This column first appeared in Malta Today

It is no wonder that there is a skewed perception of what constitutes consent by minors. Take a look at this gem of a remark during a religious programme discussing the recent case of a parish priest who was sentenced to 20 months in prison for defiling a 15-year-old girl:

“I’d like to raise a point about the term ‘minor’. In the eyes of the law, that term is determined by the age. But I’m sorry, to be a minor is not a matter of age. Lawyer Joe Brincat, who was once defending a man who was accused of corrupting a minor, said in court that ‘the corrupt cannot be corrupted’. [Because] so many people had already been found guilty of corrupting this girl.”

(Pio Dalli, editor of Catholic newspaper Il-Leħen)

I really beg to differ about phrases such as “to be a minor is not a matter of age” and that “the corrupt cannot be corrupted”… because what exactly are we saying here? That a young girl who has been through God knows what kind of abuse by adults and has become promiscuous as a result is a lost cause and is not worth defending? That other men can continue to abuse of her because she has already been “corrupted”? That is a very disturbing way of looking at child sexual abuse. It discards everything which has been put into place regarding the protection of minors and seems to me to be a convoluted way of excusing the inexcusable behaviour of those who should know better.

Children are born innocent, a clean slate, and they do not end up becoming sexualised out of thin air, but as a result of mitigating circumstances which they are born into or to which they are deliberately introduced, such as grooming.

According to Court reports, the priest and the girl began a relationship when she kissed him on the lips and he reciprocated. The two went on to have a sexual relationship that lasted for around four years until the girl reported him. The priest testified that he had tried to end the relationship but the minor began to threaten him and eventually filed a police report.

The original sentence was 42 months in prison but was reduced to 20 months on appeal, because the Court ruled that the relationship was “consensual”.

Of course, we know that there are girls (and boys) who are already sexually active at the age of 15, but this early introduction to sex does not negate the fact that they are still under-age. If the relationship is with someone who is also a teenager that is one thing. The whole dynamic changes when the other party is an adult, and there are even worse implications when they are in a position of authority such as a teacher, a coach, or a priest. In these roles, they have an inherent responsibility when they are thrust into potential scenarios which might turn sexual and anyone decent would have immediately become hyper aware that the tone of the relationship has suddenly shifted and will probably compromise them in some way.

The adult in this scenario is just that – the adult. No matter how many Lolita-like moves the girl may have made, the onus was on the priest (in this case) to put a stop to it and shut it down. Let’s not forget the girl went to him for advice because of family separation issues. The alarm bells should have gone off and he should have extricated himself from the situation as quickly as possible and avoided being alone with her at all costs. I don’t understand why this is so hard to grasp. I have seen so many comments blaming the girl and claiming that “these days” teenage girls are provocative and as we say in Maltese, “jistgħu iwaqqawh raġel” (they can make a man fall for their wiles). Incredibly, no matter the age difference and the fact that one is an authority figure and the other isn’t, it always seems to be the female’s fault that the man cannot control himself.

What people are missing by using this argument is that physically being ready for sex does not mean a young girl is emotionally and psychologically mature enough to handle the baggage that comes with the sexual act. That is what screws with the head of so many youngsters who are exposed to sex before they are ready: whether it is watching porn at too young an age, or being sexually abused by those who are meant to protect them.

It is a form of corruption, yes, a corruption of vulnerable minds who will go on to have very dysfunctional relationships with others and who, for the rest of their lives, will continue to equate sex as being the only currency they can use to make someone “love” them. The natural need for physical human touch and affection is irretrievably confused in the minds of those who have not learned about sex in a healthy way but who have been introduced to it too early, when they were not actually ready to cope with the repercussions that come with it. This was precisely the point I made in my last column when I spoke about the over-sexualisation of women and young girls, where it is being drummed into to them, both subliminally and very openly, that looking sexy to attract men should be their ultimate aim in life.

As for the attempt to whitewash what happened between the priest and the teenager and try to portray it as if it were some kind of real life imitation of The Thorn Birds, this is really a step backwards in my view. The fact that they were both willing participants in the sexual affair does not make it consent – because a child cannot give consent.

The problematic nature of trying to minimise these type of cases by members of the clergy (or any other authority figure) was evident in the way the above-mentioned TV discussion unfolded. The panel criticised the way the priest was treated by the courts and the Church. Fr John Farrugia slammed the Safeguarding Commission and the Church for “discarding” its people instead of “showing forgiveness”. Retired Archbishop George Frendo went even further by saying that: “The first thing I would say to a person who is hurt is to encourage them to forgive before telling them to go to the police.”

That remark was enough to cause a justifiable online uproar and he had to issue an apology. In a statement, Frendo insisted that he condemned the clerical abuse of minors “in all its forms” and that forgiveness should not be an alternative to reporting such cases to the authorities. “I apologise if, even inadvertently, I could have been perceived as conveying an alternative impression,” Frendo said.

Thankfully, Fr Colin Apap, also on the panel, was the voice of sanity and reason:
“In the past, to defend the Church, we would close our eyes and deny these facts. There was so much abuse, thousands of cases. Every priest makes mistakes but I can’t just close my eyes. We’re talking about minors here, underage children. Even if children say yes, you cannot abuse them. That’s where justice and the police come into play. The bishop cannot close his eyes when faced with such cases. It’s not about discarding a person – it’s about drawing attention to the behaviour of a person who is, ultimately, the bishop’s responsibility.”

We cannot keep trying to cover up the sexual abuse of minors by trying to excuse the perpetrator on the pretext that there was consent. If anything good has come out of that panel discussion it is that many have spoken up and denounced the frankly alarming message which was conveyed. The Lisa Marie Foundation called for Bishop Frendo and his colleagues to be kicked out of the Church. It added,

“They should definitely not be allowed to use a public forum to spread such damaging messages which places incredulous responsibilities on victims of abuse and which ridicule the efforts of the Safeguarding Commission in eradicating abuse and any form of acceptance of it.”

The statement by the Maltese Association of Social Workers wrapped it up in a nutshell. “A minor is a minor,” association vice chairperson Charlene Martin said.

“Any attempt to shift blame onto the victim, based on appearance or behaviour, is not only morally wrong but legally indefensible.”