Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Religion and Spirituality' started by Pagan, May 7, 2008.
i think i understand the idea of trying to rehab this person, but keeping them in the church is a WAY bad move. i would think that the church could find something in the community that would keep them away from temptation.
I actually agree with the Pastor.
Yes and no bro.
It's been proven....MANY MANY times....that pedophiles DON'T rehab. Every single interview I've ever heard with any convicted sex offender, the sex offenders themselves ALL say that there's no way the urge ever goes away.
Taking that into consideration...why doesn't the pastor just open a zoo and throw the lions in with the zebras?
He actually hasnt touched any kids so we dont really know that he's a predator. He had kiddie porn, but I dont know how often one goes from looking at that stuff to actually acting out the fantasy on a kid. I'm sure plenty do, but do all of them?
I don't know man...but would you want to gamble if it was your kid?
When does this guy work with kids?
Couldn't agree more - not my kids!
Probably not, but I understand where the Pastor is coming from. It's actually a bit refreshing to see a religious figure attempt to actually be true to his beliefs.
From the article:
He sees kids, that doesnt mean he's ever in a position where he is alone with them or working directly with them.
Well it's just all up to the individual. I'm all for giving him a chance, but let him work in a toll booth or somehting.
I wouldn't want him having even the most remote chance of coming in contact with my kid.
Well now, Redemption or Cast Out..WWJD...
In theory, he could be voted out of the Congregation as per the NT, in practice, what would be the Christian way to handle it?
Is a Church a place for only perfect people, or do all people have flaws in their character?
Coming from Christian, I like to say the bolded part.
Bro...I have character flaws too, but collecting 700 images of kiddie porn with little girls under the age of five is a little more than a character flaw.
Amazing...Christians are ready to condemn all gays to hell, yet they have no problem allowing a pedophile to work in a church.
Now I've seen it all.
Pagan, look how quick you are to judge Bro, if you'll notice, my pertinent sentences end in question marks, as in "what does the forum think"? Not yea or nay one way or another.
What do you think? I know you're not a Christian of course, but what would your pagan ethic lead you to decide about the man and why?
if the church is like most churches they probably have a youth organization/group.
as a human and a father, i can tell you that i would not feel comfortable with this person having any contact with my daughter. and, by the way she is 5.
the question then becomes when do the rights of one out way the rights of the many? what do we, as a society, that recognizes the limited chance that this person will ever be able to really control any urges they may have, do with him? if the/a church isn't the answer, is a toll booth the only real answer?
I agree with you Pagan. It is not like he had porn of like 14 year olds or something. It was porn of kids under 5 years old. That is truly messed up. I am all for the guy getting a second chance, but he should stay away from children. Protecting children >> Rights of that guy.
Written words bro, sometimes hard to decipher. Your question seemed like you were telling everyone not to judge him because we all have flaws. My bad if that wasn't your intent.
As for what I think, I don't base my decision on my religious beliefs. I base it on logic and common sense.
Give him any chance he wants...but away from children. There are plenty of other jobs he could take.
You wouldn't send a recovering alcoholic to work at a bar.
I disagree about the basic question D1, for me it is whether a person can be redeemed or if they can redeem themselves through singular effort on their part.
Now let's not put the fox in the child care center, that is not the question that I would pose at all.
Here is an example, the disgraced Ted Grizzard, he of homosexual prostitute and meth with his back rubs infamy, was given a path to redeem himself, 5 years of counseling, no return to the pulpit, and marriage counseling, the guy lasted two weeks, proclaimed he never had homosexual urges, and he didn't need that path to rehabilitation after all.
I bring that up because in his case, there was a A-B-C-D path available for the man, he turned it down, we have no idea what this man has done or indeed, not done, to rehab and redeem himself.
not sure if you have any kids, but i am parent first, humanitarian second. if #2 conflicts with #1 in any way then too bad...
i don't know this guy and when it comes to my daughter, i really don't want that opportunity. i know my daughter and she is very naive and would easily be persuaded. i'm not willing to give this guy a chance to slip up.
if i attended this church and voiced my concern and nothing was changed, then i would have no choice but to stop attending that church. humanitarian second; i am for second chances, but not at my child's possible expense.
i think the idea of rehabbing and opening the doors to the zoo are different. i understand that sex offenders seldom rehabilitate, lose or even control their urges. but i understand the need to at least try to salvage a human being in this place. in that respect the pastor is correct. he should be doing what he can to safely bring this person back into society and the community. in this case he clearly is not being safe.
that being said, that sucker needs to be as far away from that which temps him as possible! trust would be a non issue when it comes to my child. there would be none.
I dont see how the rights of the many are violated, only the many trying to violate this guys rights. As far as we know he has controlled his urges for his entire life. Remember, he wasnt arrested for acting on his urges other than in the privacy of his own home. He hasnt abused anyone directly and the state labels him as "low" risk. We also have no reason to believe that this guy ever has any contact with anyone in the parish, let alone child one on one.
I dont blame parents for not wanting to go to the church, that's there right and if I had kids I'd probably rather be safe than sorry. But, I also understand the arguments of the pastor, and if we could take a step back from the situation, and get away from the emotional response of protecting kids we might see that they arent really in as much danger as we first thought.
It's not like he's helping to run a day care here. He's an office worker in a church. If he was the Sunday school teacher I'd say alright. I think we're overstating how much contact he has with kids here.
This is exactly right. The thread has sort of turned into a mess. The original article says he "sees children as part of his job." Well I "see" children walking outside my house, driving past a school, grocery shopping...ect.
Plain and simple, if the man has asked for forgiveness, and actually gave the pastor permission to announce this to the congregation, then it sounds like he wants to be held accountable by the entire church.
The only ones displaying a non-Christian attitude are the ones leaving the church, and not forgiving the man for his past transgressions.
Also think about it like this; at least in this church you are aware of who might be a danger to your kids. Move on to another church, and it could be the Sunday school teacher who is the perv, and you just don't know it.
i posed that as a question, about the rights. i'm not sure how to deal with something like this except in the manor i described a couple of posts later.
low risk, high risk, not my risk. as a parent, if the possible threat is not removed, then i remove my child. this is not an emotional response. this is the response of a parent. i don't care if the danger is minimal, if there is a possibility of danger and i can avert it, especially this type of danger, i will. i sure have no desire for my daughter to become some sickos fantasy on line.
Most people who eventually harm, harrass or abuse children managed to control their urges for a rather long time. There's no telling if he's going to be able to do it for the rest of his life or if he's "losing it" tomorrow and actually acts on his urges. In a certain sense, he has already done so by acquiring kiddie porn stuff, which inherently involves the abuse of a child. I'm also hesitant to outrightly exclude him from the church, but at the very least I would want him to begin a therapy that will teach him how to control his urges and what to do when they become overly seductive. Plus, I'd like to see him behind bars for a while for collecting that nasty stuff in the first place.
He was in jail for a couple years I believe. I'd assume, though I cant be sure, that some sort of therapy went along with that and could still be a part of his parole or a condition of his release. I'm not sure if therapy is in any way mandatory for registered sex offenders, I'm not that familiar with the law, or his individual case to know for sure.
That is one of the main reasons I no longer am a practicing Catholic. Way too many priests have been charged with molesting kids and the church still seems to take a "don't tell" attitude over it. I also have a lot of other philosophical issues with the Catholic church. My religion now is to just lead an honest life and treat everyone with love and kindness. I think the biggest hypocrites I know are the so-called "Christians" and "Born Again" crowd. I just don't find organized religion to be that appealing anymore, and I am sure there are just as many pedophiles and molesters in church as there are everyday people walking down the street.
I think you meant TED HAGGARD?
I can agree with you first sentiment, the idea that such a person should merely be shuffled to another parish, placed in a position of Authority, and then given a group of young and naif children to shepherd over is too monstrous to contemplate.
As for the second part, whatever whatever...
There we go, exactly, that's the "guy", interestingly enough, the male gay prostitute also claimed that himself and Larry "Glory Hole" Craig was one of his clients, but there never was any proof offered up for that accusation.
When I had first read the headline, I thought 'oh no not again.' But after reading the article you realize that this has nothing to do with the other church pedophilia scandals. Those scandals involved members of the church committing crimes and being protected by the church in order to save the church's ***. This one is actually the opposite, where the church is doing the right thing by their own standards, despite the fact that it is bad for public image.
I understand the 'protect my kids at all costs' argument, but there are unfortunately limits to how far you can go. So long as you are only ever making that emotional argument, it can justify locking these guys up forever.
He should probably be restricted, not by the law but by common sense, to jobs where he has minimal contact with the public. As a receptionist he becomes a public face of the church and receives the general umbrella of goodwill that those who work with the church tend to receive. I think that may be the only real problem in this situation. When priests turn out to be pedophiles, one of the most disturbing things is the way they have used the "good name" of the church to get away with one of the most heinous acts a human can commit. Most people, even agnostics like me, have a general positive sense about the church community. They are good people, and the church is a good safe place. It is even more so for children. The last place we should be fearful of danger, especially to children, is in a church. Yet it is also the first place we should expect to find forgiveness. Thus a pedophile receptionist causes controversy.
Hey..Larry Craig never used a glory hole. He solicited sex in bathroom stalls...never a glory hole. get it right.
I heard he was going to start offering franchises:
the idea of banning this guy from the church isn't the issue here. i commend the Pastor for his efforts in bringing this guy back into society. i believe that the Pastor should help this guy find something in the community and counsel him as often as possible. he was arrested with 700 pictures on his computer. he's a looker at this point in his sickness and there really is no way to prevent him from "looking" while at work.
he may not have anything on his work computer and he may never come into physical contact with the children that attend, but that will not stop him from looking. and what he does on his own time is his own time. temptation is a funny thing. who knows what it will take for him to take the next step, he may never take that step. but i can assure you, if i was attending that church and my child attended the activities of the church, i would not feel comfortable with this guy around.
I agree. Thanks for the response D1.
I'm not real sure how having a receptionist job = rehabilitation for being a pedophile. It is one thing to counsel a man, it is quite another to let him into a parish as an employee. There is no reason why the pastor couldn't counsel this man, as he would any other parishioner, yet not give him access to the other parishioners, many of which have children. We're not talking about a guy who is down on his luck, robbed somebody for food money. This is a man who actively sought out sexual pictures of 5 year olds. He is directly responsible for how ever many of those children being abused in those 700 pictures. He is indirectly responsible for countless others by helping create the demand for that. This is not something to take lightly.
The other problem I have, is that this pastor also has a responsibility to his other parishioners. Yet, he'd rather see them leave the congregation, then find a way that makes more sense. Would he hire a serial killer to mop the floors?
Why not by law? Once you're convicted of a crime, you do lose some rights.