For context, see this interesting item from 'Watching the World' that appeared in the Awake 8 March 1980 page 30 regarding the Episcopal Church under the heading 'Churches Pushing Porn?', second paragraph:
A book titled "The Sex Atlas," produced by an official publishing arm of the Episcopal Church, is being sharply criticized by two Episcopal priests who feel that "it seems to be an apology for any aberrant sexuality." Among other things, they point to passages in the book that seem to minimize child molestation and sex with animals. The book says that molested children may be more "disturbed by adult hysteria about a gentle and friendly 'child molester'" than by the molestation itself. Also, it predicts that in the future "our society will be much less preoccupied with sexual contact between humans and animals. After all, as long as the animal is not hurt or mistreated, there is no need for social interference." Apparently this religious publishing house does not consider God’s opinion on such matters to be relevant. — Ex. 22:19
The text of this book is available online in it's 1983 revised version
http://www.sexarchive.info/GESUND/ARCHIV/ATLAS_EN/atlas.htm
If you can stomach it, it would seem that the relevant sections are 367 to 368 and 466 to 469
FYI the full paragraph that the above 'Watching the World' quote comes from states in the revised 1983 edition:
Studies have shown that by far the greatest majority of convicted child molesters are relatives, neighbors, friends, or acquaintances of their victims. It has also been shown that physical injury occurs only very rarely {in about 2% of the cases). Any potential psychological damage is difficult to assess, and, if it occurs, it may very well be caused more by the reaction of parents and officials than by the sexual act itself. While children understand that coercion, intimidation and physical assault are bad,, they may be puzzled and even seriously disturbed by adult hysteria about a non-violent "child molester." It seems, therefore, that it should make a legal difference whether the children are hurt, forced, threatened, or annoyed, or whether they act as willing participants. If the latter cases are to be prosecuted at all, they should obviously carry much lighter sentences. Indeed, it may very well be unfair to treat them as crimes in the first place, It also seems only realistic to reduce the age of consent at least to the beginning of puberty. For both sexes the age of 14 seems to be the reasonable maximum as in the state of Hawaii and in many European and Asian countries. In many cases even lower age limits may be justified. (Actually, the whole notion of age limits for sexual partners deserves to be questioned. Today many people are arguing with good reason that age alone should not be the basis for making otherwise harmless and legal sexual behavior a crime.)
http://www.sexarchive.info/GESUND/ARCHIV/ATLAS_EN/atlas.htm
Please note that, as with much on the internet, I can not vouch for the accuracy of the text as reproduced at the above website - though I've got not apparent reason to doubt it and it which appears to be run by the author himself - http://www.sexarchive.info
