Catholic Church's Reliance Upon Kinsey Pseudoscience in John Jay Report




November 15, 2018

Judith A Reisman, Ph.D.

Director, The Reisman Institute,

Liberty University School of Law

Mary McAlister, Esq.

Senior Litigation Counsel, Liberty Counsel

Cynthia Dunbar, Esq.

Alisa Jordheim, Author,

Made in the USA: The Sex Trafficking of America’s Children


I. JOHN JAY REPORTS AVOID THE CAUSES OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE OF WHICH PRIEST ABUSE IS BUT ONE COMPONENT......................................................................... 1

A. Kinsey’s 1948 Male Report Normalizes Both Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse Yet is Sidelined by John Jay Criminologists..................................................................................... 1

1. Kinsey’s report prompts social, legal transformation............................................. 5

2. Use of Kinseyan Doublespeak Deflects “Pederast” (Homosexual) Boy Abuse..... 7

B. The JJCCJ Reports Omit Evidence of the Infiltration of Kinseyan Homosexual Activism and Indoctrination in the Church................................................................................................... 9

1. JJCCJ Fails to Acknowledge Catholic Writings Warning About Homosexual Activism. 10

2. Homosexual Activism and Kinsey Sexology Take Hold in the Church, but are ignored by JJCCJ................................................................................................................................... 11

C. Pornography’s Presence In, And Influence On, The Church Is Barely Mentioned in The John Jay Reports.............................................................................................................................. 13

1. Kinsey’s Reports Launched a Pornography Revolution....................................... 13

2. Pornography Enters the Church as Hefner/Playboy Recruit Candidates.......... 14

a. The Church’s Acceptance of Playboy Meant Promotion of Child Pornography. 15

b. Church Leaders Warn of Pornography Harms, but JJCCJ Ignores............... 16

3. Pornography was Integrated into Church teaching well before JJCCJ began its work. 17

II. PSYCHOMETIC ANALYSES OF PRIEST ABUSE REPORTS.................................. 18


IV. CONCLUSION................................................................................................................... 23

V. APPENDICES.................................................................................................................... 25

I. John Jay Reports Avoid the Causes OF Child Sexual Abuse of Which Priest Abuse is But One Component.

A. Kinsey’s 1948 Male Report Normalizes Both Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse Yet is Sidelined by John Jay Criminologists.

The 2011 John Jay College of Criminal Justice [JJCCJ] report to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops gives only a passing reference to Alfred Kinsey’s Sexual Behavior in the Human Male despite the fact that the 1948 book[1] lit the fuse of the “Sexual Revolution.”[2] By 1969 the Revolution was a raging fire, with the Stonewall riots ushering in “gay liberation”[3] and movies like Midnight Cowboy highlighting homosexuality and male prostitution and Roman Polanski’s Rosemary’s Baby boldly proclaiming the sexual utopia of Kinsey’s books, a utopia sung to Woodstock’s electric guitars.[4] These cultural milestones were outgrowths of loosened obscenity laws and sexual attitudes cultivated by 21 years of Kinseyan proselytization.

Kinsey’s proselytes infiltrated society– academe, education, law, medicine and the Church (as discussed below)–evangelizing the culture. For example, two 2018 law review articles offer the customary glossing over of the errors in Kinsey’s research, i.e., citing his work as authoritative while hiding the scientific fraud and blatant mass criminal child sexual abuse in his “data.” The Cardozo Law Review:

The understanding of sexual orientation as a spectrum was made famous in the mid-twentieth century by researcher Alfred Kinsey and his collaborators, who developed the Kinsey Scale to describe their research findings. The Kinsey Scale classifies sexual orientation on a spectrum from zero to six with zero representing "exclusively heterosexual" and six representing "exclusively homosexual.".… Building upon Kinsey's work, psychologists have subsequently posited three-dimensional models in an attempt to capture other facets of sexual orientation such as intensity of sexual attraction and change over time.[5] (Emphasis added).

The Asia Pacific Journal of Health, Law and Ethics cites Kinsey’s false abortion data:

[T]he earliest broad surveys capturing a picture of the country’s sexual behavior in the early twentieth century-the Kinsey Reports-suggest abortion was not an uncommon practice. Of the 6,000 women surveyed in these studies in the 1940s and 1950s, between a fifth and a quarter of married women [Kinsey defined as a woman living over a year with a man[6]] reported aborting a pregnancy, with almost 90% of extramarital pregnancies also ending in abortion.[7]

Kinsey’s alleged “findings” fired up the sexual revolution, engulfing institutions, including the Church and transforming the United States from a Judeo-Christian to post-Christian culture.

In 1954-55, the Reece Congressional Committee, concerned about the uses of tax-exempt foundation funding, examined the Rockefeller Foundation—Kinsey’s Indiana University benefactor.[8] Had the Committee scrutinized Kinsey’s research,[9] they might have prevented its revolutionary fallout. However, Congressman Wayne Hays (Ohio), threatened to halt all hearings unless the Kinsey inquiries were dropped and the Kinsey files given to Hays, so they “never saw the light of day.”[10] The testimony of Dr. Albert Hobbs hinted at Kinsey’s fraud:

In the second volume it was stressed, for example, that we object to adult molesters primarily because we have become conditioned against such adult molesters of children and the children who are molested become emotionally upset primarily because of the old-fashioned attitudes of their parents…[who] are the ones who do the real damage by making a fuss about it….the molester, and here I quote from Kinsey, “may have contributed favorably to their later sociosexual development.”[11]

The Committee’s legal counsel quotes journalist Albert Deutsch in Harpers:

…. “So startling are its revelations, so contrary to what civilized man has been taught for generations, that they would be unbelievable but for the impressive weight of the scientific agencies backing the survey,”

“Note how impressive is the word ‘scientific.’ And how false.”[12]

Nevertheless, by 1954 Kinsey had “already been cited in court decisions and quoted in textbooks as well as blazoned from one end of the country to the other.”[13] Had the Reece Committee conducted its investigation and revealed the child sex crimes underlying Kinsey’s work (as described below), perhaps the nation would have been sufficiently outraged to refuse to accept the claims that Kinsey’s science required a transformation of law and policy. As it was, the nation was told that Kinsey had “scientific evidence” that, inter alia,[14]

· Ninety percent of World War II era American men were promiscuous and adulterous;

· 10-37% of men are homosexual at various points in their lives;

· Sexuality is fluid over the course of a lifetime;

· All sex acts, e.g., masturbation, child/homo/hetero/animal sex/sodomy are normal, harmless and should begin in early childhood;

· Because all sexual acts are normal and harmless, legal restrictions against sodomy, bestiality, incest, child abuse, adultery, prostitution, etc., must be repealed as anti-science, antiquated and ineffective.

Most importantly for the Church’s problem of sexual abuse of minors, Kinsey’s 1948 Male volume displayed data purporting to prove that children are sexual from birth[15] and benefit from sex with adults.[16] Co-author Wardell Pomeroy said, “Kinsey numbered himself among those who contended that, as far as so-called molestation of children was concerned, a great deal more damage was done to the child by adult hysteria.”[17]

Kinsey’s “proof” included massive sex crimes against children presented as “data” on children’s “sexual experiences” labeled as “orgasms” of babies[18] unveiled in five tables, including Table 34 (see Appendix).

The tables were labeled, “Ages of pre-adolescent orgasm,” “Speed of pre-adolescent orgasm,” “Multiples orgasm in pre-adolescent males,” and “Examples of multiple orgasm in pre-adolescent males.”[19] These alleged “orgasms” (Table 34 presented below [20] ), were sexual abuse of infants and children timed with a stop watch.[21] Kinsey hid his “data” sources, but his co-authors revealed that much of it came from serial child rapist Rex King and Nazi party member, Dr. Fritz von Balluseck.[22] Kinsey claimed to observe the “pre-adolescent males” (babies and children) screaming, crying, fainting, convulsing and trying to fight away from the adult “partner" (Kinsey’s coded term for rapists).[23] These indicia of trauma were labeled “orgasm.”[24] A zoologist, Kinsey recorded violent rapes of as many as 2,034 infants and young boys.[25]

Kinsey drew a left triangle (the mythical 0 to 6 “Kinsey Scale”) and claimed it represented his “data” that 10% to 37% of males are “homosexual” at some time in their lives (defined as a “6” on his scale). “Homosexual” was defined as having a single same-sex sexual encounter, even if one was drugged, otherwise incapacitated or raped.[26] The “scale” promoted fluid, changeable, “gender,” as in the Cardozo Law Review (2018) article, emerging as the “transgender” movement (see Appendix).

1. Kinsey’s report prompts social, legal transformation

Cultural elites and a cadre of what is known in marketing as “influentials”[27] at Indiana University forthwith forged a Kinseyan “field” of “sexology,” renouncing morality-based institutions in favor of progressive amoral constructs. Social scientists, psychiatrists, judges, legal scholars, educators, etc., relied on Kinsey’s “data” and the new sexology “field” to devise wholesale revision of criminal laws, especially sex offense laws. [28]Within months of the 1948 Male volume, four scholarly books called for radical criminal law reforms. His “data” appeared everywhere.[29] Books and academic journals repeated Kinsey’s claims of child sexuality to advocate for reducing, and eventually decriminalizing sex offenses against children. The Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry (“GAP”) argued that some seven-year-olds are, “by endowment and training fully capable of part or…full responsibility for sexual behavior.” And when a bit older, “legal concepts of rape and of contributing to delinquency become increasingly untenable.”[30]

Relying entirely on Kinsey, in 1955 an elite cadre of American Law Institute scholars created a “Model Penal Code” (“MPC”) aimed at ending or reducing sex crime penalties. Drafters of the MPC argued child sex abuse should be criminal only if, “the victim is less than 10 years old despite consent and regardless of the actor’s [rapist, molester] lack of knowledge that the victim is below the prescribed age.”[31] “Current law dealing with indecent liberties with children does not consider the previous promiscuity of the child.”[32] It should be “a defense that the 10-16 ‘victim’ had previously engaged in promiscuous sexual activity.”[33] Parroting Kinsey’s findings, the drafters said sex offense laws should be changed, particularly for children because a “young person who is accustomed to sexual activity (1) would suffer little or no psychical harm from consensual sexual contact, and (2) might well be the seducer rather than the seduced.”[34] With Kinsey, legal policymakers believed they now had scientific “data” showing children are sexual from birth--so seven or ten-year-olds can be sexually “promiscuous” or “experienced.”

Kinsey’s value to the pederast/pedophile network is pointed out by network leaders:

Gay liberationists in general, and boy-lovers in particular, should know Kinsey’s work and hold it dear…. Implicit in Kinsey is the struggle we fight today.[35] —North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA)

Kinsey’s work is therefore foundational to cultural and church child sexual abuse--the key question JJCCJ was commissioned to answer for the USCCB in 2002. Indeed, for 70 years, this Kinseyan worldview permeated elite social institutions, starting with universities, becoming the orthodox perspective on human sexuality. Universities have trained and are training many thousands of educators, politicians, doctors, lawyers, judges and clergy in this perspective, creating a worldview repudiating God’s word on human sexuality and childhood. Despite Kinsey’s role in forming cultural transformation within the church and without, JJCCJ offered scant attention. Its only reference in 2011: “Alfred Kinsey, in two controversial reports, analyzed the prevalence of sexual acts that were considered by most to be deviant at the time, such as masturbation and same-sex behavior.”[36]

2. Use of Kinseyan Doublespeak Deflects “Pederast” (Homosexual) Boy Abuse

For a content analysis of the JJCCJ reports to be informative requires an examination of the etymology of words used historically to define sexual predators; specifically, “pederast” versus “ephebophile” (and other deflective words used by JJCCJ and others). “Pederast” has a long, classical-historic etymology as homosexual abuse of boys, yet “pederast” never appears in the JJCCJ reports. Words, like people, have “biographies.” Although “Ephebophile” has no discernible biography, it appears 68 times in the JJCCJ reports; 38 in the 2004 report, 16 in the 2006 report and 32 in the 2011 report. One wonders, Why?

Webster’s 1828 dictionary, with no record of ephebophile, defines “PED'ERAST, noun [Gr. a boy, and love.] A sodomite.”[37] “Pederasty” is also (still) defined on the internet.

Origin of pederasty; 1605–15; New Latin pederastia < Greek paiderastía love of boys. See pederasty

Pederasty sometimes paederasty

Noun; homosexual relations between men and boys.[38]

Ephebophile, entered the lexicon--absent proper pedigree--in the 1960s as, “An adult who is sexually attracted to adolescents.”[39] The term is associated with Dr. John Money (a pederast apologist [40]), who habitually created neologisms to obfuscate sexual abuse of minors.[41]

Research historically described homosexuality as a cause for sexual abuse of boys.[42] While such literature is, of late, hidden by the mainstream media, it should have been included in the JJCCJ reports. Homosexual activists once openly discussed pederastric child sexual abuse, but such knowledge has been hushed-up since the rise of LGBT activism. Among those early authors that openly discussed homosexual child sexual abuse were Karla Jay and Allen Young: “[K]ids can take care of themselves, and are sexual beings way earlier than we’d like to admit ... young bodies are attributes, they’re groovy.”[43] Jay and Young’s report identified 50 to 73 percent of homosexual males admitting sex with boys.[44] A 1984 FBI report said that an estimate of one boy in six as sexually abused was likely underreported.[45]

Psychologist Dr. Eugene Abel reported homosexual males, “sexually molest young boys with an incidence that is occurring from five times greater than the molestation of girls .... child molesters admitted from 23.4 to 281.7 acts per offender ... whose targets were males.”[46] Pederast priests victimized roughly 650% more boys than heterosexual priests victimized girls (pederasts abusing 150 boys to pedophiles (heterosexuals) 20 girls prior to arrest[47]). Yet Abel’s 1987 report is omitted from the 2004 and 2006 JJCCJ reports in which some of his other work is extensively cited. JJCCJ quotes Abel’s findings about nonincarcerated males who “assaulted young boys averaged 281offenses with an average of 150 victims.” However, JJCCJ excluded Abel's comparative findings showing a 650% differential between the number of male victims of pederasts and the number of female victims of pedophiles. Abel concluded “strongly fixated offenders who have the most victims and the highest rate of recidivism…[are] the highest risk to the community.”[48]

B. The JJCCJ Reports Omit Evidence of the Infiltration of Kinseyan Homosexual Activism and Indoctrination in the Church.

JJCCJ’s failure to address the nature and consequences of the Kinsey reports and subsequent societal shifts is cogently illustrated in the paucity of reference to books documenting the “Kinsey Scale’s” 10 percent “data” as fueling homosexual activism in the Church, and especially the reliance on Kinseyan sexologists as experts in priest sex abuse—all prior to the USCCB’s commissioning of the JJCCJ studies. The studies’ disregard of these phenomena permitted Kinseyan homosexual activism to continue, unabated, in the Church.

1. JJCCJ Fails to Acknowledge Catholic Writings Warning About Homosexual Activism.

Absent from the JJCCJ reports are books and reports by church leaders and investigators historically chronicling how homosexual revolutionaries penetrated the Church. Despite its inclusion of “Estimates Of Child Sexual Abuse (2004), JJCCJ avoids identifying the glaring role of homosexual pederasty in priestly abuse. Among books addressing this particular issues omitted from researchers’ bibliography and discussion is the meticulously researched book by Fr. Enrique Rueda, The Homosexual Network, Private Lives & Public Policy, documenting closeted homosexual activism in the Church,[49]Good Bye Good Men,[50] Gays, AIDS, and You,[51] and The Rite of Sodomy.[52] These books documented widespread homosexual indoctrination that was part of a larger attack on the Church. Former Communist party leader Bella Dodd testified to the House Un-American Activities Committee:

In the 1930s we put eleven hundred men into the priesthood in order to destroy the Church from within. The idea was for these men to be ordained, and then climb the ladder of influence and authority as Monsignors and Bishops.
“In the late 1920’s and 1930’s, directives were sent from Moscow to all Communist Party organizations. In order to destroy the [Roman] Catholic Church from within, party members were to be planted in seminaries and within diocesan organizations.” [53]

John Jay’s analysis ignores these moral threats against the Church, particularly the pervasive presence of homosexual activists and apologists, change agents Pope Francis likened to “Hitler Youth” propagandists.

Pope Francis lamented the Western practice of imposing a homosexual agenda on other nations through foreign aid…“ideological colonization” [of] Nazi propaganda.…This ideological colonization “is not new, the dictators of the last century did the same,” Francis said. “They came with their own doctrine. Think of the BalilLa (The Fascist Youth under Mussolini), think of the Hitler youth.”[54]

2. Homosexual Activism and Kinsey Sexology Take Hold in the Church, but are ignored by JJCCJ.

Among the issues of grave concern cited above is how did homosexist revolutionaries take power in the Church? According to The Boston Globe and The Advocate (a homosexist periodical), Fred Berlin, M.D. was one of Cardinal Law’s trusted child sex abuse experts.[55] In 1994, Berlin trained “judges…health professionals…lawyers, legislators, police officers and child advocacy workers” claiming; “pedophilia . . . can be effectively controlled with appropriate psychiatric intervention.”[56] His data were a patient sample of nine child molesters, four of whom remained in treatment with three of the other five allegedly having not “relapsed in two years.”[57] No scientist would agree these data reflect effective criminal “control[led]”. Furthermore, in 1996 a General Accounting Office report spanning 50 years and 500 therapeutic programs reported no treatment “controlling” predators.[58] Nevertheless, both Cardinal Law and Rev. Michael R. Peterson, M.D., homosexual, AIDS carrier and founder of St Luke's Institute—a Catholic treatment center for priests battling sexuality issues--directed the Church to rely on Dr. Berlin and his mentor Dr. John Money, because:

[M]alpractice cases involve situations where clerics give advice which is considered by the civil courts to be beyond their sphere of expertise or competence…allegedly cause catastrophic consequences (divorce, suicide) resulting in civil suits. [These] two mental health professionals [Berlin/Money] are considered by me and most people in the field as the two U.S. experts and ones who have had good success in treatment of the paraphilic disorders in the past fifteen years " (circa 1970) at their clinic. [59]

Peterson insisted Money/Berlin knew “the scientific research” and “the etiology of… [child molesting] is likely biological,” probably “in utero.”[60] Predators would be “controlled” at St. Luke’s.[61] Some of Berlin and Money’s “treatments” at St. Luke’s were described by researcher Randy Engel, whose research was ignored by JJCCJ:

Under Peterson’s tenure at the Institute, there was virtually no difference between the Institute and a Masters and Johnson or Kinsey-based sex clinic in the treatment of clerical sex offenders”….At St. Luke, clerics were subjected to the indignity of the so-called “peter-meter,” the penile plethysmograph that connects the male organ electronically to equipment that measures the patient’s erotic response to various types of pornographic images.[62]

The 2004 JJCCJ reports “the author asserts that of the 300 priests” apparently treated with the above “techniques” at St. Luke, “only two have relapsed.” S. J Rossetti, who took over St. Luke’s after Peterson died of AIDS, asserts “our myths about child molesters” reflect our “inner psyches” not “who these men are.” Predatory priests don’t have a “character disorder” for Rossetti says they will abuse “fewer victims.”[63] At St. Luke’s, as at other Church therapy centers, pederast priests viewed pornography as “therapy,” recommended by men lauded by The Journal of Paedophilia,(John Money)[64] and a homosexual periodical, The Advocate (Fred Berlin).[65]

C. Pornography’s Presence In, And Influence On, The Church Is Barely Mentioned in The John Jay Reports.

Engel, Berry and Rose document pornography as “sex education” common in seminary formation, yet the issue was barely mentioned by JJCCJ. News reports of thousands of men and women convicted of possessing and selling child pornography demonstrates how changed morality affects conduct. If JJCCJ was truly seeking answers to the question of why and how the sexual abuse of children proliferated in the Church, pornography use should have been a significant area of study. However, the semantic analysis presented infra shows 22 cites for “pornography” across all three JJCCJ reports, and one for (1) “child pornography” (an Australian study asserting “a low incidence of child pornography use” by offenders):[66]

1. JJCCJ 2004: 13 cites to “pornography” in 235 pages, commonly vague.

2. JJCCJ 2006: 0 cites to “pornography" in 53 pages.

3. JJCCJ 2011: 9 perfunctory cites to “pornography” in 143 pages.

JJCCJ’s minimal mention of pornography is particularly problematic in light of the well-known prevalence and influence of pornography on the Church as in the rest of society for many years prior to the JJCCJ analysis.[67]

1. Kinsey’s Reports Launched a Pornography Revolution

Hugh Hefner, a college virgin in 1948 at age 22 (like most college men[68]), read Kinsey’s Sexual Behavior in the Human Male and vowed to be “Kinsey’s pamphleteer.”[69] He fulfilled that vow with his launch of Playboy magazine in 1953, the genesis of the pornography revolution which led to, inter alia, Kinseyan sex education via the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) formed by Playboy at the Kinsey Institute.[70] This brought Kinsey’s worldview into classrooms and libraries Kindergarten through 12th grade. Pornography went mainstream in 1955 when Playboy successfully challenged the United States Post Office’s determination that it was obscene material and thereby obtained second class mailing privileges.[71] Pornography was now as close as the mailbox, presaging the today’s ubiquitous internet.

2. Pornography Enters the Church as Hefner/Playboy Recruit Candidates.

Church leaders have frequently warned the faithful about pornography, so it should have been a major area of concern for JJCCJ researchers seeking data on predatory priests. A not-so-well-kept secret was that pornography had infiltrated rectories, seminaries, Catholic universities and other institutions, as seen in Playboy’s multiple interviews, publicity photographs and other material featuring Church leaders, including priests. In fact, at least one religious order used Playboy as a recruiting tool. On January 21, 1977, the Washington Post reported that a 1972 Trinitarian Fathers’ Playboy advertisement brought “Trinitarians into national view.”[72] The Post further reported that in 1975 Playboy used the successful Trinitarians’ ad campaign to launch its own ad campaign; “I read Playboy and found God….When the Order of the Most Holy Trinity needed new recruits, they called on Playboy to do God’s work.”[73]

Underlying everything in Hefner’s “Playboy Philosophy” was religious animus. Nevertheless, many future seminarians were formed by Hefner’s sex philosophy which he credits to Kinsey’s “findings,” “proving” religiously-based, female protective laws against seduction, fornication, adultery, cohabitation, sodomy, etc., should be repealed.

a. The Church’s Acceptance of Playboy Meant Promotion of Child Pornography.

From 1954, Playboy inserted sexualized child images into its pages, first as cartoons and later photographs, grooming predators by blurring the lines between sexually provocative women and children.[74] Research has shown that such viewing subconsciously arouses states of shame and fear as viewers are “trapped” into experiencing themselves as having sex with a depicted child! Neuroscientist Marco Iacoboni wrote:

[M]irror neurons are powerfully activated by pornography….when a man watches another man have sexual intercourse with a woman [or child], the observer's mirror neurons spring into action. The vicarious thrill of watching sex, it turns out, is not so vicarious after all.[75]

The prevalence of child sex images in mainstream “soft” pornography was documented by Dr. Reisman in her DOJ-grant funded study, Images of Children, Crime and Violence in Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler (1986). Playboy’s “Playmate Data Sheet” presented with many of its centerfolds displays the featured models as toddlers as “Playmate Material” alongside nude, sexually explicit pictures of these same toddlers as grown women. Users would not suspect their arousal to such pictures could lead to acts of sex abuse of children or women. Shakespeare said lust was: “On purpose laid to make the taker mad…”[76] Were child images “on purpose laid” to make the users “mad?”

A content analysis of Playboy (N-373), Penthouse (N-184), and Hustler (N-126) magazines, December 1953 to December 1984, yielded 6,004 child images as well as an estimated 14,854 images of crime and violence….increased nearly 2,600 percent (16 to 412) from 1954 to 1984 peaking in 1978 at 465….two-thirds of the child scenarios were sexual and/or violent; the dominant age bracket 3 to 11 years; …. associated with adult males;. Close to 1,000 sexual scenarios included children with adults; 80 percent of the children were actively involved in all scenes; and each magazine portrayed children as unharmed and/or benefited by adult-child sex….In sum, these magazines paired adult female nudity with images of children, crime and violence, for millions of juvenile and adult readers for over three decades.[77]

b. Church Leaders Warn of Pornography Harms, but JJCCJ Ignores.

In a 1989 pastoral letter, the Pontifical Council for Social Communications described pornography’s corrupting effects. This should have prompted an in-depth examination by JJCCJ.

Pornography in the media is understood as a violation…, a violation which reduces the human person and human body to an anonymous object of misuse for the purpose of gratifying concupiscence …. Willing participation in the production or dissemination of these noxious products can only be judged a serious moral evil.[78]

Similarly, in 1995 the Pontifical Council for The Family called for “action on the part of parents: preventive and critical education with regard to their children, and courageous denunciation to the appropriate authorities.”[79] Continued Church warnings on pornography illustrates a) its’ critical import in child sexual abuse and b) the seriousness of JJCCJ’s failure to collect use data properly. Dr. Reisman’s extensive research on homosexuality,[80] confirms the statement by Randy Engel in The Rite of Sodomy that “gay” pornography,[81] is part of a “subculture” using homosexual pornography as a grooming tool for child abuse. Yet “homosexual” or “gay” pornography is not mentioned in the JJCCJ studies.

3. Pornography was Integrated into Church teaching well before JJCCJ began its work.

The JJCCJ reports’ cursory treatment of pornography is all the more troubling in light of evidence that some dioceses used pornographic materials prepared and promoted by Kinsey’s co-authors and disciples in formation of parishioners, priest and students.[82] As described above, these materials were also an integral part of the “therapy” that priests accused of child sexual abuse received at the Church-run St. Luke’s Institute.

As World Net Daily reported in 2002, the “famed ‘sexologist’ Alfred Kinsey, a reputed pedophile….creat[ed] a flourishing environment for priests who abuse teens and children.”[83] Seminarians, priests and, in some case, parishioners were sexually “trained” via “Sexual Attitude Restructuring” (SAR) created by The Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality (IASHS) in San Francisco. In 1979 IASHS Academic Dean, Wardell Pomeroy, Kinsey co-author, and sex partner, sought funding from the Adult Film Association to film “child pornography.”[84]

In 1984 Randy Engel reported on the use of SAR training in Catholic seminaries, such as Michigan’s St. John’s Seminary.[85] In 1980 leaders “expos[ed] their seminarians to….pornography as part of their training in ‘human sexuality,’”[86] mandating a…(SAR) program ….films depicting heterosexual and homosexual penetration.”[87] Like Hefner, “prior to the 1960s, the vast majority of young men who applied for admission to the seminary were virgins. After the heyday of the “sexual revolution” that was built on Kinseyian theories, the young men who presented themselves as candidates for the priesthood were no longer so.[88] The reader should note that the “sex research” of Alfred C. Kinsey and the “phenomenological-experimental-existential” approach of psychologist Carl Rogers that wrought such havoc in Catholic seminaries and the priesthood in the 1950s and 1960s were funded by the same source - the Rockefeller Foundation.[89] Engel found SAR widely used on Catholic college campuses throughout the country.[90]

As World Net Daily reported, by 2002 SAR had reached individual parishes:

The SAR and its X-rated theater - perhaps missing only the in-class "lab work" - was offered to parishioners for 10 years by the Milwaukee Archdiocese under Rembert G. Weakland, who recently took early retirement after admitting to a $450,000 payment by the archdiocese that settled a complaint by a young man with whom he had an “inappropriate" relationship.”[91]

Sex offenders at St. Luke’s could come and go at will. “The heart of the St. Luke program for sex offenders under Father Peterson was the SAR…program that included the viewing of “clinical” pornography….designed to desensitize viewers to all forms of sexual activity including masturbation and homosexual acts,[92] [and] designed to convince viewers that sex between two males can be “loving” and “gentle”.[93] Considering the use of 254 pornographic words in the homosexual dictionary for sex with children,[94] SAR and other pornography formation materials should have garnered attention from JJCCJ. Instead, as seen in the analysis below, pornography as formation was bypassed, leaving a gaping hole in causation of priest sexual abuse of children.


Dr. Reisman conducted a pilot content analysis of the three JJCCJ reports and the 2018 Pennsylvania Attorney General report. The tables below the endnotes reflect the rank ordering of the number of instances in which each word appeared. and the AG Report. This preliminary psychometric measure codifies ‘most to least important’ words and concepts appearing in the JJCCJ/AG discussions, choice and review of relevant literature, victim and offender surveys and interviews.

Below is an analysis of only 28 terms used in the 2018 Pennsylvania Attorney General’s (“AG”) report.[95] Victim testimony finds “most of the victims were boys; but there were girls too. Some were teens; many were prepubescent. Some were manipulated with alcohol or pornography.”[96] Despite 841 boy victims, the offending homosexuals are seldom cited (17). Victimized Child (616) or Minor (172) can of course, be either sex of victim or gender of offender. Girl victims (205) do not reveal the gender of the predator.

Grooming was cited 28 times. Pederast, the valid, historic word for males who assault boys never appeared in the AG report. Instead, John Money’s neologism “ephebophile” is cited 6 times, pedophilia 40 times. Since the victims identified homosexuals as primary actors it is disquieting that the AG noted only 17 times the sex of the overwhelming majority of offenders. Even oral sex (122), porn (71) nudity and (76) sodomy (12) could be committed by either sex.

It is interestingly that even books like Lead Us Not Into Temptation and Amchurch Comes Out, which cover many stories of porn use does not index “pornography”. With well over 40 porn cites (not counting the SAR, which is all porn), Lead Us Not still avoids indexing the word. Why? This is a researchable question.


The change in title of the 2006 JJCJJ report to “The Causes and Content” 1950-2010, of abuse of minors suggests a basic change in the stated goals of each document. The 2004 document mission was to establish “The Nature and Scope” of minor abuse—1950-2002. The 2011 JJCCJ study says, “Social changes paralleled the increase of sexual abuse on all cohorts of priests.” In its conclusion the 2011 report states “The Nature and Scope study provided valuable information.”[97] In fact, none of the reports fully explained why the crisis occurred and continues.

Five key “proximate causes” should have been but were not sufficiently analyzed by JJCCJ:

1) 1948: Kinsey’s Male “data” prove to all students sex, (yes, with children) is normal;

2) 1952: Communists enter seminaries in the 1930s, Senate testimony by Bella Dodd;

3) 1953: Female “data,” Playboy norms sex revolution, promiscuity, sex with children;

4) 1955: Model Penal Code sent to all states, legalize illegal sex based on Kinsey “data”;

5) 1960: “the pill” gives men sex w/o marriage, women birth freedom--STDs, etc.

Not only did the JJCCJ reports fail to explore these and other causative factors, but the researchers quote “experts” like psychiatrist and former Benedictine monk A.W. Richard Sipe,[98] while ignoring analysts who identify priest child sex abuse as a largely homosexual issue. Mary Eberstadt reported that Sipe insists, “It’s not a gay problem; it’s a problem of irresponsible sexual behavior and the violation of boundaries.”[99]

Here is a Jesuit writing in the English Catholic magazine the Tablet: “The problem is not the abusing priests' homosexuality, but rather their immaturity and their abuse of power,"…the proposition, as the president of the gay Catholic organization Dignity put it, that “Homosexuality has nothing to do with it.”[100]

Utilizing the language of Sipe and similar apologists, argued Eberstadt, was “the most pernicious evasive maneuver of all.”[101]

That is the attempt to define the problem away with the language of therapeutic expertise. Central to this effort has been the supposed distinction that, as Newsweek and multiple other sources assert, “the great majority of cases now before the church involve not pedophilia but ‘ephebophilia’ an attraction to post-pubescent youths.”[102]

Even “Andrew Greeley--jet-setting Jesuit sociologist, racy novel writer, and no one’s idea of a Church reactionary” said, “the two phenomena [homosexuality and pedophilia] shade into one another.”[103] Yet, both the JJCCJ reports and the AG report failed to identify the elephant in the Church. That failure is more than a harmless oversight. This had incalculable effects on the Church’s efforts to identify and properly address the causes and consequences of priestly sexual abuse, to learn from past errors so as to plan the future and to begin healing.

In 1986, “[p]riests, like psychiatrists, were now considered bad insurance risks for malpractice.” [104][105] How could the “helping” professions become harmful? Excluding the Enlightenment, how did we get the “new sexuality?” Dr. Mary Calderone, as an expert, published “Sex Education, Homosexuality and Masturbation” yet said, “There are no authorities—believe me—in this field….we are not authorities.”[106] Nevertheless, they quickly gained that title as exemplified by the following narrative:

Rockefeller funded Kinsey in 1941, Planned Parenthood in 1942, Kinsey’s “Sex Offenses” Model Penal Code in 1955, plus successive sex revolutionaries. By 1957 a Society for The Scientific Study of Sex debuts; and by 1964 this cadre of sexperts mount the Sex Information and Education Council of the US (SIECUS). 1964 also sees the cadre mount a sex-ed program at New York University. By 1967 they emerge with sex credentials from the American Society for Sex Education Counselors and Therapists and by 1968 Sexual Attitude Restructuring (SAR) by The Institute for The Advanced Study Of Human Sexuality will be credentialing via mandated pornography training. In 1977 SAR will train and credential The American Association of Marriage and Family Counselors and by 1978 SAR trains The University of Penn, all credentialed in 1986 by a Commission on Accreditation (Sex Ed, Human Sexuality Curricula); marketing “authorities” in pornographic, deviant “sex ed” nationally, and globally.[107] Thus, by 1990, it is not surprising that United States Bishops approve a mandated 3-year “sex education” experiment on 2,453 elementary school children in Tucson’s 16 Catholic schools. The “authorities” say, “We have been allowed access to a heretofore shielded sample and given the freedom to employ treatments as progressive as any used anywhere in the country in any type of school system…”[108] The results of that mass experiment have never been published.

IV. Conclusion

Alfred Kinsey’s 1948 and 1953 books created a seismic cultural paradigm shift away from a Judeo-Christian morality-based legal and governance worldview on human sexuality. Prior to Rockefeller’s mass media marketing of Kinsey’s criminally fraudulent “data,” the prevailing belief system was that of normative “responsible” sexual behavior. Post-Kinsey this was replaced by one’s desired “sexual expression.” Sexual autonomy, choice, became the highest right over all societal norms, even the child’s right to life in the womb, safety and innocence outside. Kinsey, fronting for his cadre of sexually deviant cultural change agents said: “the only unnatural sexual act is that which you cannot perform.”[109] This was a goal in which they would ultimately succeed far beyond their wildest hopes.

That success invaded the Church, as Kinseyan formation infested schools, seminaries and dioceses, creating habitats of homosexual/pederast advocacy antithetical to orthodoxy. Reports of such actions in U.S. dioceses and the growing number of law enforcement investigations into child sexual abuse allegations by priests nationwide illustrates how pervasively the Kinseyan clan’s sexual worldview penetrated the Church. JJCCJ’s failure to address Kinsey’s “data” and their transformative cultural effects in the Church, is a serious oversight. By omitting St. Luke’s and similar therapeutic Church centers’ long history of support for pederasty, pornography, homosexuality and their effects, JJCCJ utterly failed in its duty to identify the causes of the child sexual abuse crisis in the Church.

This is merely a preliminary analysis of key research findings to help explain our cultural and Church crisis. Restoration requires a comprehensive, integrated and objective analysis of the damage done to Church and culture by agents of the sexual revolution. This depends upon ferreting out and exposing all Kinseyans as either naïve or criminally fraudulent, counterfeit authorities, therapists, psychologists, teachers, speakers, relying on nescient counseling, guide books and text books. It means returning to historic Church teachings on human sexuality; honoring public and private dignity, virtue, chastity, character and integrity. For; as the future Pope Benedict XVI predicted in 1969 “the real crisis has hardly begun. We will have to count on terrific upheavals. But….what will remain at the end: not the Church of the political cult, which is dead already, but the Church of faith.”[110]


[1] Alfred Kinsey et. al., Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) [hereinafter Kinsey Male].

[2] Kinsey is recognized as the “Father of Sexology” and the Sexual Revolution, See lgbt History Month, October: 31 days, 31 icons: Alfred Kinsey, sex researcher,

[3] Michael L. Brown, A Queer Thing Happened to America, 17-18 (2011).

[4] John C. McWillliams, The 1960s Cultural Revolution, 15, 74-75 (2000).

[5] Gillian R. Chadwick, Reorienting the Rules of Evidence, 39 Cardozo L. Rev. 2115, 2162 (2018). (Emphasis added)

[6] Judith A. Reisman, Stolen Honor Stolen Innocence, 110 (2013).

[7] Luke Haqq, Expanding Reproductive Rights to Indigent Noncitizens: A Prioritarian Goal of Reproductive Justice, 11 Asia Pacific J. Health L. & Ethics 139, 173 (2018)

[8] Rene Wormser, Foundations: Their Power and Influence, 100-105 (1958).

[9] Id. at 351.

[10] Id.

[11] Id. at 102.

[12] Id. at 104.

[13] Id, at 101.

[14] Kinsey Male at 392, 585-87, 641, 650-51, 671.

[15] Reisman, STOLEN HONOR STOLEN INNOCENCE 149 (quoting SECRET HISTORY: KINSEY’S PAEDOPHILES (Yorkshire Television Aug. 10, 1998).

[16] Alfred Kinsey et. al., Sexual Behavior In The Human Female 121-22 (1953) [hereinafter FEMALE]

[17] Wardell B. Pomeroy, Dr. Kinsey and the Institute for Sex Research 207-08 (1972) [hereinafter Pomeroy].

[18] Kinsey Male at 176-80.

[19] Id.

[20] Table 34, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, p. 180.

[21] Id. at 176, 180.

[22] Reisman, Stolen Honor, Stolen Innocence at 99.

[23] Kinsey Male at 160-61

[24] Id.

[25] Reisman, Stolen Honor, Stolen Innocence at 92.

[26] Kinsey Male at 638-39.

[27] Philip Kotler, MARKETING MANAGEMENT, Prentice Hall Inc., NJ. 1967, 1986, p. 345. Change agents representing 21/2 percent of the population can sway the public overtime to a new product or idea, i.e.; homosexuality, transgenderism, etc.


[29] About the Kinsey Report: Observations by 11 Experts on “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male” (Donald Porter Geddes & Enid Curie eds., 1948) [hereinafter About the Kinsey Report]; Morris L. Ernst & David Loth, American Sexual Behavior and the Kinsey Report (1948) [hereinafter Ernst]; Rene Guyon, The Ethics of Sexual Acts (1948) [hereinafter Guyon]; Sex Habits of American Men: A Symposium on the Kinsey Report (Albert Deutsch ed., 1948).

[30] Committee on Forensic Psychiatry, Psychiatrically Deviated Sex Offenders, 9 Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry 1, 2 (Feb. 1950).

[31] Model Penal Code § 207.6 cmt. 4 at 295 (Am. Law Inst., Tentative Draft No. 4 1955).

[32] Id.

[33] Id. § 207.6 cmt. 5 at 295 (emphasis added).

[34] Id.

[35] North American Man/Boy Love Association, “The Case for Abolishing Age Consent Laws,” Daniel Tsang (ed.), The Age Taboo: Gay Male Sexuality, Power and Consent, 96 (1981). See also,

[36] JJCCJ, The Causes and Context of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests in the United States, 1950-2010, 14 (2011) (“JJCCJ 2011”).


[38] Citations to several English and USA as well: dictionaries

[39] Oxford Living Dictionary,

[40] See Joseph Geraci & Donald Mader, Interview: John Money, 2 Paidika, The Journal of Paedophilia, 5 (Spring 1991).

[41] John Money, Lovemaps: Clinical Concepts of Sexual/erotic Health and Pathology, Paraphilia and Gender Transposition in Childhood, Adolescence and Maturity, 70-75 (1986).

[42] See, e.g., David Fergusson et al., Is Sexual Orientation Related to Mental Health Problems and Suicidality in Young People? 10 ARCHIVES GEN. PSYCHIATRY 876-80 (1999); Richard Herrell et al., A Co-twin Control Study in Adult Men, 10 ARCHIVES GEN. PSYCHIATRY 866, 867-74 (1999).

[43] Karla Jay & Allen Young, Out Of The Closets: Voices Of Gay Liberation, 338, 365 (1972).

[44] Id. at 275. See for further citations.

[45] Kenneth V. Lanning & Anne W. Burgess, Child Pornography and Sex Rings, FBI Law Enforcement Bull., 10 (January 1984).

[46] Gene Abel et al., Self-reported Sex Crimes of Nonincarcerated Paraphiliacs, 2 J. INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE 2(1), 3-25 (1987)

[47] Id., 5-25.

[48] JJCCJ 2004, at 174.

[49] Father Enrique Rueda, PhD, S.J. The Homosexual Network, Private Lives & Public Policy (1986).

[50] Michael Rose, Goodbye, Good Men (2002).

[51] Enrique Rueda & Michael Schwartz, Gays, AIDS, And You (1988).

[52] Randy Engel, The Rite of Sodomy (2006).

[53] Bella Dodd, School of Darkness (1954).

[54] John-Henry Westen, Pope Francis compares pushing gay agenda to ‘Hitler Youth’ indoctrination, LifeSite News, January 21, 2015,

[55] Michael Paulson, Abuse Panel Says It Will Seek Change, The Boston Globe, March 13, 2002,, at 184, The Advocate, April 30, 2002, id.

[56] Berlin & Coyle Johns Hopkins “Department Of Psychiatry And Behavior Sciences” report on sex crime recidivism Id., at. 193; Dr. Fred S. Berlin, John Hopkins Sexual Disorders Clinic, advertising his training program "The Cycle of Sexual Trauma," in the Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, February 10-12, 1994.

[57] Judith Reisman, Ph.D., What Fred Berlin & Johns Hopkins’ “Department Of Psychiatry And Behavior Sciences” Define as “Successful” Treatment Of Pedophiles And Sundry Child Molesters (1981)

[58] U.S. GAO, Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Sex Offender Treatment research Results Inconclusive About What Works To Reduce Recidivism (1996), at 270.

[59] Thomas P. Doyle, F. Ray Mouton, Michael R. Peterson, The Problem of Sexual Molestation by Roman Catholic Clergy: Meeting the Problem in a Comprehensive and Responsible Manner 1985, p. 2.

[60] Id., at 22-23.

[61] Id., 69.

[62] Engel, The Rite of Sodomy, Chapter 16, at. 8. Chapter 11, Sec 3, at. 26 (emphasis added).

[63] JJCCJ at. 280.

[64] See Geraci and Mader, Interview: John Money.

[65] See Paulson, Abuse Panel; The Advocate, April 2002.

[66] JJCCJ 2011 at 100.


[68] Thomas Weyr, Reaching forParadise, Times Books, New York, 1978, pp. 195-196.

[69] Reisman, Stolen Honor Stolen Innocence, at 102, citing 1996 BBC telecast featuring Hugh Hefner.

[70] Id, at 177.

[71] HMH Publishing Company, Inc. v. Summerfield, U.S District court for the District of Columbia, Case No. 504155 (1955).

[72] Janis Johnson, Playboy Ads Help Recruit Priesthood Candidates, The Washington Post, January 21, 1977,

[73] Id.

[74] Judith Reisman, Images of Children, Crime and Violence in Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler,

[75] Sandra Blakeslee, Cells that Read Minds, New York Times, January 10, 2016,

[76] William Shakespeare, Sonnet 129, (1564–1616).

[77] Judith Reisman, Images of Children, Crime and Violence, executive summary: Emphasis added.

[78] John P. Foley, President, Mons. Pierfranco Pastore, “Pontifical Council For Social Communications,” A PASTORAL RESPONSE, May 7, 1989.

[79] Alfonso Card. López Trujillo, President of the Pontifical Council for the Family, + Most Rev. Elio Sgreccia, THE TRUTH AND MEANING OF HUMAN SEXUALITY, Guidelines for Education within the Family Vatican City, December 8, 1995.

[80], etc.

[81] Randy Engel, The Rite of Sodomy, at 919.

[82] Art Moore, Catholics learning sex from Kinsey's disciples, World Net Daily June 12, 2002,

[83] Id.

[84] Reisman, Stolen Honor Stolen Innocence, at. 172.

[85] Randy Engel, The Moral Plague of SAR, Homiletic & Pastoral Review, 18, June 1984.

[86] Id. at 18-27.

[87] Id.

[88] See Sipe, Secret World, at. 243.

[89] See Rene Wormser, Foundations for additional details. Rockefeller funded the radical 1955 Model Penal Code citing Kinsey’s sex “findings.” See also Brian Thorne, Carl Rogers, 1992, at, 90-99.

[90] Id. at 25-57.

[91] Art Moore, Catholics learning sex from Kinsey's disciples, World Net Daily June 12, 2002

[92] Engel, Rite of Sodomy, Chapter 11 at 16.

[93] Id.

[94] See Judith Reisman, analysis of The Queens’ Vernacular, Partner Solicitation Language as a Reflection of Male Sexual Orientation, with Charles B. Johnson, Ph.D., The Institute For Media Education, 1995. See also, the Briefing Book, graphs of the above:

[95] Office of the Attorney General, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Report I of the 40th Statewide Investigating Grand Jury, by Order of PA Supreme Court July 26, 2018 (August 12, 2018).

[96] Id., at 1.

[97] JJCCJ, The Causes and Context of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests in the United States, 1950-2010, 6 (2011).

[98] JJCCJ, The Nature and Scope of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States 1950-2002, 226 (2004).

[99] Mary Eberstadt, The Elephant in the Sacristy, The Weekly Standard, June 17, 2002,

[100] Id.

[101] Id.

[102] Id.

[103] Id.

[104] “[Both] the size and the numbers of such awards have led insurance companies for psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers to reduce substantially or eliminate altogether liability coverage relating to sexual intimacies with patients … data suggest that 20 percent of all therapists will, some time during their careers, become sexually intimate with at least one of their patients” (Los Angeles Times, February 14, 1976, p. 1). “An actuarial study of the malpractice suits filed against psychologists over a 15 year period showed that therapist-patient sexual involvement accounted for the largest category (Pope & Vasquez, 1999). “Respondents were asked….to restrict their answers to adult patients" (p. 1127).” Yet, “About 5% of these patients were minors at the time of the sexual involvement with the therapist.” “...The Catholic Mutual Group (CMG), which stepped up its help for Catholic dioceses in the mid-1980s—a time when liability insurance became too expensive as a result of the increase in sexual-abuse claims.”

[105] Jason Berry, Lead us Not Into Temptation, 112 (1992).

[106] Mary Calderone, et. al, Sex Education and the Schools, 6 (1967).

[107] See, Judith Reisman, Stolen Honor Stolen Innocence at 172-173.

[108] Paul Likoudis, Amchurch Comes Out, 40-41 (2002).

[109] Cynthia Noland Dunbar, True Feminism: Identifying the Real Treats to Women, 20 Wm. & Mary J.

Women & L. 25, 35-36 (2013).

[110] Pope Benedict XVI, Predictions for the Future of the Church, 1969, Vatican Insider, The Vatican;

John Jay table.JPG
AG Report table.JPG
Table 34.JPG
Playboy  photo.JPG
John Jay Timeline.JPG
Corrected John Jay timeline.JPG
Mary McAlister