"Affair" == "abuse" ?
2002-06-12 18:30:14+00 by
Shawn
4 comments
Is it another case of the politically correct "me-too" victim, or just [extremely] poor reporting? I can't tell. This article at the NYPost simply states that a woman has come forward to say that Bishop James McCarthy had an on-again, off-again "sexual relationship" (elsewhere in the article, referred to as an "affair") with her, starting when she was about 21. And that she knows that he had "relationships" with other women. The accuser says:
I was appalled at the thought that the bishop who abused me was going to Dallas to help make a policy about sexual abuse,
(Emphasis mine.)
[ related topics:
Sexual Culture Political Correctness Law Current Events Journalism and Media
]
comments in ascending chronological order (reverse):
#Comment made: 2002-06-12 19:05:54+00 by:
Larry Burton
This started when she was 21 and she is calling it abuse? This was either rape or consensual sex. I don't understand how she could term it as abuse if it was consensual.
#Comment made: 2002-06-12 21:04:36+00 by:
anser
If she was a parishioner who came to McCarthy for pastoral reasons and ended up having sex with him, then it is abuse, just not child abuse. If she was the cleaning woman, it was an unauthorized export of Vatican practices...
#Comment made: 2002-06-12 21:50:17+00 by:
Shawn
If she was a parishioner who came to McCarthy for pastoral reasons and ended up having sex with him, then it is abuse
Only if he used his position/influence to coerce/convince her to do so. But the story reported makes absolutely any indication that this might even be the case. I'm not saying it's not possible, just that I'm confused. The information we've been provided doesn't add up.
#Comment made: 2002-06-13 00:43:18+00 by:
meuon
[edit history]
Anything + Media = Scandal
Scandal = News