Secretly-married priest jailed for sex assault on 17-year-old girl (U.K.)
Source: independent
A secretly-married priest who sexually assaulted a teenage girl in what a judge described as an “enormous breach of trust” was today jailed for six months.
The judge also criticised some of Finnegan's parishioners who defiantly stood by their former priest, supporting him despite his conviction, and shunning the young victim.
He said: "Maybe some of them would believe the sun would rise in the west tomorrow if he said it."
During the trial he told the court and his diocese that he shirked his vow of celibacy by secretly marrying Beverley Dawson in 1999.
The disclosure of his relationship came after Ms Dawson was called by the court to give evidence.
She said she and her husband, who voluntarily stepped down from his role, had never permanently lived together but saw each other regularly, had a sexual relationship and went on holidays together. Each week after he finished church services on Sunday he would visit her, then go back to work on Tuesday, she said.
Read more: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/secretlymarried-priest-jailed-for-sex-assault-on-17yearold-girl-8569150.html
him crying
= new reply since forum marked as read
makes it even worse that his parishioners stand by him.
1) The medical definition is someone who has a consistent sexual attraction to prepubescent children (generally under the age of 12-13 years old).
2) The more common (it's in the dictionary) definition of pedophilia is a person with a sexual attraction to children, and our society generally defines "children" as anyone below the age of consent (a dictionary definition of "child" is a person who is "not of age"
. In areas where the age of consent is 18, this would include adults sleeping with 17 year olds.
And yes, that does lead to some inconsistency. A 40 year old man who has sex with a 17 year old in San Francisco is an automatic felon and many Californian's would consider him a pedophile. A 40 year old man who has sex with a 17 year old in Las Vegas hasn't broken any laws, and generally wouldn't be considered a pedophile by most people. That's just an example of the fact that moral standards vary from state to state, and region to region.
None of this matters to this case anyway. This particular perv doesn't meet either of the definitions, but he's still a violent rapist and should be treated as such.
