Reining in abuse

Disabusing the abusers: A tightrope act

The Rabbi in a mid-sized Pennsylvania city was eager to share his congregation's wrenching experience ' but no names, please.

It'sbeen nearly five years since the synagogue's cantor pleaded guilty tosexually molesting two girls he was preparing for their bat mitzvahs.He was sentenced to 15 to 30 months in prison and is now onPennsylvania's sexual offender list.

Still,the rabbi wanted the name of his synagogue and of the abuser, whosecrimes are a matter of public record, kept confidential.

"We are mindful of not causing additional trauma to those who suffered here," he wrote in an e-mail.

Butthe rabbi wanted it known that measures have been instituted to guardagainst a repeat occurrence. For example, the synagogue now requiresthat another adult be present during private religious instruction.

Inthat respect, this synagogue typifies many Jewish institutions, whichover the past several years have adopted new policies ' or strengthenedexisting ones ' aimed at cracking down on rogue rabbis and others inpositions of trust who sexually exploit congregants, students or others.

The issue of clergy sexual abuse has gained increased attention in the 10 years since it was first investigated by JTA.

Thatearlier investigation, which focused primarily on rabbis who sexuallycoerce adult congregants, indicated that the problem was morewidespread than had been assumed ' and that the Jewish establishmentwas beginning to grapple with it, but not always effectively.

Forexample, formal denominational policies governing rabbinic conduct weresometimes slow to develop. Although behavioral guidelines are now thenorm, some other systemic problems uncovered in that earlier JTA seriesstill persist.

Since that original investigationwas published, the Catholic Church has been rocked by a massivepedophilia scandal, while the Jewish community has been buffeted byhigh-profile cases of sexual impropriety involving rabbis and otherauthority figures.

The list of offenders includesOrthodox youth leader Rabbi Baruch Lanner, a former regional directorof the National Conference of Synagogue Youth, who is now serving aseven-year prison sentence for abusing teenage girls while he wasprincipal of a New Jersey yeshiva. The scandal set off a storm in theOrthodox world stemming from allegations that rabbinic leaders andothers had long been negligent in supervising Lanner.

Morerecently, David Kaye, a prominent 56-year-old Conservative rabbi fromMaryland, was ensnared in a nationally televised pedophile stingoperation. Kaye, the former vice president for programs of Panim: TheInstitute for Jewish Leadership and Values, was sentenced Dec. 1 to sixand a half years in prison for trying to solicit sex last year fromsomeone posing on the Internet as a 13-year-old boy, a case that wasfeatured on the network television show "Dateline NBC."

Virtuallyall denominations, except segments of fervent Orthodoxy, now haveformal codes on the books that outline unacceptable clergy behavior andmandate precisely how complaints of sexual impropriety are to beinvestigated and adjudicated by in-house ethics panels.

Ina three-month-long investigation, JTA examined those policies with thehelp of mental health providers, victims' advocates, rabbis, and otherswhose assessments reflected a mix of encouragement and skepticism.Among the findings:

• The anti-abuse guidelinesrepresent a well-intentioned yet sporadically flawed attempt to addressa problem that had once been neglected entirely. One evaluator gave thepolicies a C-plus grade, another a C-minus.

• Thesystem, according to critics, suffers from an institutional fear oflawsuits and excessive secrecy ' both byproducts of an ethical quandaryfaced by decision-makers. They must balance an individual's right toprivacy against the obligation to protect the public from a potentialsexual predator.

• A symbol of that ethicalpush-pull is the Awareness Center, a private, five-year-oldBaltimore-based Jewish organization that is devoted to protecting thepublic from abusers. The center has been both criticized and praisedfor its policy of identifying rabbis and other sexual predators on itsWebsite, whether or not they have been tried in court.

•Perhaps the most serious impediment to controlling clergy abuse is whatChicago psychologist and psychoanalyst Vivian Skolnick calls "theplague of silence" ' the continuing reluctance of victims to reporttransgressions. "People are afraid of being ostracized if they comeforward," said David Framowitz, 49, who has alleged in a recently filedfederal lawsuit that he was abused decades ago by a Brooklyn rabbi.

Likemost of the observers contributing to the JTA analysis, anti-abuseactivist and author Drorah Setel, a rabbi at a Reform congregation inNiagara Falls, N.Y., lauded the denominational rule-makers for takingsteps to undo decades of inaction and denial ' but she faulted theirspecific policies nonetheless.

"They are reallywell-intentioned, but they just don't understand the process and theissues involved in sex abuse cases," said Setel, who has writtenextensively on the topic of clergy sexual misconduct.

Thenotion of image-conscious, liability-minded, and often male-dominatedrabbinic ethics boards policing their own members, she added, is like"the fox guarding the henhouse."

Secrecy vs. privacy

AlthoughJudaism's get-tough policies may have their flaws, conclusive proof oftheir effectiveness ' or ineffectiveness ' is elusive. One reason isthat the pool of sex abuse complaints that have been processed byethics panels over the past several years is minuscule.

Itis an open question, however, whether the low volume of cases indicatesthat the problem of sexual misdeeds among rabbis and other Jewishclergy is minimal, as some claim, or is simply underreported, asSkolnick and several others contend.

In addition,the administrative proceedings aimed at meting out justice aretypically cloaked in what critics call excessive secrecy and advocatesof the system maintain is an environment of prudent and compassionateprivacy. The denominational hearings are generally closed to thepublic, and in some cases, public access to the results of thosehearings is severely limited.

Proponents of thisapproach say it is warranted to avoid unnecessarily tainting thereputation of the accused while sparing the accuser additional shameand embarrassment.

"It's not easy for someone toinstitute an ethics complaint; it's frightening," said Rabbi RosalindGold, chair of the ethics committee of the Reform movement's CentralConference of American Rabbis. "There are repercussions in thecommunity, and people are not stupid about that."

Victimsare typically traumatized by the fear of being ostracized if theypublicly challenge a respected, and often charismatic, communalauthority figure such as a rabbi, according to Skolnick and others.

Thatfear is not always illusory. As this JTA investigation demonstrates,victims are indeed sometimes shunned and even harassed by fellowcongregants. Consequently, other victims fail to report transgressions.

Despiteencouraging inroads in the area of reporting sexual abuse, thereluctance of victims to come forward continues to be a major problemacross all denominations. However, anecdotal evidence suggests thatunder-reporting may be more prevalent in the fervently Orthodoxcommunity ' the type of neighborhood where denial runs rampantregarding clergy sexual misconduct, according to Framowitz.

"Growingup in that frum world, it was thought that things like this couldn'tbe; it was too much of a black mark on the community," explainedFramowitz, who was raised in part in the Flatbush and Borough Parkneighborhoods of Brooklyn, which are described in his lawsuit as"tight-knit Orthodox Jewish" communities.

Framowitz,who now lives in Israel, told JTA that even his parents did notinitially believe that he had been repeatedly sexually abused. "Forseveral years," he said, "nobody protected me."

Whenasked by JTA about that episode, Framowitz's mother, Naomi Framowitz,said, "I was too naive to understand that such a thing could happen. Ilived in my own little world. At that time, it wasn't spoken about likeit is today."

The denominational policies examinedby JTA, which were developed by both the congregational and rabbinicwings of the major religious movements, have several similarities. Forexample, they address a vast range of prohibited deeds, from criminalacts such as rape and child molestation to sexually charged conductthat is exploitive but not necessarily criminal. That includes sexualharassment, adultery, and other forms of "seductive" or coercivebehavior that is grouped under the broad heading of "boundaryviolations."

In many instances, boundary violationsare an outgrowth of pastoral counseling that rabbis and other clergymenare often called on to provide for congregants who, for example, aregrieving, undergoing religious conversion, or experiencing personalproblems, such as marital crises. Explicitly banning even sexuallysuggestive behavior, most of the denominational guidelines recognizethat the inherent power imbalance between clergyman and congregantmakes otherwise consensual sexual contact unacceptable.

Thecodes of professional conduct promulgated by both the Conservative andReconstructionist movements go as far as to warn of possible pitfallsthat may arise when an unmarried rabbi dates a congregant. Someregulations aim to foster gender balance among those who investigate orrule on sex abuse cases ' an important consideration in these matters,according to several sources. Other provisions are geared to raisingthe level of expertise and independence among denominationalinvestigators and adjudicators.

For example, theRabbinical Council of America, a primarily modern Orthodoxorganization, specifies that whoever initially assesses complaints notbe a member of the RCA, that the organization's fact-finding teaminclude one mental health professional, and that all members of thatteam "have appropriate training in the area of sexual abuse."

TheCCAR guidelines, meanwhile, require that its three-memberfact-gathering team include a lay person in addition to two rabbis.

Limiting mobility

Anotherkey provision of the denominational codes focuses on an issue thatgained prominence during the child-molestation scandal in the CatholicChurch. That is, the problem of sexual predators who escapeapprehension by relocating to another institution or community wherethey repeat their conduct.

In the case of thechurch, pedophile priests were aided by superiors who routinelyshuttled them from one parish to another where they continued to haveaccess to children.

"This is an area of greatconcern in the Jewish community as well," said Alison Iser, director ofThe Jewish Program at the FaithTrust Institute, a Seattle-basednonprofit devoted to combating sexual and domestic violence. "TheJewish community has viewed with disdain that sort of behaviorelsewhere, and as a result, has felt a sort of smugness that it was nothappening here."

Whether segments of the Jewishcommunity do in fact have a "Catholic-priest problem" is debatable. Andyet Yosef Blau, a modern Orthodox rabbi, focused on a similar concernin the July 2003 issue of Nefesh News, the journal of the InternationalNetwork of Orthodox Mental Health Professionals.

"Evenwhen the pattern of abuse is clear," Blau wrote, referring to thesituation in the Orthodox community, "the question remains how toeffectively deal with the abuser in a way that at least limits hisability to move elsewhere and continue to abuse new people."

Ifprogress has been made on that front, it is in part because ofdenominational regulations that govern how much background informationabout a clergyman is to be divulged to interested parties, includingprospective employers. The guidelines generally place a premium onconfidentiality, but they vary in terms of how much discretion movementofficials have to release personnel information. For example:

•Declaring that "confidentiality is crucial," the ReconstructionistRabbinical Association guidelines ' which predate Blau's article bynearly four years and are being revised ' say the chair of theassociation's Ethics Committee may disclose only that a member is underinvestigation, the investigation "has been resolved but isconfidential," or that the member has been suspended or expelled. "Noother details are to be revealed." Rabbi Richard Hirsh, executivedirector of the association, elaborated: "In the abstract, the defaultposition would be that the more serious the violation, the moreimperative it is to disclose as much information as possible."

•News of a rabbi's expulsion from the RCA, the modern Orthodoxorganization, must be disseminated throughout the RCA, and the rabbi'scurrent employer must also be notified. Beyond that, though, RCAofficials shall determine "who else, if anyone," is to be informed thatsuch an action took place. The RCA's executive vice president, RabbiBasil Herring, said that policy enables officials to consider relevantfactors such as the seriousness of the offense as well as possiblecomplications posed by pending lawsuits.

• TheCCAR, the Reform rabbinic arm, mandates that a prospective employer beprovided with a fairly detailed report of disciplinary action takenagainst a CCAR member. But "after an extended period of time," a singlenon-criminal infraction doesn't have to be reported at all. AttorneyAnne Underwood, who helped write the CCAR code, noted that before thedecision is made to withhold information, it must first be reviewed byseveral senior CCAR officials in conjunction with the organization'slegal counsel. "I don't like secrecy," Underwood added, "but there is adifference between secrecy and privacy, and this provision honors that."

Noteveryone views that distinction in precisely the same way. As a result,the proper role of transparency in the adjudicative process is acontroversial topic, highlighting the tension between maintaining thepublic's right to know and enabling an individual to keep his or herreputation intact ' especially in the absence of criminal charges orcivil allegations.

"If you act on a falseaccusation, you're killing a guy and his family; the responsibility isawesome," said Rabbi Abraham Twerski, medical director emeritus of theGateway Rehabilitation Center in Pittsburgh. "Plus, you can be sued fordefamation of character. And boy, does that ever hamper the system."

Concernover litigation "causes people to get very frightened," added DavidPelcovitz, a suburban New York psychologist who has treated manyvictims of sexual abuse. "It certainly tests the limits of theiridealism." Some victims' advocates are transparency absolutists,insisting on full disclosure of virtually all details of sex-abusecases involving religious authority figures that have been ruled on bydenominational ethics panels. They feel that such information should bereleased not only to prospective employers but to the public at largeto protect the maximum number of people.

"There hasbeen so much secrecy for so long that victims are rightfullydistrustful," said rabbinic activist Setel of Niagara Falls. "They havea desire to overcompensate and I can totally understand that."Responding to those who advocate maximum transparency, Rabbi JoelMeyers, executive vice president of the Conservative movement'sRabbinical Assembly, said: "They're not crazy and they're not wrong.It's a dilemma we struggle with. The question is how high up do you putthat billboard?"

The underlying issue, addedMeyers, who said the R.A. has not been influenced by fear of lawsuits,is "what do you do in these cases to restore equilibrium between therabbi, the victim and the community? That is really the Jewishchallenge."

In part because of concerns over civilliability, the RCA generally limits the public release of detailsregarding sex abuse cases, even those that have resulted in a rabbi'sexpulsion from the organization, said Herring.

"Thethreat of liability hangs over you," he added. "The chill factor issignificant." The RCA guidelines, however, do have an emergency clausethat recommends informing a wide range of individuals, includingneighbors and civil authorities, if a rabbi might pose an immediatedanger to "alleged or potential victims."

Sourceswithin the other movements said that regardless of official policy, anexpansive disclosure stance would likely apply in similar circumstances.

Theethics panel of the Reform movement's CCAR does not ordinarilypublicize its findings, even in expulsion cases, according to Gold ofthe CCAR ethics committee.

"I don't know for surewhy," she said. "I'm not sure that question has ever been discussed asthat question. It's not a desire to keep things secret. It might be aninteresting thing to discuss."

Commenting on thetransparency issue, Minneapolis psychologist Gary Schoener, whoseoffice has consulted on hundreds of clergy sex abuse cases, both Jewishand non-Jewish, said there is such a thing as "hurtful honesty" thatcan needlessly trash the perpetrator ' who might be a good candidatefor recovery ' while inadvertently exposing the identity of the victim.Otherwise, Schoener added, full disclosure is always the best policywhen responding to inquiries from would-be employers.

Inpart because of extensive First Amendment protections enjoyed byreligious organizations, the keepers of clergy personnel records have"lots of leeway" in terms of what information they can release withoutbeing successfully sued, Schoener said.

Simple morality and common sense are usually effective decision-making guides in these situations, he said.

"Let'ssay you're hiring a rabbi," Schoener explained, "and he had donesomething wrong, and somebody later finds out about his history. Howwould the congregation feel if he goes out and does it again?

"Theissue here is knowing the truth. It does set everyone free. Theprospective employer should know both the good and the bad," he said."There should be an accurate description of the full person, includinghis recovery plan and how it is being monitored.

"The idea is to know exactly what kind of situation we're dealing with."

JTA

1. Reining in abuse
2. Wayward clergy: Epidemic or aberration?
3. Sweeping things under the carpet?