The Terminological Paradox Between Sexual Violence and Sexual Abuse: Implications for Comprehensive Redress in Cases Involving Clergy

Abstract

This article analyzes the terminological paradox between the concepts of “sexual violence” and “sexual abuse” in the context of human rights violations committed within clerical institutions. This conceptual distinction is not merely semantic; rather, it has profound legal, normative, and practical implications for the comprehensive redress of victims. While international human rights law recognizes ‘sexual violence’ as a fundamental analytical category, ecclesiastical institutions—and at times the justice systems themselves—continue to use the term ‘sexual abuse,’ which minimizes the gravity of the crime and hinders effective access to justice and comprehensive reparations. Through an analysis of the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the landmark Karadima case in Chile, this article demonstrates how this terminological paradox reproduces patriarchal power structures, obscures underlying gender dynamics, and perpetuates clerical impunity. The article argues that adopting a gender-based approach and the precise use of the term ‘sexual violence’ are indispensable elements for ensuring comprehensive reparation processes that effectively respond to victims’ needs and contribute to transforming the institutional structures that facilitate these crimes.