The dude is wrong, but I don’t feel too sorry for the girl. The article makes it sound like she went into the relationship eyes wide open.
It sounds like she was willing; however, the adult in the scenario is ultimately responsible to ensure appropriate behavior.
His actions sound practiced and calculated. I wonder if she's just the most recent in a long line of "conquests."
The girl was 16 years old, probably with a head full of romantic thoughts. Like most teens, she probably didn't have any real sense of the consequences. That's what differentiates between "minors" and "adults." A starry-eyed teen can be talked into all sorts of stupid behavior.
It was Brother Pratt's responsibility to avoid this situation.
Except that she was a minor. If she was underage, you can’t exactly use the “consent” alibi.
IMHO, depends on the age of the girl, I had a hard time pulling that out of the article.
15 or 16, throw the book at him. 17.......I'm not entirely sure. Civil consequences certainly - fire his butt, what he did was completely unethical!. But, Criminal Charges? The law is the law, but declining to prosecute might be potentially be in order.
Some time ago, during all of the Catholic priest scandals, I read an op-ed (wish I could remember by who). The guy was incensed that 17-year-old "boys" had been "taken advantage of" "against their will". His point was that he celebrated his 17th birthday as a Marine in a landing craft off Okinawa (apparently, he stretched the truth a bit with his recruiter....) and if anyone had tried to "take advantage of him against his will" they'd have been picking up their teeth off the floor.
His views roughly mirrored mine, in that the priests abused their position of power with the older boys, but indeed, it took two to tango.
I know that the law says "18", but at some point common sense needs to dictate actions. From this single article, I agree with you that it sounds like the girl knew exactly what she was doing.