This is no surprise that a perpetrator of sexual abuse sees himself as the real victim who was powerless to resist the needs those girls created in him.
WINDSOR - Convicted pedophile Reverend Charles Sylvestre blames his victims, other clergy and a school principal for the abuse he caused nearly 50 young girls, Ontario Crown Paul Bailey said yesterday.
"What we have here is a man who minimized his own involvement, blamed others, showed no [remorse] to the psychological carnage that he caused," Mr. Bailey said. Mr. Bailey told a crowd of about 200 priests, deacons and other religious staff gathered at a sexual abuse workshop that he recently met with Sylvestre in jail to try "to understand what made him tick." Sylvestre was under no obligation to speak to Mr. Bailey, but did so nonetheless, giving the lawyer disturbing insight into the 84-year-old's distorted psyche.
"According to him, these eight-year-old girls planned the destruction of their own lives," Mr. Bailey said.
We see this thought process as psychological pathology when it is a priest talking about 8-year-old girls, right? Now imagine that the man jailed had met his victims in a bar.
In an effort to dispel the myth that pedophiles suffer a "mere moral failure," Mr. Bailey presented excerpts from his conversation with Sylvestre that shows the disgraced priest's mental illness, or "distinct psychological pathology."
When speaking to Mr. Bailey of the young girls he molested, Sylvestre talked as though the children conspired to have him abuse them. "These girls that came over there every day, they planned it," Sylvestre told Mr. Bailey. "I could hear them talking and they'd come in and sit on a chair and their skirt would be up to their crotch.? Well, it was kind of attracting."
Here's what he'd say, "Those women that come over there every day, they planned it. I could hear them talking and they'd come in and sit on a bar stool and their skirt would be up to their crotch. Well, it was kind of attracting."
Except for the age of the victims and the setting, the 2 descriptions are the same.
So is the priest the only one who is pathological or has he taken a popular pathology and applied it in a way that loses the sympathy of that pathology's biggest fans?
Think about the number of people who when they hear about a rape case from the victim's perspective insist that they need to get the alleged rapist's perspective before deciding whether the victim should be considered a true victim. They seem to be looking for a pathology which they can relate to.
For those who talk about how often alleged rape victims lie, are you truly against all of what this priest believes? Or if you take a hard look at your beliefs will you find that you only reject this priest's rationalizations because he wasn't accused of offending against girls who have reached the legal age of consent?
Technorati tags: rape crime politics sexual violence sexual assault feminism