I wrote awhile back about allegations of sexual predation by monks in U.S. Theravada temples. This weekend two Thai Theravadin temples -- Wat Dhammaram in Chicago and Pramuan Simsriwatna in Long Beach, California -- were picketed by members of SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests).
Both protests involved the case of Camnong Boa-Ubol, a monk accused of sexually abusing at least two adolescent girls and fathering a child with one of them while at the Chicago temple. Boa-Ubol evaded criminal charges by leaving Wat Dhammaram and moving to Pramuan Simsriwatna. The sangha in Chicago said Boa-Ubol had returned to Thailand and appear not to have known he was in California.
I have emailed SNAP to find out if the organization consulted the young women and their families before engaging in the picketing. SNAP also claims that Boa-Ubol admitted to his superiors in Chicago that he had sexual intercourse, and I doubt that is true. Such an admission is supposed to result in immediate expulsion from the monastic sangha.
It's more likely, IMO, that Boa-Ubol denied to superiors that he had broken his celibacy vows, and the sangha is politely not looking at evidence (including a paternity test, the news stories say) that suggest otherwise. I also suspect that even if the superiors think the allegations could be true, they might still be reluctant to expel him from the sangha for something he denies doing. I'd love to hear from someone with experience in Thai Buddhist temples on this point; I'm just speculating.
Part of the issue is that there is no authority overseeing the various Theravadin temples in the U.S., and certainly no authority deciding what monks are assigned to what temples. Monks are free agents who can who choose to move from one temple to another without anyone's permission.
Monks really can skip town without leaving a forwarding address, in other words. The Chicago temple may have honestly not known where Boa-Ubol was after he left.
However, it's not a bad thing to impress on the temples that monks accused of sexual abuse of minors must be turned over to the criminal justice system, not allowed to skip to another temple, or even back to Asia.
This is a well written column, and I’m glad you were well informed before you wrote it, and you appear to have left any bias you may or may not have out of it.
You’re correct that his admission would have resulted in defrocking, so that part was probably embellished by whomever thought he made an admission. The senior monks at the temple more likely asked him to leave because he is the cause of a controversy of this magnitude, and that appears to be what happened. There was a letter written to the alleged victim’s parents that was probably to that effect.
As for expulsion whilst he’s still in denial, that’s a tricky one. It’s very difficult to defrock a Thai Buddhist monk. There is a council in Thailand, led by a patriarch, that handles these matters. But in order for something to come before them, it would have to be a quite solid case. Repetitive accusations of the same nature would be examined somewhere lower on “the chain of command” first.
Although the different articles written on this matter make it seem as if Thai Buddhist temples do not communicate amongst one another, that is not the case. This matter was speculative at the time, and DNA evidence and the like was not available when the lead monk in Chicago took action and asked the accused to leave. Had there been a solid case, he would not be in a position to stop monk Camnong from moving, but he would have informed the abbot in California.
Examples of communication would be when Temple personnel receive mass e-mails and faxes regarding people who move from one Thai community to another and commit theft from temples. I have seen these communications and heard of more than I care to. Another example is from the Arizona Temple murders that occurred in Maricopa county many years back. This was also quickly communicated throughout the network.
The example in this story simply wasn’t concrete enough at the time to do more than ask the accused to leave for being behind such controversy in the community.
SNAP blames the temple for not informing the police of the accusations, saying they were protecting their own personnel, but what about the parents or the victim herself? Why didn’t they go to the police? Years later, we have a lawsuit and a news story. Sketchy.
Patrick — Thank you for your comments. I think the activists at SNAP are too quick to assume that the situation is analogous to that of the Catholic church shuffling pedophile priests from one parish to another. I sent an email to SNAP asking if they had any information that hadn’t been in the news stories to indicate the monk had confessed to his superiors, and I have not received an answer. So I’m assuming the answer is, no. Based what little I know, it seems more likely that he didn’t confess.
That said, I don’t think it hurts to impress on the heads of the temples that they really have to come up with a better way of handling accusations of sexual abuse, even if the alleged victim hasn’t filed charges and there is little evidence at hand.
We’re in agreement. Although I’ve seen it in the past where a monk has been asked to leave for being involved in a controversy and I agree to some extent with monks handling monastic issues, you’re right about what we need to impress on the leadership.
We need to impress to them that that sweeping things under the rug will simply escalate matters (as this case demonstrates) once the information becomes more known. Open communication and cooperation with investigation of the matter is the way to go to let the community know that the temple has its best interests at heart.
Whether it led to a conviction or an acquittal, allowing an investigation to occur would show that at worse there was one rogue element in the temple and confidence in the Sangha would have been less undermined.
We must also keep in mind that third parties, who on the surface say they are acting on behalf of the victim, often have their own agendas.
I’m glad SNAP’s on the job. Better to face any problem and root it out. The Sangha is not a safe haven for sexual predators, and I welcome SNAP to help make sure of this.