Citizen Wesolowski, laicized for violating minors

By now you will have heard that Jozef Wesolowski, an Archbishop and the former Nuncio to the Dominican Republic, has been laicized. It is not known exactly where he is at the moment, I believe.

When the Holy See heard of the charges against Wesolowski, he was pulled out of the Dominican Republic back to Rome.  Of course that started up the cliché mill that the Vatican was protecting a pedophile, blah blah.  Not so.  They were doing what any sovereign state’s government  would do to a errant diplomat with immunity from prosecution: they recalled him and then they prosecuted him.

First, the CDF got hold of Wesolowski.  They examined the charged and found them credible.  Since what Wesolowski did was a horrible sin and crime by the Church’s law, he was laicized.  Harming minors is a grave delict.  He got what was coming to him as a cleric.

Now that the CDF has moved against Wesolowski, and laicized him, the only recourse that he has would be back to the CDF itself.  The members of the Congregation, meeting on one of their Wednesday dates called a Feria Quarta, would consider an eventual appeal.  I doubt Wesolowski will make one, since they nailed him dead on.  After that, only the Pope himself could hear an appeal, but you can bet that with something like this, involving a Nuncio and diplomatic immunity, etc., the CDF didn’t sneeze without the Holy Father’s being brought up to speed.

So, now that Wesolowski has been laicized he is fired from his position, he no longer would have diplomatic immunity from prosecution in the Dominican Republic, and he will surely lose any pension that he might have had.

Now he will get what is coming to him simply considered as a man, rather than also as a cleric.

Wesolowski is now, since he was a diplomat, a citizen of the Vatican City State.  He is now subject to criminal prosecution under the Vatican’s own judicial system.  This is not the same as the Code of Canon Law for the Latin Church.  This is not the same as the special law that the CDF would lay down.  This is the Vatican City State’s own penal law and criminal justice system.  Wesolowski could be incarcerated, as Benedict XVI’s traitorous butler was, tried in a trial, and then sentenced to jail time.  Long term sentences are taken care of, for the Vatican, by Italian authorities.

Could Wesolowski be extradited by the Dominican Republic?  I suppose so, but I don’t know what sort of agreement the two states have.

And former Father Greg Reynolds is still excommunicated.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Brick by Brick, Clerical Sexual Abuse, Sin That Cries To Heaven, The Drill and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Papabile says:

    And I believe, up until sometime in the last 20th century it was death.

    But then that was changed to life in prison.

    However, in 2013, it is my understanding life in prison was eliminated and the maximum criminal penalty is now 30-35 years.

  2. Gaetano says:

    But, Father! But, Father! Isn’t the Church going easy on this man by refusing to levy the worst Church sanction – excommunication?

  3. JustaSinner says:

    Send him to the Spanish Inquisition! Comfy chairs, racks, fluffy pillows! Those three techniques being euphemisms for some really nasty dungeon techniques.
    Seriously, a bishop? This man is lower than whale excrement in the Marianus Trench.

  4. Kathleen10 says:

    And more fodder for the Catholicism haters.
    The victim was a 13 year old boy. No doubt there are a multitude of invisible victims as well. There always are for people who molest children. It’s not terrible enough that a grownup touches a child in such a sinful way, but an Archbishop, a person of authority in the church, and another male. It is nauseating. I hope he is put in jail where he cannot harm little boys any longer.

  5. Mike Morrow says:

    His was not a wise selection for ordination as Priest (1972 by Karol Józef Wojty?a, Archbishop of Kraków) and Bishop (2000 by Pope John Paul II).

  6. Peter from Jersey says:

    Diplomatic immunity would apply only in the country to which the diplomat is accredited. So a Mexican diplomat at the Washington embassy would not enjoy diplomatic immunity whilst visiting either Canada or Mexico.
    Diplomatic immunity for a diplomat would normally be waived by the ambassador or the diplomat concerned but could, presumably, be waived by the state that the diplomat represents.
    Whilst most diplomats would be nationals for the state they represent, for some international organisations, such as the UN, the person may not have given up nationality of origin. So the person here retains, presumably, Polish nationality, but may also have been granted Vatican nationality which might be retained.
    Whether the trial of the accused, innocent until proven guilty I hope, is best conducted in the Vatican or the Dominican Republic is another matter. One hopes that either country could hold the trial. It might be relevant if the alleged offences took place in the Nunciature which would be Vatican territory.
    It might be good for the church to demonstrate that the matter is properly dealt with by a trial in the Vatican.
    It may be helpful to note that diplomatic immunity protects individuals from mistreatment in the countries to which they are accredited. Serving in the Soviet Union would have been very dangerous for Western diplomats otherwise. It is to be hoped that it is not used to protect criminals. Think how the unidentified Libyan who shot a policewoman in London in St James’ Square was granted safe passage home. Shame on the former Libyan authorities for their conduct in that case.

  7. Eugene says:

    Someone told me today, “When God is mad at the sheep He sends blind shepherds.”

  8. Traductora says:

    Many bad people flourished under JPII, who I think was a rather naïve person in many ways. That said, I’m glad they’re finally getting what’s coming to them but I wish they hadn’t destroyed so many souls along the way.

    In the really old days, when a priest was executed by civil authorities for a civil crime (such as the leftist priest, the “Cura Merino,” who tried to assassinate Isabel II of Spain in 1852), a Church authority would cut off his finger pads and any place that had been anointed in his ordination.

  9. ray from mn says:

    “and he will surely lose any pension that he might have had.”

    What is the possibility of dioceses taking back vested pension benefits from incardinated priests and other diocesan employees? It might be difficult to do that, on a “contractual” basis for those already receiving benefits, but it would be ample warning to priests and employees of the penalties for child abuse activities.

    Of course, “boundary violations” (whatever that means, I sure don’t know) might have to be exempted.

  10. robtbrown says:

    Eugene says:
    Someone told me today, “When God is mad at the sheep He sends blind shepherds.”

    IMHO, that sounds too self-centered. I would change it to say: Blind shepherds lose their flocks.

    I also don’t buy the “God gives us the priests we deserve” line.

    The problems in the Church were caused by bishops and theologians in the 60’s, most of whom were from Northern Europe. They correctly realized that certain historical circumstances had changed, but unfortunately they pushed an agenda based on ideas that the Church had justly resisted for years.

  11. incredulous says:

    I really don’t get liberalism and its hook into Catholicism at all. Look at the way we treat active homosexuals and pedophiles in the Church as compared to the way we treat traditionalists. Right at this very moment, the Church leadership is FULL of actively practicing homosexuals and there is probably a fair bit of sexual abuse of minors still taking place. Are we showing a ZERO tolerance policy to this? No. We hardly punish those who victimize children or spiritually weak parishioners. We usually just move them around, which in effect, expand the damage they do. On the other hand, the Church administration comes down on Rev. Justin Wylie like a ton of bricks, swiftly, destroying him. What was his “crime?” Was he cavorting on a beach in Miami with his lover? Was he tainting seminarians while they are still young with the debauchery of sodomy; thus breaking the seminarians spirit and sanctity? Was he luring alter boys into his perversion? Was he defiling a young female volunteer? Hell no… he was doing something much worse in the eyes of a “liberal.” He was promoting traditional, conservative values and implicitly “judging” others. He also put himself on the line like many saints did to squarely take on what he perceived to be corruption or injustic.

    Somehow the current manifestation of catholicism makes it a grave sin to “judge” someone by holding them accountable for being sexually active while a priest rather than purge the cancerous corruption from the Bride of Christ so that She may save souls. It’s a grave sin to hold the corrupt accountable. It’s a grave sin to be offended by immense and pervasive liturgical abuse and promote the EF form of the Holy Sacrifice.

    But, we somehow are uncomfortable DEMANDING the harshest punishment for those Clergy and other ministers who would so callously abuse their power and defile a young man or woman under their stewardship. Further, if the violation even approaches “same sex” transgressions… Katy bar the door… we ain’t going there…

    Let’s focus on the “schismatic” “traddies” rather than the disobedient and vulgar homosexual priests and nuns engaging in sodomy or promoting abortion, female “priests”, etc.

    Apparently to many Catholics, it’s forgivable to rape a child but not to talk down the liberal mass and Church and uphold tradition.

    In he end, though, I highly applaud the CDF and Pope Francis for dealing with this dirtbag head on and according to Father Z in the appropriate manner. I pray this is not a ruse to protect him in any way shape or form.

  12. robtbrown says:

    Traductora says:
    Many bad people flourished under JPII, who I think was a rather naïve person in many ways. That said, I’m glad they’re finally getting what’s coming to them but I wish they hadn’t destroyed so many souls along the way.

    This is the 2d–the first was Abp Juliusz Paetz, of Poznan, who was barred from his own seminary by the rector and resigned in 2002. He had worked in the Vatican for 15 years, then returned to Poland as a bishop.

    I don’t think JPII was naive, but he had come from the Church in Poland that had two advantages: 1) It had been run by Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski with minimal Vatican influence; and 2) it had a built in discipline because of the Soviet occupation. And he had a Secretary of State who was more inclined to international politics than to internal matters in the Church.

    I would like to see the ex Nuncio tried in the DR. And I wonder whether his Vatican Passport has been revoked.

  13. acardnal says:

    This is a particularly heinous crime when it is done by a bishop. The USA has not been free of this either. Two bishops from the SAME diocese of Palm Beach admitted to sexually abusing boys – including seminarians.

  14. frjim4321 says:

    What a horrible scourge!

    To priests attempted such with me during high school seminary years … somehow I was delivered. Both priests are still living. One is “on the shelf,” location unknown, but no laicized … the other was hidden away with a religious order.

    Will this ever end?

  15. incredulous says:

    Fr. Jim,

    I’m sorry to hear that. Thank the Lord that you were spared.

    Nobody can take our faith seriously when every one of us is not demanding protection against these predators and that earthly justice be served. Mercy towards the sick abuse of authority is incompatible with the Church’s responsibility of saving souls. It drives people away rather than towards the Light of Christ.

  16. Cantor says:

    FrJim – Quite frankly, no. Until victims such as yourself speak up. And quickly.

    Too many have stood quietly by and watched as the next kid gets molested, and the next, and the next, sometimes generation after generation.

    If I were an attorney, I’d find the youngest victim in one of these lawsuits, and sue all the older, silent, victims as contributing enablers. Strange how people are too shamed to speak up until there are thousands or millions of dollars on the table.

    If you named them in your high school days, or perhaps even when you became a young adult, then thank you. If not, why don’t you lead the way now and name yours, and pray for forgiveness from any of the younger kids who’ve had to suffer by your silence?

  17. frjim4321 says:

    Cantor, that’s the common error of blaming the victim.

  18. Cantor says:

    So, FrJim… you’re out camping at the state park. Big ol’ mountain lion comes down and mauls you. You escape and bind your wounds. On your way out you pass a ranger, an emergency telephone, and a Scout troop on its way in for the week. You say nothing, because you’re the victim here. Yeah. Right.

  19. mrshopey says:

    The victims who did not speak up should not be prosecuted.
    There were victims who spoke up, and were not believed. There were victims who told someone, and were blamed for being too flirty or they misunderstood father, or whomever.
    It is incredibly hard for a victim to come forward. They should not feel the added burden of being faulted for not saying something.
    The responsibility lies in the diocese and also the offender.

  20. incredulous says:

    While blaming the victim sounds bad, I think Cantor makes a reasonable point especially regarding a man of the cloth. I’m sure many saints and martyrs were in fact victimized by all sorts of bad things in their childhood as well as adulthood. Some of these things led directly to their martyrdom, sainthood and sanctification. We are called to do the right thing, love (defend to point of death) and be charitable towards our neighbors (and their innocent children) whether we’ve been victimized or not. We are called to die for our neighbor. To keep quiet with respect to such an immense evil when we ourselves are in a position to form the conscience of others strikes me as being the opposite of Catholic virtue. It seems disordered to keep this sort of thing quiet when being vocal could protect the innocent.

    The only thing necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to say nothing. This is applicable in spades with respect to our besieged Bride of Christ.

  21. Pingback: Vatican Defrocks former Apostolic Nuncio Over Homosexual Child Molestation | Faith Central: Catholic Home on the Web

  22. mrshopey says:

    No, it isn’t a valid point. The victim is not to blame in any circumstance.
    The Church has been making it easier and safer to say something. But that is only now and still not everywhere.
    Then you have the dynamics of abuse where the perpetrator probably has wooed the family, best buddies with mom and dad which causes the victim to not want to say anything at all. Then you have those, due to the trauma, who split, psychologically, to try and forget. It works for awhile, but then they either end up taking their own lives later, or turning to drugs to numb the pain or both.
    I believe it was here and elsewhere that someone was remarking that because they abused drugs they were not credible, testimony false. It fits an abuse victim.
    There should not even be the hint of them doing wrong if they don’t, more likely can’t, say something. Usually it isn’t until they are young adult and in therapy, place that is trusted, safe, where it does come out.
    There is not valid point to that. We should try not to do that either. We should try to make places safe and easy for victims to speak. But if they can’t, for whatever reason, they should not be made to feel, especially by others, that other abuse was their fault.

  23. Kathleen10 says:

    I’m disappointed frjim shared something so personal and serious and was criticized. Thank God you were able to avoid being victimized by those vile predators, frjim. There are many factors that come into play when someone is sexually abused, particularly so for a young person or child. It is so easy to forget the era in which it happened. Some years ago these things were not discussed. It would have been unthinkable to accuse a priest of such a thing and you might find that you are under suspicion.
    I notice at the link to Faith Central that they are equivocating about the age of the victim and consent. This is what is going to happen as the push for sexual access to young boys and little boys becomes more of a promotion of “mutual relationship” and the concept that these relationships are entered into willingly by both parties.
    I cannot explain my revulsion at monsters who victimize children AND young men, and it is exponentially worse when it is a priest, bishop, etc. They need to be treated in as serious a manner as possible, because their crime is particularly heinous and evil.
    This IS an absolute scourge. In today’s climate we are going to find however, that it grows and morphs in order to make the case that if the child is 14, it isn’t “really abuse”. This is awkward for today’s media because they promote homosexuality on the one hand but ignore completely that the victims of most priests and bishops are invariably post-adolescent boys, those sweet young targets of 11 to 17, and they love to highlight the abuse within the church. Very difficult for them. So watch for consent issues to get talked about now because how else are they going to decriminalize sexual abuse and make it possible to have sexual access to young boys? We have to stop them whenever it is discussed. Get active and involved, organize, and get others involved, and be relentless. The general public will get behind the opposition to this if some leaders (ourselves) step forward. People need leaders to help them decide if they can and should fight it, and also to show how to fight it! Many will complain and mutter about it but we will need to be out in front of this issue or we will see them once again make great progress right under our watch. If the church had been out in front on the homosexuality issue and educated and “empowered” the people all these years, we would not have the situation we have where homosexuality has been normalized in the culture. The church we love has largely failed on this issue, “Courage” being the exception and some few vocal clergy here and there.
    The tentacles for the issue of consent are reaching us, as we can see even in this link which quibbles about the age of the victim. As if a 17 year old boy cannot be influenced to his own harm by an affectionate, influential male in his life. Some of these boys have no father in their lives, and that makes it all the better for these sick, sick men. Our church should be in the business of rooting out these vile weeds and plucking them out of our church. There is no way their acts are not known to others. Our church hides and allows too often. God will hold those who do accountable.

  24. incredulous says:


    I’m sorry, under what circumstances are we absolved by Jesus from doing the right thing and protecting the innocent? I heartily disagree with you that it’s justified especially in the case of a priest himself who has a primary function of protecting innocent souls and leading them to heaven. Who is in a more powerful position to take on the abuse of another priest but a priest himself?

    Under no selfish circumstance are we absolved from charity and loving our neighbor and could a Catholic stand by while evil is perpetrated, especially against the poor, defenseless and innocent. Apparently, you have been fully inculcated into the victimhood mindset. We must constantly sacrifice self irrespective of the crimes and injuries against us.

    While you may be making a proper legal case/distinction, it’s not a Catholic position of virtue.

    To Kathleen, I hope you aren’t accusing me of criticizing Fr. Jim as the first thing I typed was “I’m sorry to hear that. Thank the Lord that you were spared.” I am now criticizing this liberal mindset that victims have a free pass to stand by and let others be victimized through their silence without any Catholic onus on them to sacrifice out of love for a potential victim.

  25. incredulous says:

    Regarding “blaming the victim”, I think you all have morphed the meaning. Blaming the victim is “she deserved to get raped because of the way she was dressed” or “he deserved to get mugged because he was on another gang’s territory.” It’s not “blaming the victim” to say the victim has an obligation to God and to society to speak up and out about his/her abuse so as to protect the innocent.

  26. mrshopey says:

    That is blaming the victim, what was said, that they should be sued for not saying something.

    The victims is under no obligation, especially regarding sin and or lack of virtue, if they are unable to. Responsibility is completely gone. The responsibility is always on the perp and in the past, the failure of the diocese to do something. A victim is under no obligation to say something especially if they know, the diocese has no trust they will help, make matters worse. None. Zero. Zilch.

    Ideally, you may want to point a finger to them but luckily we have enough info regarding the dynamics of the abuse on the person. That isn’t just lawyer talk either.
    The victim did nothing wrong. Nor, if they never speak especially if they have no founded trust and security, an obligation to do so. In most of those cases, the perp already had a weird nick name given by kids. So, even though they couldn’t say, s/he crossed a boundary, it was the parish/diocese responsibility to investigate.

  27. mrshopey says:

    And I’ll just add one thing further, if the person has completely split, psychologically, it may not come out till the symptoms (drug abuse, hoarding, eating disorder, suicide attempt) are being treated and only IF they feel they are in a safe place to say something.
    That is not lawyer talk. And if any priest/confessor every hints they are at fault, I think they should receive the full brunt of the law or a severe chewing out.

  28. incredulous says:

    Blaming the victim is: “the child deserved to be molested because…” Again, this is not what is being said here. What is being said is that a victim in a position to protect somebody else from the same harm has a Catholic obligation to protect another victim. For example, if you entered a room full of halon gas and barely escaped with your life (i.e. victim) and you did NOTHING to stop the next person from going in and getting killed, I firmly believe that judgment on you will be harsh.

    Further, who exactly is “the dioceses” that you are referring to? I thought this whole tangent was related to Fr. Jim’s revelation that he was subject to homosexual advances while a seminarian and subsequently should have brought the transgressions to the attention of authorities. If Fr. Jim didn’t then or doesn’t now consist of somebody comprising “the dioceses” then I don’t know who does. I suppose it’s easier to hold organizations accountable but not individuals. However, responsibility diffused is responsibility denied.

    Of course, you qualify your objection by saying that “the victim is under no obligation… if they are unable to.” Well, that’s a truism not worth mentioning. Who could possibly hold somebody responsible for something they are unable to do? That wouldn’t be Catholic, either.

    That isn’t what we are talking about here. There is no Catholic principle which allows you to sit by and watch an innocent get hurt when you have the ability to do something about it. Period. Your particular cross is not relevant to the commandment to “love thy neighbor.”

    I really don’t understand where you are getting your catechesis.

  29. mrshopey says:

    It wasn’t referring to just Fr. Jim, but in general.
    It isn’t catechesis but how the victim is, in general.
    Most of the victims are incapable of saying something so, although ideally, and what the diocese focuses on, is making a place safer for victims to come forward, it may not work. And the victim can not be blamed.
    When cantor said going back and suing a victim for not saying something, that IS blaming the victim for failing to say something.
    The diocese has failed in investigating, diocese in general – whomever is in that position, especially if the person already has a nick name that is indicative of abusive behavior.
    Maybe it is a stretch for you, but it isn’t all black and white when it comes to a victim being able to speak. Most would never want to say anything ever in their life till they realize these other things, drug abuse, etc, stem from that problem. Many years down the road even.

  30. Cantor says:

    mrshopey –

    1. Every priest in the United States is under a mandatory reporting rule for child molestation of which he has knowledge outside the confessional. According to diocesan VIRTUS training, so is every church employee and volunteer. In most states, this is both civil and Church law. There is no asterisk that liberates you if you were the victim.

    2. In FrJim’s claim, he knows one priest is even being “hidden” by the man’s order! Sounds as though more than one person is involved here. That’s not good news for our Church as it tries to move beyond this evil.

    3. Pray for priests who learn of this evil in the confessional, that they guide the sinner to do the right thing.

  31. mrshopey says:

    It doesn’t mention the VICTIM being mandated to tell for a reason. Do some research. If I were in a position of authority, I and found out, I would be obligated in most cases to say something not only formally to the diocese but also the police. It doesn’t say VICTIM is required for a reason.

    We have come a long way, in some areas, with victims being helped and feeling safe to report. But that is not everywhere yet.

    I will continue to pray for the priests.
    I will leave that up to Fr. Jim, being the victim, or IF he did say something and that resulted in hiding the priest. Not all abuse, like crossing boundaries, is an offense where they remove them from ministry.

    I continue to always pray for the victims first.

    FWIW, in my opinion, when victims get whiff of anything that resembles blame of them, it is crushing and also why I think SNAP is still the go to instead of the Church.

    They need to hear, “It’s not your fault.” “I’m glad you came forward.” “How can I help you?”

    The NEVER need to hear you or anyone else has thoughts about suing them as they are responsible for other victims being abused. NEVER.

    And if we can’t say that, then quietly praying for them is the best course. But, if the EVER hear that, it is crushing and could cause them to commit suicide.
    I don’t think that is the case for Fr. Jim. But let me say, Fr. Jim, it wasn’t your fault. I am sorry you went through that. How can I help you?

  32. incredulous says:

    Catholicism is not based on self nor is it based on cowardice. Again, if you have the ability to protect somebody else whether you’ve been a victim or not and you choose not to, then you are in fact part of the problem. Cowardice, albeit understandable, is not virtuous. Silence in the face of evil is not virtuous. Our saints were made because of virtuosity, self sacrifice, bravery and a willingness to die for The Lord. “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

    Please explain how being a victim absolves one of their obligation towards virtuous actions, i.e. reporting a crime so as to expose a predator and to protect others. This is especially odd as a discussion because it centers around an adult male who is allegedly a priest with pastoral responsibilities, is in no way shape or form incapacitated, was subject to either criminal assault or certainly advances that are completely disallowed by celibacy, apparently has not stepped forward to protect the sanctity of priesthood and the Church itself. You are waging an enormous resistance to the idea that Father Jim should have stepped forward and probably will be judged accordingly and that we should not “blame” him for silence. Is there no end to where you draw the line with your sanctification and absolution associated with victimhood?

    Fighting evil IS the responsibility of the facet of the communion of saints known as the Church Militant. That is we humans on earth. We are the Church Militant. We get wounded in battle; so what? If you want a feminized response in fighting evil, that’s your deal. I’d prefer to go to battle with those who won’t back off because they are wounded. I’d prefer us all be held to a higher standard, i.e. God’s standard. I particularly like the low ranking angel who asked Lucifer… who is like God and then proceeded to wage war on evil. Subsequently, our Lady of Victories did not back off either. She subjugated evil as well.

    As I reread you, you know what? If I knew that a priest’s silence to his own self being abused allowed another child to be abused because the predator was not outed, tried, convicted and put in jail, I’d sure as the sun rises BLAME him for his silence and cowardice that led to additional victims. The buck stops here.

    I much rather prefer a rigorous attack on evil rather than the feminine approach being espoused.

  33. Cantor says:

    Incredulous – keeping in mind, of course, that Our Lady wields one hefty fist herself. ;)

    Thanks for saying it better than I.

  34. mrshopey says:

    I thought I had explained the dynamics of an abuse victim being unable to say something, but I recognize that I may not be the best at explaining this. There are other professionals that are far better than me, who also make the policies that do require those in authority, not victim, to report if they know something.
    The victim is never to blame.
    You and I once, deal in ideals. Reality is something different. Some you would have to dig up even as they already committed suicide.
    So, yes to those in authority reporting. No to the victims themselves. We have even gotten into the re trauma they experience testifying, etc. But our courts are slowly becoming more accommodating. I would advise keeping your opinion to yourself regarding the victims etc. You don’t know the dynamics of being a victim and it has nothing to do with cowardice either.
    Yes, she wields a hefty punch especially to the perps.

  35. Cantor says:

    mrshopey – You don’t know the dynamics of being a victim…

    Please feel free to express your opinion.
    Do not for one nanosecond presume to know what I know.

  36. mrshopey says:

    My point was not to presume what you know or not but to tell you that idea, ideals, do not bode well for abuse victims and the dynamics of it. The focus is to create an environment where they can feel safe and come forward. How long we have, I don’t know.

    I need clarification of the first part. If you are saying I don’t have or know the dynamics of being a victim, I do, first personally then with friends, group that I belong to. So, yes, I have a little back ground in this area. Also how we, victims, blame ourselves for lots of things when we were incapable of doing, saying something. And also when you do say something, not being believed but being believed, how crushing that can be. That was one of the darkest moments in my life.

Comments are closed.