[Received from Judith Reisman by email.]

The Wanderer Newspaper.com  Issue Date May 10, 2003

 Dr. Judith Reisman . . .

Reisman's Request For Clarification
From McHugh, Bishops’ Expert, Denied


  This past February, Dr. Judith Reisman, an internationally acknowledged expert on Alfred Kinsey and the links between sex education, sex abuse, and pornography, challenged Dr. Paul McHugh, Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University and an expert on sexual issues for the U.S. Bishops’ National Review Board, for evidence that he has "repudiated" the work of Dr. John Money and Dr. Fred Berlin. Money and Berlin were founders of the Sexual Disorders Clinic at Johns Hopkins, which he, McHugh, headed.

  This correspondence raises some troubling questions, not only about McHugh and his colleague Fred Berlin, but also about the real intentions of the U.S. bishops and the high-profile personalities they recruited to lead their National Review Board.

  After several letters, in which Dr. Reisman cited numerous examples of McHugh’s written support for the work of both Money and Berlin, McHugh declined to provide any substantive evidence that he disagreed with the controversial and ethically problematic methods of treating sex offenders.

  "I would especially have liked to have heard Dr. McHugh repudiate the clinic’s stated policy of not reporting ongoing sex abuse of children by sex offenders in ‘treatment’ at Johns Hopkins," Dr. Reisman told The Wanderer in a May 7 telephone interview.

  The clinic at Johns Hopkins was eventually forced to change its policy in the 1990s after pressure from Maryland legislators and the attorney general, "but this does not bespeak a trustworthy therapeutic environment for people who sexually abuse children," said Reisman.

  The history of the clinic, said Reisman, "shows the very serious problems in the treatment centers set up for sex offenders, of which Johns Hopkins is probably premier, and which has a dismal record of success, despite lavish government and private funding, including money from the Catholic Church. According to the clinic’s own records, 67% of ‘treated’ sex offenders relapsed within one year."

  Reisman also raised serious questions in her letter to McHugh about Dr. Fred Berlin, an adviser to the U.S. bishops — he hosted a special briefing for reporters at their meeting in Dallas last year — and who is Dr. John Money’s disciple.

  Dr. Money, like his mentor Alfred Kinsey, believes in the psychotherapeutic benefits of pornography, homosexuality, and other perversions.

  In an April 12, 2003 letter to Dr. McHugh, Reisman informed him:

  "In the absence of a reply to my February 12 or my March 20 letters to you . . . [s]hould I not receive a response from you by May 1 (3 months after my February 12 letter and six weeks after my March 20 letter), I will assume you intend no response and I shall proceed accordingly."


A Few Observations On A Case

  In her March 20 letter to McHugh, Reisman raised a number of questions, beginning with his role as an expert witness and therapist for Dr. Richard Berendzen, the former president of American University in Washington, D.C., who was relieved of his post (he remains on the physics faculty there) after he was caught making obscene phone calls.

  Reisman, challenging claims by McHugh that he favored the public punishment of sex offenders, wrote:

  "Both of us are quite familiar with the details of the Berendzen case, you as the criminal’s hired psychiatrist of a prestigious university and I as a pro-bono adviser to the victim. As this level of detailed knowledge cannot necessarily be assumed by other parties to whom the content of this letter may be made available, let me add a few more observations on your role in the Berendzen case.

  "First, in your 1990 [Baltimore Sun] Op Ed essay you protected this despicable sex criminal by empathetically omitting all information about the pedophile nature of his phone calls. Indeed, the words ‘pedophile,’ ‘child molester,’ and ‘child pornography’ appear nowhere in your article about Berendzen’s pedophile-based sex crimes. Yet in your original medical statement from Johns Hopkins you acknowledge the graphically perverse sex acts that Berendzen sought, he said, to carry out between himself, his wife, and daughter and the victim, her husband, and children.

  "Second, despite your full knowledge of the vicious nature of his calls, you chose to ignore Berendzen’s claim that he kept a four-year-old sex slave chained in his basement for sexual, scatological, and physical abuse, a prototypical storyline among pedophiles that is commonly inspired by child pornography. Instead of revealing Berendzen’s pedophile-related crimes in your Op Ed article you left the impression that the calls were of an adult-to-adult nature. And, I will give credit where credit is due: You were very successful in this role. Until today, very few people know the pedophile thrust of Berendzen’s obscene phone calls."

  Reisman told The Wanderer that neither Berendzen’s home nor office, phone records, nor his computer records were ever investigated by police, nor were illegal sexual activities he allegedly boasted about ever probed by police or prosecutors.

  "Third," Reisman continued, "you do not mention the trauma and brutality Berendzen inflicted on the mother he victimized. Nowhere do you praise Mrs. Allen — a home-schooling mother and herself a victim of brutal childhood sexual abuse — for her courage in maintaining phone contact with Berendzen for weeks before the police located the site of her phone terrorist at the American University presidential office."

  Continuing on the Berendzen case, Reisman observed how McHugh not only represented his client as a victim, but made no effort at all to assist Mrs. Allen and her family

  "If the Berendzen case proves anything," she wrote of the bishops’ sex abuse expert, "it is that you showed great concern for your influential patient and none for his victim; that you and, it seems, John Hopkins University, were nothing but hired guns, whitewashing a sex criminal and belittling the criminal’s victim."


Unanswered Challenges

  Reisman’s second challenge to McHugh was for any supporting evidence for his claim, in a letter to her, that he was a "fierce critic of Kinsey’s work."

  "You should know that Kinsey’s pro-pedophile sexuality model underpins the sex education, as well as therapy and treatment practiced at the Money-Berlin sex clinic," she told him. "For example, its founder, John Money told The Journal of Paedophilia that he wanted to end the ‘age of consent’ and that he created the clinic to give ‘leeway to judges’ in order to keep child molesters out of jail (spring 1991, pp. 13, 12). . . .

  "I am anxious to read," Reisman continued, "any journal or press articles in which you repudiate the fraudulent research techniques of ‘the father of the sexual revolution.’ Instead, in your influential 1983 book published by Johns Hopkins, The Perspectives of Psychiatry, you cite ‘Kinsey and his associates’ as authorities on sexual normality (p. 109). Yet I am unaware of any public apology for such Kinsey support."

  Reisman’s third challenge was to McHugh’s claim that he had separated himself, and Johns Hopkins, from the controversial Dr. John Money, a pioneer in transgenderism.

  ". . . I note that you removed Money’s ‘controversial evening course in human sexology’ in 1983. Precisely why you did so is unclear, based on your esteem for Money in your Perspectives of Psychiatry. Your index reveals no interest or expertise in sex crimes — no cites to pedophilia, incest, or child sexual abuse. Your reference to ‘child molestation’ is in approval of Freud’s ‘seduction theory’ that blamed women for inventing their early incest due to their sexual desire for their fathers. Moreover, you extol John Money three times for his ‘research’ — which included the butchery of little baby, David Reimer! (p. 115, f. 143) [As an infant, David Reimer underwent a routine circumcision at his family’s local hospital; the physician there accidentally severed his penis. After that accident, Money tried to turn the boy into a girl, a story told by John Colapinto in As Nature Made Him, HarperCollins, 2000 — Editor].

  "As far as I know, Johns Hopkins never initiated legal actions or any other formal sanctions against John Money following the March 19, 1980 BBC expose revealing Money’s frauds and failed sex experiments on David. I will gladly include your corrective court records or statements in any future information on this issue. As you know, Money’s fascistic sex experiments, which claimed one’s birth gender could be changed by genital surgery and sex hormones, was celebrated by respected psychiatrists and lauded in many professional journals. . . .

  "Further, in 1980, three years before you published Perspectives, ‘the fundamental principles’ of psychiatry (text on the book jacket), John Money was publicly ‘lobbying against the ban on incest,’ reported Time:

   " ‘John Money of Johns Hopkins says, "A childhood sexual experience, such as being the partner of a relative or of an older person, need not necessarily affect the child adversely." One who commits incest is like "a religious deviant in a one-religion society" [Time adds], neatly planting the notion that opposition to incest is quite like religious intolerance’ (April 14, 1980, p. 72).

  "Your inconsistent psychiatric views leave me with many questions. For example, when did all transgender operations cease? Did the end of such intrusive operations include a cessation of hormone therapy and other transgender machinations by Money and his disciples? As an aside: As Fred Berlin [another of the U.S. bishops’ sex experts — Editor] was Money’s most famous student, to what extent was Berlin involved in transgender surgery and/or treatment or in the use of pornography to ‘help’ patients, a standard protocol in John Money’s teaching?...

  "In 1985, correct me if I am wrong," Reisman continued, "the Money-Berlin Johns Hopkins sex clinic was in your charge when Michael Peterson, Tom Doyle, and Ray Mouton recommended John Money and Fred Berlin to the Catholic bishops as the premier sex criminal therapists for pedopriests (see The Problem of Sexual Molestation by Roman Catholic Clergy).

  "It is sad commentary that Money (and thus Johns Hopkins) received ‘25 years of continuous funding’ from the NIH and that Money received the American Psychological Association’s (APA) 1985 Distinguished Scientific Award for the Applications of Psychology (Psychology Today, ‘Doctor of Sexology,’ May 1988, p. 48).

  "In 1987, Money ‘wrote an admiring foreword to Boys and Their Contacts With Men, which claimed to "be verbatim testimonials of young boys about their happy sex lives with men." Three years later, in 1991, The Journal Of Paedophilia interviewed the APA’s ‘distinguished’ scientist, professor emeritus of medical psychology in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, and professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins. Here Money exalted ‘man-boy-love,’ called pedophilia ‘erotic parental pair bonding’ and said he would never report a pedophile. The interviewer asked:

  " ‘So, you would attack the whole basis from which age-of-consent laws are constructed, in other words: Dr. Money replies: "I certainly think that’s where we have to begin".’

  "I would deeply appreciate receiving your writings condemning Johns Hopkins’ pro-pedophile professor emeritus.

  "Finally, although you obviously wish to disassociate John Money from his premier apprentice, Fred Berlin, no objective evidence exists for any such distancing, especially since Berlin never repudiated his mentor. You say, although Berlin was Money’s student in the area of human sexuality, that ‘overlooks the powerful and independent investigator Dr. Berlin became — for which he is appropriately honored and consulted widely by many, including lately the Catholic bishops.’ Indeed quite the contrary.

  "Money’s influence on Berlin’s sex offense views may be seen in various treatment modalities. Like Money, Berlin normalized homosexual conduct by his false claim that ‘there is no evidence whatsoever that [men] who are homosexual are any more a threat to boys than [men] who are heterosexual are a threat to girls’ (The Advocate, March 30, 2002). Money’s pedagogy is visible in Berlin’s report that ‘pedophilia can be effectively controlled with appropriate psychiatric intervention’ and thus pedophiles should be freed after ‘treatment’. . . .

  "Money’s pedagogy is visible in Berlin’s attempt to protect sex criminals from the authorities despite their ongoing crimes. These are all critical issues in priest sex therapy and punishment.

  "As The [Annapolis] Capital reported (March 23, 1988): ‘Dr. Berlin convinced legislators last year to exempt specialists who treat pedophiles [from the reporting law] as long as the criminal act occurred in the past. Now the doctor is pushing a bill that would exempt specialists from reporting pedophiles even when their crimes continue during treatment.’

  "Moreover, as noted in As Nature Made Him, a book you cite for authority, Berlin supported the sexual views of his ‘mentor,’ even defending Money’s despotic and bullying abuse of patients and colleagues via sadistic, obscene speech. Who is naive enough to believe that the Money/Berlin clinic was sensitizing sex criminals to the harm they did to others when Money’s strategy — defended by Berlin — was to eliminate ‘prudery’ by coarsening and ‘desensitizing’ their patients and colleagues to sexual language, ideas, and images?

  "As seen below, not only did Berlin justify Money’s violent verbal sex assaults — language hospitable to sex criminals — to my knowledge, Berlin also never condemned Money’s recommendations of pornography or pedophilia, including forcing pornography on children. . . .

  "Indeed, how much desensitizing pornography — and child pornography — was or is used at the Money/Berlin clinic as in other such sex clinics? When did you or Johns Hopkins censure pornography use or remove teachers employing its use? You cite Berlin’s ‘success’ with anti-androgen [sex drive-lowering] medications and his alleged rehabilitation of sex criminals who were released while ‘closely and continually supervised — in collaboration with parole officers.’ What of the eight or more sex criminals The Capital (‘Stop Shielding Child Molesters,’ March 23, 1988) reported as recaptured while they were under treatment at Johns Hopkins?. . .

  "Also like his pedagogical mentor, John Money, I do not find Fred Berlin appearing as a witness for sex abuse victims or for the prosecution. On the other hand, as I recall, Berlin was the expert in the defense of homosexual child molester, Rabbi Jerrold Levy, as well as sex mutilator-killer Jeffrey Dahmer and more recently Cary Stayner, claiming that such men were unable to control their lusts, despite their ability to plan and cover up their crimes.

  "In fact, one report on Fred Berlin’s testimony claims he said that Stayner — who attempted rape and who did kill a mother and two young girls — was not a sexual sadist because, in Berlin’s ‘expert’ opinion, Stayner got no thrill from forcing his teenage victim to commit a lesbian act on the other young girl. . . .

  "The Capital report found Johns Hopkins’ sex criminal clinic ‘a threat to public safety.’ The 1990 report above suggests the same. These quotes, which you have apparently not challenged as untrue, confirm your agreement with the Money-Berlin commitment to protect sex criminals from criminal justice as a means, in your view, of aiding the sex criminal in his or her rehabilitation.

  "Moreover, in support of this — what child protection advocates would call pro-criminal bias at Johns Hopkins — at least during the 1980s, the Money-Berlin clinic guaranteed sex criminal applicants that nothing they did while they were clinic patients would be reported to the authorities. Such an assurance of doctor-patient ‘privilege’ for even child sex criminals, to my mind, further compromises any claims of victim concerns."

Back to: => Biblical Sexuality Library

 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Go to:  => TOP Page; => Sexuality Libraries;  => ROAD MAP