Clive Charles Lynn

All five children have stated that they have been ‘tickle tortured’ for an extended period of time (three to ten minutes). Tickle torture involves Father ticking the child all over the body – including genitals and buttocks, and the Father holds the child do he cannot get away.

One child involved states that Father Lynn frequently tried to touch his genitals, but the child would pull away. Two of the children stated that father put money in their pockets and touched their genitals.

The children interviewed range in age from eleven years to seventeen years of age.

Such incidents, as might be expected, were “very disturbing to the children involved,” and Social Services hoped “some action will be taken to stop further molestation of children in our community.”54 Letter from Jean Clark, Supervisor, to Rev. Johnny Lee Chavez [Dean of the Personnel Board], December 21, 1984.

 

As required by New Mexico law, Social Services turned the reports over to the District Attorney. But “the District Attorney has declined to prosecute, citing that “this is a church matter.” Lynn was protected by the clericalism that the laity and government officials shared: “The District Attorney has refused to intervene and the children’s parents have stated that they do not wish to independently file charges against Father Lynn because he is a priest.” Social Services felt stymied, appealed to Sanchez for “any assistance you can provide in protecting the children.”55 Letter from Juan R. Vigil, Secretary, Human Services Department, to Archbishop Roberto Sanchez, February 28, 1985. Sanchez was in no hurry to protect children.

 

In April 1985 the mother of the molested boy asked who no action has been taken,” “what is the reason for the length of time that this matter is taking and why we have not been advised as to the status of the investigation.” The mother pleaded with Sanchez for the information because “our faith is at stake.” She concluded the letter: “WE PLACE OUR FAITH AND LIFE IN YOUR HANDS AS A MAN SERVING OUR HEAVENLY FATHER.”56 Letter of [-----] to Archbishop Robert Sanchez, April 30, 1985. Sanchez’s response was to transfer Lynn and send him for psychological testing, and responded to the mother that she has received no information because ‘these conversations and discussions to be of a most delicate and confidential nature.” They were delicate and confidential because they concerned protecting Lynn from the criminal justice system to avoid embarrassment to Sanchez and possible revelation of his own violations of celibacy. The parents of the molested boys were not satisfied and wrote to Sanchez that “we do not believe that you share our concern and our anxiety with this traumatic situation.” They noted the “cloud of secrecy” that had descended over the case, and observed that “nothing has happened’ and therefore they did “not believe that you, nor the other agencies mentioned, are doing your best to “’alleviate the situation.’” They correctly concluded that the delicacy and confidentiality were designed “to protect, not our children, but the clergy and the church.”57 Letter of [----] to Archbishop Robert F Sanchez, May 13, 1985. The parents threatened to go public. Sanchez handled their complaints by refusing to accept certified mail from the parents.58 Letter of [-----] to Archbishop Robert Sanchez, June 13, 1985: “We question why a personal letter to you, which was certified, return receipt requested, with restricted delivery, was returned to us…. Is someone keeping information / correspondence from you, or did you not want to hear of our concerns?”

 

Sanchez thought that he had gotten Lynn out of town, but Lynn kept showing up in Raton. The parents of the abused boys wrote to Sanchez “with continued despair.” His appearance in Raton was deeply disturbing to his victims. The parents knew that Lynn has been transferred again and again because of his “‘suspect’ behavior,” and want something definitive done. The parents have begun to doubt the good faith of the clergy: “our confidence and belief in the clergy has been visibly shaken. We do not question the guiding principles of Holy Mother Church. We question some practices of these who minister the doctrine.” The children have been left without counseling or treatment, and “the situation is very grave. The parents asked “What must we do to convince the powers that be that something must be done so that there may be justice and compassion?”59 Letter of [------] to Archbishop Robert F. Sanchez, December 1, 1985. If they were looking to Sanchez for justice and compassion they were making a serious mistake.

 

When Sanchez was later questioned who it took him a year to remove Lynn from Raton, even after getting specific allegations from parents, Sanchez replied:

“Why the time went on and removal from the parish did not occur at that time, I don’t have any particular explanation.”60Deposition of Robert Sanchez, p. 309, ll. 8-10.

Sanchez also made no effort to locate victims to offer them help. Sanchez was asked:

Attorney: “After you were convinced that Father Lynn had sexually molested boys in Raton, did you make any efforts to communicate with the people in the prior parishes he had served, either Mora or St. Therese, to find out whether any boys had been molested by him there?

Sanchez: No sir, I did not.

Attorney: And did you not feel the responsibility as Archbishop to make such an inquiry and thereby help these children if they existed?

Sanchez: Making an inquiry of that nature simply did not occur to me.”61 Deposition of Robert Sanchez, p. 311, 23 – p. 312, l .8.

(snip)

Attorney: So was it not within your contemplation in, let’s say, 1986, when you removed Lynn, that people who molest children tend to have molested children before?
Sanchez: It did not occur to me. It did not occur to me.62 Deposition of Robert Sanchez, p. 313, ll. 13-16.

Thinking about children and protecting children from harm was not high on Sanchez’s list of proprieties.

 

The situation was indeed very grave. Some of the child victims were deeply disturbed by the abuse. Victim A wrote:

On September 19 [1985], on Thursday, my mother was changing the furniture around the room. It was a little after dark  and I was sitting on the couch. The day before, the school took us to the State fair. A year before that, I was taken to the State Fair by Father Clive C. Lynn where he touched my private parts while staying at the East Howard Johnson’s Hotel in Albuquerque….

My mother was changing the furniture, as I said, when she left the room. In the carpet of the living room floor I saw a demonic face looking at me. The face seemed to turn its head from one side to the other but the eyes kept focus on me. I whispered out loud to the face that I hated it. It scared me but I tried to erase it from my mind. That same night, I dreamed that someone had put a toy dog into my room. The Devil animated it and it began to bark at me. I tried to scream, but I was petrified. It wouldn't let me pass into the kitchen. The dream scared me so bad I had to pray to God for reassurance.

The face in the carpet and the dream happened the night after I came back from the State Fair. I think that the night I spent with Father Lynn a year before caused these things to happen.

Touchingly, the boy still feels some affection for Lynn:

I had the highest regard for him until the night he touched me. Even now, I still miss him: I do not miss Father Lynn the man, I miss Father Lynn the priest. What I want done is to get Father Lynn the psychiatric help he needs, I pray to God that he may stop touching people the way he does. He has still left his mark on me. 63 Testimony of Victim A, dated November 10, 1985, enclosed with letter of note 59.

 

Even this victim in some liked Lynn, and among those who were unaware of the abuse Lynn had his admirer and even vehement supporters. He (despite his denials of responsibility) orchestrated support to head off discipline from bishops, but he could always find willing dupes. What did they find in him that was attractive? Sanchez described him as

“somewhat given to what I would call traditional devotions. Much of his own ministry would not be too far removed from pre-Vatican II type of service. Many people do surround him and admire his dedication to those fundamental approaches to faith and devotion, while others refuse to deal with him and go to another Church. In his celebration of the liturgy it seems he is somewhat taken up with externals many candles, lots of incense and altar boys; occupied with many things. He seems to attract the young altar boy in large numbers and had succeeded in organizing CYO groups and large classes of CCD for our youth.”64 Letter from Archbishop Robert F. Sanchez to Richard J. Gilmartin, Director, House of Affirmation, Whitinsville, Mass., August 21, 1985.

Lynn could defend orthodoxy with vigor. He condemned the “godless sex education” in the Raton Middle School, “the immodest, biological, amoral forms of the sex education courses.” By contrast, “we actually believe in the Ten Commandments of a God who reveals. Speaking for Catholics, we go further and even believe in the authority of Christ, His Church, and His vicar.”65 Letter to the Editor, “Dangerous Sex,” n. d.

 

This traditional, devotionalist Irish Catholicism and his ability to appeal to youth won the approval of many parishioners. This might explain his appeal to some Catholics who cherished the old days of submissive obedience. One person praised him because of the way he celebrated Mass: “the liturgy was solemn and dignified; the singing and chanting of the rest, the participation of the congregation, the arrangement and decoration of the altars all took me back many years.” “He conveys a sense of dignity coupled with a great affection for young people.” The writer had heard one man say “what a difference he had seen in his children” at the parish, how “they no longer talked back to him or his wife and they were far more obedient and respectful.” 66 Letter from Mrs., Melinda F. Whitney to Archbishop Robert F. Sanchez, November 19, 1984.

 

At first Sanchez sent Lynn to Colorado Springs, where he studied for a master’s degree in psychology and worked at a school. As he had already received substantiated allegations of abuse, when Sanchez allowed Lynn to study counseling and to teach at a high school, Sanchez appears to have gone beyond carelessness to the verge of being an accessory before the fact to the felony of child abuse.