Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

MineralMan

(146,288 posts)
Wed Feb 27, 2019, 11:42 AM Feb 2019

Attempts to minimize sexual abuse of children by lawyers for offending Priests

and Bishops are beyond disgusting. Yet, that is standard practice for the defense. "Plain vanilla sexual penetration" was the description of what Pell did to one of his victims. Not so bad, right? I mean, how could "plain vanilla" anything be all that horrible? "No aggravating actions" was another claim in that case.

Softening the descriptions of what happened is just another way of saying, well, "It wasn't really that bad, you know."

When such language is used, it is an attempt to take a picture of what really happened out of the minds of those considering what to do with the offender. It removes the victim from the equation. The victim was a young adolescent boy. The abuser "penetrated" that boy in some way with his penis. The victim didn't resist. The victim didn't participate actively. The abuser was the one doing that "plain vanilla sexual penetration." We don't need the details. We all know what that means. Softening the description does not soften the experience that victim had.

The abuser was, at the time, an authority in the Roman Catholic Church. He was supposed to be a spiritual leader. He was an adult who was in charge of things. The victim was a choir boy. How the victim got into that situation, I don't know. What I do know is that that priest had his pants down around his feet and did something sexually assaultive to that boy.

Softening the language and euphemizing what happened does not change the experience the victim had. It does not change the physical violation. It does not change a lifetime of memories of that event. Softening the language is designed to soften the punishment. It should not be allowed. It should not be heard without contradiction. It should, instead, increase the punishment, since the defense attempted to minimize the sexual assault of a minor. Throw the book at Pell, and make it a large, heavy book. Something like the very large Bible on the reader's lectern.

Pell hurt his victim in multiple ways. His punishment for his evil behavior should also hurt.



2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Attempts to minimize sexual abuse of children by lawyers for offending Priests (Original Post) MineralMan Feb 2019 OP
... Major Nikon Feb 2019 #1
... Indeed. MineralMan Feb 2019 #2
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Attempts to minimize sexu...