In addition to Prosopon Healing, you may wish to speak with an external victim-survivor advocate who is trained in sexual abuse and/or clergy abuse before making a police report. Examples include:

(a) RAINN - https://www.rainn.org/

(d) SNAP - https://snapnetwork.org/

Because of the unequal power between a clergyman and a parishioner "consent" is impossible. It is most appropriate to make a police report first. When reporting to the police, you can have someone accompany you to make the report and can request an interview with a detective of the same gender. Be aware that in my cases a report with law enforcement will not lead to an arrest. Bring any evidence with you, including text messages, gifts, photos, or even a timeline. 

If you choose to report the abuse to church administration be aware that independent, third-party investigations are the gold standard for abuse reporting. This means that the abuse is both reported to a third party and investigated by a third party comprised of trained personnel in clergy abuse. In the absence of this level of training, victims are often further harmed during a church reporting process that makes them relive the trauma by sharing painful details of abuse with no assurance that it is understood. This can hinder healing and cause additional trauma. 

We highly recommend you seek out the assistance of a law firm with expertise in clergy abuse. We can help you connect with those law firms. ​​

Reporting to the church administration without legal counsel is not recommended.  Within organizations, any internal investigation process is primarily seeking to assess the liability of the entity. If there is any other profession that allows for a completely internal investigation, we are not aware of one. For example, if a therapist sexually abuses a client, the client can appeal to a board of behavioral health or an outside professional licensing investigation. 

​​

Within an internal investigation process, victims of clergy abuse may experience a range of harmful and retraumatizing practices, including interrogation without counsel; interviews conducted at the site of the abuse; being blamed for the abuse; hostile questioning, cross-examination, or expressions of incredulity; being laughed at, intimidated, or subjected to blatant threats, including threats to disclose other information about the victim; threats of legal action against the victim for reporting; victim-blaming statements casually introduced during questioning; or “leading” questions that imply the victim is responsible for what occurred. Other harmful practices may include mass communication to the community in which the abuse occurred that blames the victim or denies the victim’s experience; full disclosure of the victim’s statements to the offending clergyperson or parishioners without regard for the victim’s safety; disclosure of the victim’s history of prior abuse or allegations of prior abuse to the community - for example, suggesting that “this person was really messed up before this”; character defamation, including statements about the victim’s mental health, when symptoms may in fact have resulted from the abuse but are instead characterized as evidence of weakness, poor character, or a lack of virtue; mislabeling or minimizing the abuse; and promises of follow-up that are never fulfilled.

.