselors, a lawyer—what happened to them as children, there has to be some sort of a triggering event.  It can be, and often is, a news story about abuse, it can be an unexpected (and often unwelcome) confrontation with some reminder of the abuse, it can be watching a child, often their own, at the same age as was the victim at the time of the abuse.  But most child abuse survivors need some trigger, some precipitating event, to embolden them to come forward.

Now, cynics, of course, often assume something else is going on: that the survivors are “jumping on the bandwagon” or “reaching for the money” or other ignorant ideas.  To see these in action, just scroll down to the “comments” section anytime you read a new story about “more victims” coming forward to name their abuser, or anytime a new civil lawsuit is filed for monetary restitution and justice.

But what is actually happening is that survivors are realizing, in a flash, in an explosive moment, several things at once, things they might have vaguely known but never allowed themselves to consider:  “maybe I wasn’t the only one”; “I guess it wasn’t really my fault”; “maybe they’ll believe me now”—and similar sentiments.  Remember that when a child is abused, there is a kind of “splitting” that goes on in his or her mind, and the trauma and shame of the abuse often gets “parked” or “shoved away” into the recesses of the conscious mind, and some part of the child “decides” that the safest way to handle the fear, trauma, guilt and shame, is simply not to think about it.  And they don’t.  For decades, often.  And then, some triggering event happens, like the child abuse scandals in the Boy Scouts, the Catholic Church, the Mormon Church, or, now, Penn State.

Which brings me to the other fascinating thing I have noticed in “the Avalanche Dynamic: the closer to home is the triggering event, the more likely it is that the victim will break silence.  So I have had survivors come see me when their own abuser was publicly named, but not before, even if there has been much publicity about abuse in general. The Kerry Lewis case was one of those, where eight men eventually came forward to name their Mormon Church ward and the Boy Scouts for their abuse, after the first two brothers broke the silence of how they were abused by a Boy Scout leader in their Mormon Church troop.  One man came to see me in the midst of the Catholic scandals, when he took a job in a building across the street from the parish where he had been abused, and every day he had to listen to the churchbells ringing. He had been reading about priests abusing kids in Boston, and Chicago, and elsewhere, and he was not triggered.  But setting up professional shop across the street from the scene of his abuse, and he was jolted into breaking out of his silence. I have had Mormons come see me only when a story broke about abuse in the Mormon Church—despite any amount of publicity about abuse in the Catholic Church, or in the Boy Scouts.  I have had Boy Scouts call me, not when some event about abuse in Boy Scouts broke open, but when they read a story about their own abuser.  For whatever psychological reason, the fact is, that the closer is the trigger to their own story, the more likely survivors are to come forward and break their silence.  And so the Penn State story brought forward first, other Sandusky victims, then the victims at the Citadel, Syracuse, and the gymnastics context: all either related to sports, to academia, or both.  The trigger was close to home.

So, next time you read about an “avalanche” of survivors coming forward in response to a breaking new story of abuse in some new context—for instance, a major American University’s football program—don’t be surprised.  That’s how it happens.

Then, it hires a credible outside source to do an investigation and make recommendations.  And so now that Penn State has hired former FBI director Louis Freeh to investigate how Jerry Sandusky was apparently able to abuse kids right under Penn State’s nose for a decade, we have one more thing in common between  Penn State and the American Catholic Church.  Many will remember at the height of the Catholic scandals the Church hired the John Jay College of Criminal Justice to do studies on the extent of the problem within the Church, and the extent to which the various diocese and Archdiocese around the country were in compliance with the new “protocols” for child abuse cases created in Dallas amidst the media frenzy of the exploding scandals in 2002.  Fewer will remember that that project has foundered over and over again either because the Catholic hierarchy has not fully cooperated with John Jay—many dioceses failing to provide data—and because the questions that John Jay was asked were artificially narrow, something I have written about before.

So now Penn State has hired a certified tough guy with impressive law enforcement credentials—FBI Agent, Federal Judge, FBI Director—to come in and do an investigation.  But the devil will be in the details, again.  Buried deep in the stories about Freeh’s selection has been comments to the effect that “the scope and budget for the investigation has not yet been determined.”  Aha, I see.  We don’t know what Freeh will be allowed to investigate, or whether PSU will give him enough of a budget to do a credible job.  Well, until we know those things, no one should assume that Penn State is really serious about getting to the bottom of all this. 

After all, we’ve seen half-hearted measures like this before.  Just ask the folks at John Jay.

Sound familiar?  It should.  It’s basically the same excuse given by Catholic Bishop Robert Finn, the Boy Scouts of America officials, and Joe Paterno and others at Penn State.  Unfortunately, this is how institutional leaders explain their failures to report child sexual abuse. 

This latest report concerns a now closed summer camp at The Citadel.  It’s clear after more than a week of reporting on the Penn State scandal and now CNN’s report on The Citadel failure, our society’s institutions are experiencing a systemic failure when it comes to reporting child sexual abuse.  No one can claim that the tragedy is isolated to one institution or demographic.  It’s clear to this writer that the legal community has to step in and change reporting laws across the country.  The problem has become epidemic and the victims are our own children.

At Penn State, Mr Paterno’s actions have led to a lot of justifiable outrage, along with a lot of less-justifiable claims that anyone else in that position would have done things differently.

"All of us over-estimate our likelihood of being a hero, and the ease with which we would go ahead and do the right thing," says David Finkelhor, director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire. "Faced with the unbelievable consequences that the disclosure might have, their will collapses, and they are unable to do the right thing."

This is why society must have behavioral safeguards in place to ensure that when it comes to the protection of children we all act correctly.  That means our legislatures need to enact tougher laws and our community leaders need to talk about these issues and then support their talk with concrete action.  We can’t afford another Penn State.

The other set of heroes that must not be forgotten in this story are those who paved the way for the kind of unequivocal moral outrage that has greeted this story by the press and the public.  I refer to the hundreds and thousands of men and women who came forward in the last decade or so to speak out about what happened to them as children in the Catholic Church, in Boy Scouts, in the Mormon Church and in other institutions of trust where so much sexual abuse occurred.  Without their determination and courage, society would not be as informed as it is about the nature and devastation of child sexual abuse.  It occurs to me that we have not heard, from the media or pundits, even the sports media, ignorant or uninformed comments and questions that were common only a few years ago: “well, if this was happening, why didn’t the boys say something to stop it?”  “Why did they wait so long to speak up about what happened to them?”  We just haven’t heard that sort of thing very much in the coverage of this scandal.  And I submit that this is because of the courageous men and women who in the past decade have told their stories of child sexual abuse—to the media, in courtrooms and lawsuits, and in personal testimonials.  They often said that one reason they decided to speak out about their childhood abuse was to educate society and to try to prevent child abuse.  And although Sandusky was still able to abuse those boys for decades, he ultimately did not get away with it, and those who enabled him to abuse as long as he did have not gone unaccountable.  And so we owe these thousands of survivors of Catholic, Boy Scout, Mormon and other abuse our gratitude.  They, too, are heroes.

Joe Paterno, affectionately called "JoePa" by his admirers–is, by all accounts, a good and decent man.  He has faithfully coached the Penn State University football team for 46 years and created a clean program in the midst of the cesspool of college football. To my knowledge, no one has ever questioned his integrity. Now, however, it appears he has made a terrible mistake, and it looks as if he will be rightly held accountable for it.

As an advocate for survivors of child abuse for two decades now–as well as a long time fan of Coach Paterno’s–here is what I wish JoePa would say:

"I come before you to admit that I have made a terrible mistake. I acknowledge that mistake and I apologize unconditionally to the boys abused by Jerry Sandusky as well as to my players and to Penn State fans. I humbly ask forgiveness from all these people.  I will do whatever I can do to try to account for my misconduct.  When I leave this press conference, I will tender my resignation as head coach of the Penn State football program and then I will walk over to the Police Department in State College, PA and turn myself in to the police for failing to report child abuse. Now, I have heard some pundits say that I had no legal obligation to report; but I will let law enforcement make that determination.  Certainly I had a moral obligation, and I failed miserably.  Once I do those two things, I will then make arrangements to pay for the counseling needs of every boy harmed by Jerry Sandusky for as long as each boy needs it.

For 46 years, I have tried to instill in my student-athletes a sense of integrity and morality.  That integrity includes acknowledging wrongdoing and accepting the consequences of one’s actions.  Consequences in a situation like this first and foremost mean making an unconditional apology, without excuse or explanation, and taking steps to right the wrong.  That is what I am trying to do now. I reiterate that I apologize unconditionally to the young men involved and to the community and I will do whatever I can to make this right. I offer no explanation or excuses.

Because I care about kids, however, and because I do not want other kids to be abused in other institutions of trust, I want the world to understand how something like this happens, with hope that other institutions like Penn State, respected by society and given its trust, might learn from and not repeat my mistakes.

I love Penn State University.  I love our football program.  I have poured 46 years of my life in trying to create a place where young men are well-formed, with high integrity and deep convictions about right and wrong, compassion and love.  I take great pride in the program that we have built here.  I believe in our mission, and I would do anything to protect it.  And that, my friends, is the problem.

I did not think about and I did not reflect upon what my failure to act could mean for youngsters who were under Coach Sandusky’s spell.  I instinctively reacted with the most short-sighted and narrowest of visons, to protect Penn State and our football program.  In this sense, I am no different than Cardinal Bernard Law, former archbishop of Boston, who chose to protect the institution of the Catholic Church over the safety of children when he transferred abusive priests over and over again.  I am no different than the top leadership of the Boy Scouts of America, who for decades ignored mounting evidence that their organization was being infiltrated by pedophiles, and did nothing to warn parents or Scouts. And I am no different than the leadership of numerous other churches, schools, or other institutions of trust who have a responsibility for young people.  I chose to protect my beloved organization rather than to protect children.

I was completely, totally, and unconditionally wrong.  For this, I am deeply sorry, and I apologize unconditionally. I will have nothing further to say on this matter, for I need now to go spend some time searching my conscience and asking my God for forgiveness."

That’s what I wish he would say.

——–
Kelly Clark is an attorney in Portland, Oregon, who represents survivors of child sexual abuse.

For, as a trial lawyer having represented over 300 men and women sexually abused by trusted adults in contexts such as churches, the Boy Scouts, schools and , athletic leagues, I have seen the way that such organizations respond to child abuse allegations.  Almost always there is an element of denial and often cover-up.  And such conduct always rightly shocks the public.  But, how is it in the first instance that such respected institutions—we can now apparently add Penn State University to the list—act in a way so contrary to their ideals and reputation? What is going on here?

The only way to understand situations like the one at Penn State is to recognize that in all such institutions of trust and respect, there is a perhaps understandable sense of pride, even uniqueness,  that is dominant, and that often colors all else. Organizations such as the Catholic Church, the Boy Scouts and others—even governmental entities such as public schools and law enforcement, itself not immune from child abuse in its midst—think of themselves as special, their work as wholly righteous.  The organizations have noble purposes, their supporters are fervent and earnest, their workers tireless. The attitude in such places can be so strong that, when confronted with an ugly reality like child abuse, it produces a feeling that we are unique, our mission is so important, our work so noble, that ‘those kinds of problems’ could never happen here, and if they do, well then, we must first of all protect our good name and good work—even if that means we ignore, interpret, or sometimes even violate the rules applicable to the rest of society. 

The social philosophers have a name for this dynamic, of course: it is the belief that the ends justify the means. You can read about it in any history book.

And so when an institution like Penn State University is faced with something so threatening to its work and reputation, so foreign to its ideals and self-understanding, as child sex abuse in its midst, the first instinct is to ignore it or try to make it go away.  That cannot be happening here. We have worked too hard for excellence. We have too many people who believe in us. We are Penn State, and we are special.  This thing did not happen.  
And so bishops transferred sexually dangerous priests, Scout officials ignored an obvious cancer of abuse in their midst, and football officials from a prestigious and storied university looked the other way when a boy was raped in their midst.

 I suspect this—what I call the curse of being special—after all, is what was really going on at Penn State.  At one level, of course, it is outrageous, shocking, and devastating.  But to allow ourselves to stop with those emotions would be to let ourselves off too easily.   No one at Penn State—except perhaps Jerry Sandusky—woke up one day and decided to allow child abuse to occur. We must understand this if we are to learn from what happened. What happened was a product of the curse of being special.  Now, this is not to let anyone off the hook–all those responsible for this abuse should be held accountable.  But for those of us who care about kids, if we stay focused on the outrage of the moment, we will miss the point. For the point is to take these lessons—including the institutional grandiosity that resulted in such denial and cover up—and make sure that other institutions of trust learn them well, so we don’t have to keep reading this story over and over again.
 
 

The secretive nature of the abuse often leads to self-doubt and self-loathing.  In my many years as a sexual abuse lawyer, survivors have recounted to me how they feel lost and alone.  They tell me how they’ve tried to mask those feelings with drugs, alcohol, or unhealthy relationships.  Unfortunately, very often they blame themselves for the actions of the one who abused them.  Tragically, some have ended their lives rather than continue the dark struggle.

Yet, there is a way out.  Some courageous men and women have transformed what happened to them and have begun the long process of healing.  They tell their stories.  They report the abuse to civil authorities.  They demand change for the sake of future children.  They confront the institutions that protected these adult molesters.  

If there’s any good that can come out of the Penn State sex abuse case, I suspect it will be when the community rises up and demands accountability from those who knew and should have done the right thing and reported Coach Sandusky to law enforcement.  There is nothing more damaging to those who’ve survived such abuse as when institutions such as Penn State, the Boy Scouts, the Catholic Church and many others hide behind lame excuses.  I’ve read too media reports trying to argue that the University officials, including Coach Joe Paterno, weren’t really required to call the police.  But this is the worst kind of denial.  Paterno and the other officials at Penn State who were told about Sandusky had a moral obligation to tell law enforcement.  Perhaps it wasn’t a legal requirement, but it’s surely an ethical requirement for men in such positions of trust and confidence.  As the head of the Pennsylvania State Police dryly remarked to the press, all of the administrators should have called the police; as he put it, “it isn’t a high standard.”   

At this point, no one should give a damn about the future of Penn State football, Coach Paterno’s legacy, or the next football game.   The fact is children were abused right under the noses of a prominent and respected institution, which sat idle, choosing to pretend the problem did not exist, so that its pristine reputation wouldn’t be sullied.   Well, now: that sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

Here’s the story as we now understand it.  Jerry Sandusky, a former defensive coordinator for the famous Penn State Nittany Lions football program, had retired in 1999.  However, he was still a respected figure on campus and continued to enjoy the privileges of access to the campus facilities after retirement.  Sandusky, who had served as the assistant football coach for decades under legendary coach Joe Paterno, had founded a non-profit for at-risk kids called Second Mile.  According to news reports, it was these boys that Sandusky abused over the last 15 years.  The charges range from inappropriate touching to anal rape. 

According to media reports, just three years ago, a Penn State graduate assistant witnessed Sandusky sodomizing a young boy in the school’s showers and reported it to Coach Joe Paterno.  Paterno then reported it to the athletic director of the school—but not to police.  Two weeks later, the school’s Athletic Director and a Vice President of the school met with the graduate assistant who related what he had seen. Then, apparently—and incredibly—neither of these men called the police.  Now, both the Athletic Director and the Vice President face criminal charges for failing to report this abuse, and for lying to the grand jury investigating the Sandusky matter. 

Of course,  there are patterns of behavior in the Penn State abuse case  that are very similar to the patterns of sexual predators in other sexual abuse cases in which I’ve been involved—Catholic priest abuse, Mormon Church abuse and, most recently, Boy Scout abuse.  In most instances, the predator ingratiates himself into a community, association, or organization where he has access to the young, vulnerable children—just like this case.  In most cases, he is in a position of trust, authority, and responsibility over the children—just like this case.  Finally, he is able to lure these kids through his charismatic presence or by buying gifts or presents, for in some situations, the promise of a better life is all the predator needs to gain access to the young child—again, just like this case.  The parallels are striking. It just seems to happen over and over again in setting after setting. 

I’m never particularly surprised to see the new and novel ways that adults manipulate kids into abuse.  What I am surprised at here—stunned would be a better word—is that, in this day and age, sophisticated professionals like an Athletic Director and a Vice President at a major university would not report such a blatant incident of child abuse—let alone that they would apparently lie about it in front of a grand jury.  What is it going to take to get people to report child abuse?  What is it going to take to get institutions of trust to stop covering it up?  How many times, and how many institutions, do we have to go through this before adults start acting like adults?

Finally, I need to lodge a stiff protest concerning the public reaction thus far concerning the Sandusky abuse case.  This morning on National Public Radio I heard the Penn State Alumni President go on and on about how this scandal should not hurt the great Penn State football legacy.  And over at ESPN or on various sports radio talk shows, I see and hear nothing but speculation about Penn State, its reputation, and the future of its football program. That seems to be the exclusive focus of the media reports.  Now, I’m as much a fan of college football and Joe Paterno as anyone else.  But, I am simply appalled that we are not hearing any concern for the victims of abuse.  We know there were eight: I’m guessing there were eighty.  Somebody tell me what Penn State has done to try to help them? What has Penn State done to protect them in this process?  What has Penn State done to let them know that no one blames them for this scandal?  Where is it?  I just haven’t seen any of it.  To say the obvious, what should concern anyone who cares about kids is not how this scandal might affect Penn State’s college football program—for crying out loud—but, instead is what is happening to the victims, and what lessons can be learned from this whole mess.

Somebody please tell the folks at Penn State to wake up and smell the coffee. Hard as it may be for them to believe, there are more important things than college football. Geepers.

Since my work for children who were sexually abused involves frequent cases against the Boy Scouts of America, recently, I was interviewed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, as well as the Victoria Times-Colonist newspaper regarding the highly charged story of Richard Turley, the pedophile Boy Scout leader who sexually abused boys for decades in both the US and in Canada.  The crux of the story is that Turley was able to go from the US to Canada, and to have a second career of sexual abuse of Scouts there, despite that the American Scouts had repeated warnings of his sexual dangerousness to boys.  The CBC story and related news articles rightfully expressed outrage at these circumstances, and openly wondered how these things could happen.  In this blog, I will draw parallels between the Canadian and American experience with the sexual abuse of Boy Scouts.  In a follow up to this blog, I will note the similarities between Boy Scout sexual abuse and abuse in other “institutions of trust” such as the Catholic Church and Mormon Church sexual abuse cases.

First, about the Canadian story.  That a Scout leader would be able, after he was caught abusing boys, to go from troop to troop, whether in the US or in Canada, may be stunning, but, given what we know about sexual abuse in Scouting, should really not be surprising. (For a comprehensive look at the problem, albeit from 20 years ago, see Patrick Boyle’s Scouts Honor, click here.)  Last year, I was lead trial counsel in a major Boy Scout abuse trial in Portland—which resulted in a $20 million verdict against BSA—in which the perpetrator had admitted to abusing 17 boys within one Scout troop, and yet was not permanently removed as a Scout leader, such that he had access to and abused more boys, including the one we represented at trial. (For my past blogs on the general topic of abuse in Scouting, including the Portland trial, click here.)  Likewise, in other cases, we have seen similar warnings about Scout leaders go unheeded. So, really, the Canadian experience with Turley, while stunning, is not unique in Scouting.  How can this be?  Well, to answer that question, it is necessary to talk about the Scouts so-called “Perversion Files.”

For decades, up until around 1990, the Scouts main “system” for protecting boys against the risk of sexual abuse was these “Perversion Files” or “Confidential Files,” also sometimes called the “IV (ineligible volunteer) Files.”  The purpose of this system, according to the Boy Scouts, was to prevent a leader accused of misconduct from re-registering as a leader anywhere in Scouting.  The problem, as we proved in Portland,  is that the system didn’t work.  In Portland, for the first time ever in any courtroom, a jury saw in evidence an entire block of the Perversion Files—all files from 1965-1985—some  20,000 pages of records, representing over 1,200 documented instances of sexual abuse of Scouts. What those documents showed were thousands of stories of abuse in Scouting, by trusted leaders against trusting boys and their families. The Portland jury heard stories of Cub Scouts being forced to view pornography with their nude Cubmaster, of Scoutmasters who befriended, groomed, seduced, and then molested, sodomized or raped boys of all ages, from Cub Scouts, aged 7-10, to Boy Scouts aged 11-17. The files showed stories of devastated boys and outraged families and parents.  Too often, incredibly, some of these abusers were on “probation”—meaning there had been some complaint previously about their conduct, but BSA executives decided to leave the leader in positions of trust.  The Cubmaster who showed pornography to Cub Scouts was such an example.  As I said, the system often simply failed to keep out dangerous Scout leaders or to prevent the sexual abuse of Scouts.

The Portland trial also showed that the numbers are nearly beyond comprehension. Given that the average pedophile has somewhere between 5-25 victims, one could reasonably conclude from the 1200 files from 1965-85 that at least 6,000-30,000 boys were abused in Scouting during those two decades.  If you then consider that only a fraction of all abuse is ever reported—perhaps 5-10%, according to experts—the likely numbers of boys abused in Scouting becomes staggering.  Add to that the fact that BSA admitted that these files had been kept for decades before the 1965-85 timeframe, and we can begin to see the outlines of the tragedy that played out under the auspices of the Boy Scouts.  (For more stories and articles about these Perversion Files, click here). 

Now, in the Canadian story of Richard Turley, the question the reporters wanted to know was whether the Canadian Boy Scouts had a similar system as did the US Scouts.  I do not know the answer to that question: but I did have for the reporters two questions in reply: If they did not have such a system, then what system did they have for screening potential leaders?  And, second, if they did have a system of IV/Perversion Files, how do the Scouts explain the ease with which Turley was able to go from troop to troop, region to region, nation to nation, abusing boys, despite the knowledge within the Scouting hierarchy that he had abused boys?

These questions about the Canadian experience also highlight what I believe to be the main lesson from the Portland trial about the sexual abuse of boys in Scouting: that for decades, despite knowledge of the rate at which Scoutmasters and other Scout leaders were abusing boys, despite knowing how it was happening—for example, lots of one on one time, time spent with the Scoutmaster outside of official Scout activities, sleepovers at a Scout leader’s home, etc—the BSA did not fundamentally alter their program to put more effective safeguards in place, they did not train leaders and parents in child abuse prevention, and they did not warn Scouts, parents or local Scout leaders about the documented and clear danger of sexual abuse by Scout leaders of Scouts.  That failure to act was, we argued to the Portland jury, the reason that so many boys were sexually abused in Scouting.  And that failure, as the CBC story showed, was one of international proportions.

Finn’s indictment marks the first time a Catholic bishop has been indicted for failure to report one of his Catholic priests who stands charged with the sexual abuse of a minor child.

The failure to report sexual abuse indictment stems from Fr. Shawn Ratigan’s arrest in May 2011 for the possession of computer child pornography.  Ratigan remains in jail and faces additional charges filed in August for the production of child pornography. 

According to media reports, the Diocese discovered the computer pornography in December 2010 but didn’t report it to the police until May 2011.  Approximately one year prior to Ratigan’s arrest, a Catholic school principal had written a letter to Bishop Finn outlining her concerns about Ratigan’s strange behavior and inappropriate interest in the minor children at St. Patrick Catholic school.  When questioned about the letter this summer, Bishop Finn admitted he never read the letter. 

Several civil sex abuse lawsuits have been filed against Fr. Ratigan, Bishop Finn and the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph.

Survivors of abuse and those who support them have for years wondered why, in the face of overwhelming evidence of child abuse cover up by bishops and other church officials, there has never been anyone from the church hierarchy ever indicted.  Well, it seems that day has finally arrived.  Of course, the bishop and diocese are presumed innocent until proven guilty, but it will be interesting to see what sort of defense they put up. 

According to archdiocesan officials, the sex abuse allegation against Fr. Altstock is the first one lodged against him.  He retired from active ministry in 2001.  The abuse in this case began during the last year Archbishop Cornelius Power led the Archdiocese of Portland and continued during the leadership of Archbishop William Levada, presently Cardinal and Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. 

This week’s filing continues the now over 15 year history of Kelly Clark and O’Donnell, Clark and Crew of representing victims of priest abuse against the Archdiocese of Portland.  Links to past articles and presentations we have done on this topic can be found here.