Hmmm, it looks like the Sun Valley, CA congregation may have been following your bog-standard Pharaisaic law, as found in 'Babylonian Talmud' (Tractate Sanhedrin Folio 54a)':
From http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_54.html
Our Rabbis taught: In the case of a male child, a young one is not regarded as on a par with an old one; but a young beast is treated as an old one.23 What is meant by this? —
Rab said: Pederasty with a child below nine years of age is not deemed as pederasty with a child above that. Samuel said: Pederasty with a child below three years is not treated as with a child above that.24 What is the basis of their dispute? — Rab maintains that only he who is able to engage in sexual intercourse, may, as the passive subject of pederasty throw guilt [upon the active offender]; whilst he who is unable to engage in sexual intercourse cannot be a passive subject of pederasty [in that respect].25 But Samuel maintains: Scripture writes, [And thou shalt not lie with mankind] as with the lyings of a woman.26 It has been taught in accordance with Rab: Pederasty at the age of nine years and a day;
Upshot is, if the child is BELOW the age of 9, the act isn't considered as pedophilia (per the Babylonian Talmud) since a child below age 9 isn't considered as a reliable source to "throw guilt at" (accuse) an adult. And the implication is that a child ABOVE age 9 IS fair game for intercourse, since they're able to give consent to sexual intercourse!
So the critical question is, were these children BELOW 9? IF so, they can't be trusted. And if ABOVE 9, did they give consent? If SO, this "usher" is safe from ALL accusations, per the Talmud (that is, unless those pesky meddlesome secular authorities are going to stick their noses into "God-given law")!
You've gotta love religious-based "superior" antiquated moral law, and the thinking it encourages! Seriously, you cannot write fiction better than this (actually, someone already DID: the authors of the Bible and Talmudic texts).
Adam
