This is a tough question, at least to me

  • Thread starter Thread starter NCSue
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
well i think the law is badly phrased.

keeping a convicted child molester from being, say, the sunday school teacher… well thats just SENSIBLE.
keeping him from attending church? not good

i wonder if the news report is giving the full story here? it certainly seems very odd, i dont know any church that doesnt have children’s activities
The full story is that anyone convicted of any sexual offense in NC and other states cannot live within a certain distance of certain places. This has caused many people (men) to become homeless and live in “tent cities” which is a violation of their parole, and they get thrown back in jail.

Dont get me wrong here, I am not defending them, but one of my friends is a convicted sex offender and he was convicted for having sex with a 17 year old girl when he was 18 (adult, child, statutory rape charge). And we cannot force these people into a situation where they CANNOT recover. Despite the high re-offending rate some people do change and we need to allow that to happen while simultaneously keeping the community at large safe.

FSC
 
  1. Remember that it is a sin not to avoid the occasion of sin. If he is sinning, there is no fault in denying absolution!
How is “in the same large and public building as children are in” the near occasion of sin? I agree that we should do everything prudent to protect our children, but no one – murderer, rapist, sex offender, what have you – should be persecuted for attending church after they have served their debt to society.

Consider two things:
  1. The recidivism rate among sex offenders is high.
  2. Our society has nothing but rejection and hatred for sex offenders, without regard to the circumstances of the crime, no matter how much time they have been locked away for.
People use #1 to justify #2, but* isn’t it likely that #2 is one of the causes for #1*?
 
How is “in the same large and public building as children are in” the near occasion of sin? I agree that we should do everything prudent to protect our children, but no one – murderer, rapist, sex offender, what have you – should be persecuted for attending church after they have served their debt to society.

Consider two things:
  1. The recidivism rate among sex offenders is high.
  2. Our society has nothing but rejection and hatred for sex offenders, without regard to the circumstances of the crime, no matter how much time they have been locked away for.
People use #1 to justify #2, but* isn’t it likely that #2 is one of the causes for #1*?
Nothing to add to the conversation, but the irony of you two arguing is not lost on me…
 
  1. … especially if you have children to be concerned about!
  2. Remember that it is a sin not to avoid the occasion of sin. If he is sinning, there is no fault in denying absolution!
Accroding to New Advent (Catholic Encyclopedia):

Protect our children from the predators!
“So be as cunning as snakes but as innocent as doves” Matthew 10:16
That is fine, but to do so to the point of not allowing someone to repent is not Christian. Think about it for a moment, at what point did Christ say “repent, unless you commited sin x in which case dont’ bother because you can’t repent of that”.

Listen I understand what you’re trying to say, but you can’t punish someone to the point of not being able to seek repentance, and religious life.
 
One’s constitutional rights are limited having committed a crime. One, theoretically, has a constitutional right to bear arms, yet felons are not allowed to do so. On the other hand, even prisoners have a certain right to worship, and have successfully sued over the deprivation of those rights (such as not being able to have a Bible).

I think the state would win this argument. The recidivism rate among sexual predators is notoriously high. I’m pretty pro-reform and pro-rehabilitation, but I do not trust a sex offender who says he has “found God” in the same way as I trust a car thief who says the same; sex offenders are afflicted with a sickness, not a moral weakness, and I think they have far less ability to control themselves. When it comes to protecting children from sexual assault or allowing this guy’s freedom of religion, the kids’ interests will win, assuming the state has good evidence that sex offenders in general are at all likely to commit their crimes again (and the evidence in this area is very strong).

Its very unfortunate, but I think it is unavoidable.
Which is why I suggest monitoring. Let’s keep in mind that a denial of recourse to the sacraments is a denial of access to grace. The man’s eternal soul is at stake here too, and he sure could use all the grace he could get.
 
How is “in the same large and public building as children are in” the near occasion of sin? I agree that we should do everything prudent to protect our children, but no one – murderer, rapist, sex offender, what have you – should be persecuted for attending church after they have served their debt to society.

Consider two things:
  1. The recidivism rate among sex offenders is high.
  2. Our society has nothing but rejection and hatred for sex offenders, without regard to the circumstances of the crime, no matter how much time they have been locked away for.
People use #1 to justify #2, but* isn’t it likely that #2 is one of the causes for #1*?
No, I don’t think there is any evidence that disgust for sex offenders causes them to rape kids again. Does being rejected by society cause them to lust after kids? Or does it cause them to give into their lust? The first seems very unlikely–that sexual desire could be affected by pressures. At least, as I said, there is no evidence at all of this. And if it the second, then it shouldn’t matter–the offender still lusts after children and has shown propensity in the past to assault them. After all, these people committed their assaults in the first place, before being despised by society.

It is clear that these kind of laws are not cruel and unusual punishment, because they are not punishment at all. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled these to be prophylactic in measure, like locking up a mentally dangerous person, or quarantining someone with a dangerous communicable disease.

It is indeed an unfortunate situation, but I think many people under-estimate the recidivism rates involved. Raping a child is not the kind of crime one can “do the time” and be done, like stealing a car. People who steal cars can reeducated, taught a new trade, and lead a new life free from most or all of the motivators of the original crime. Science still has no good method of therapy for sexual aggressors. I don’t think this is an issue of forgiveness–we ought to forgive them even before they are taken to trial–it is an issue of protecting us and our children. It is not unloving to keep a dangerous person away from his potential victims. And frankly, science strongly indicates that sex offenders are dangerous even after serving extended periods, even after finding God, even after learning new trades… asking them to stop their behavior is often like asking a homosexual to start finding the opposite sex attractive, or a straight person to start lusting after people of the same sex. Some claim its possible, but on a large scale, it is highly uncertain to work.

Btw, I do not mean to address people who unknowingly have sex with people slightly under the age of consent. It is a terrible thing that such people are grouped with those who rape and fondle kids.

Imagine if this person was CERTAIN to commit a similar crime again. Would you be as comfortable with letting him into the setting with families and Sunday School? Of course not. And I would submit that anyone who is comfortable with this is underestimating the likelihood of a sex offender repeating his offense.

What we ought to do is create a special, adults-only service or location for people in this and other positions which make it prudent to have only adults around.
 
No, I don’t think there is any evidence that disgust for sex offenders causes them to rape kids again. Does being rejected by society cause them to lust after kids? Or does it cause them to give into their lust? The first seems very unlikely–that sexual desire could be affected by pressures. At least, as I said, there is no evidence at all of this. And if it the second, then it shouldn’t matter–the offender still lusts after children and has shown propensity in the past to assault them. After all, these people committed their assaults in the first place, before being despised by society.

It is clear that these kind of laws are not cruel and unusual punishment, because they are not punishment at all. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled these to be prophylactic in measure, like locking up a mentally dangerous person, or quarantining someone with a dangerous communicable disease.

It is indeed an unfortunate situation, but I think many people under-estimate the recidivism rates involved. Raping a child is not the kind of crime one can “do the time” and be done, like stealing a car. People who steal cars can reeducated, taught a new trade, and lead a new life free from most or all of the motivators of the original crime. Science still has no good method of therapy for sexual aggressors. I don’t think this is an issue of forgiveness–we ought to forgive them even before they are taken to trial–it is an issue of protecting us and our children. It is not unloving to keep a dangerous person away from his potential victims. And frankly, science strongly indicates that sex offenders are dangerous even after serving extended periods, even after finding God, even after learning new trades… asking them to stop their behavior is often like asking a homosexual to start finding the opposite sex attractive, or a straight person to start lusting after people of the same sex. Some claim its possible, but on a large scale, it is highly uncertain to work.

Btw, I do not mean to address people who unknowingly have sex with people slightly under the age of consent. It is a terrible thing that such people are grouped with those who rape and fondle kids.

Imagine if this person was CERTAIN to commit a similar crime again. Would you be as comfortable with letting him into the setting with families and Sunday School? Of course not. And I would submit that anyone who is comfortable with this is underestimating the likelihood of a sex offender repeating his offense.

What we ought to do is create a special, adults-only service or location for people in this and other positions which make it prudent to have only adults around.
Why stop there, though? If a person isn’t locked up, he has the ability to go someplace and hurt children. Why not lock up anyone convicted of these crimes for life?

There is certainly a case to be made for life in prison, in the case of *some *sex offenders. But one-size-fits-all legislation is the definition of injustice. This is why I emphasized the circumstances and the nature of the crime. When you stick the label “pedophile” on an entire population, and label them as monsters, they act like monsters.

I hate to say it, but there are a lot of people who have some amount of sexual attraction for people under the age of 18 (the porn industry happens to encourage this). Sometimes I feel that our society places so much condemnation on the backs of these people that they are driven to act out their desires. My hope is that Catholics, at least, will realize that every “monster” is a human being who deserves our compassion. Sometimes the most compassionate thing is to lock someone up, and visit them with the sacraments.

But it is never the most compassionate thing to keep someone forcibly away from the body of Christ.
 
Perhaps he could become a hermit, or join a monastery.

I wouldn’t want him around kids, either. That’s what happened with these priests who kept getting moved around, instead of being relieved of their duties.

We had a situation some years back where a convicted sex offender was participating in a church, but not having anything to do with the kids. Someone was upset with him for not taking his turn with the Sunday School or some such thing, and he was forced to disclose the reason why not, which of course led to him being forced to leave the city.

I don’t think it’s really possible for a convicted sex offender to participate in ordinary society after the conviction, even if they have “done their time” not only because of what they might do, but because of what people might do to them, when the secret gets out.
 
I wouldn’t want him around kids, either. That’s what happened with these priests who kept getting moved around, instead of being relieved of their duties.
There is a huge difference between being put in a position of leadership and being allowed to attend a church. The original article does not refer to this guy being “around kids” at the church, merely in the same large building. And he was guilty of sex offenses against teenagers, not kids.
 
The other side of the coin is that if he truly has “found God”, then he should be willing to follow the legal ramifications that resulted from his previous crimes. Forgive him? Yes. Forget what he did? No. Serious crimes, just like sin, result in some type of temporal punishment which can’t be disregarded even if someone has a change of heart.
Just like I"m sure you would have been willing to follow the proscriptions of the Penal Laws that existed in Great Britain, you know the ones that forbade attendance at Mass and didn’t permit Catholics to own land or vote.
 
I do think that it is unjust, and that those kind of conditions can easily become impossible for anyone to meet. I think the fact those laws exist is an attempt to deal with a difficult situation that has no good answers. But to put people in a position where they can’t go into a Church with a congregation worshiping God is a very wrong thing to do. (And some of the people on those list should not be there.)

And FWIW, I think major rejection from all society can make it more difficult for someone with an inappropriate attraction of any kind to cope. No job, no friends, cut off from family, the Church. This results in loneliness, despair, stress, and those things affect our physical and mental energy which allows us to resist giving into temptation.
 
There is a huge difference between being put in a position of leadership and being allowed to attend a church.
It would be difficult for him to participate beyond just Sunday morning attendance, since most things also involve children and teenagers. Even packing boxes for the SVDP would be off-limits to him, because of the fact that the Confirmation class would also be participating in that.
 
It would be difficult for him to participate beyond just Sunday morning attendance, since most things also involve children and teenagers. Even packing boxes for the SVDP would be off-limits to him, because of the fact that the Confirmation class would also be participating in that.
Let me give you a somewhat different case:

A friend of mine spent years selling hard drugs. Several times, the business being what it is, he murdered people. He ended up in prison, found the Lord, and now he is a powerful minister in the city of Detroit.

But, using the arguments in this thread, shouldn’t we lock him back up? If he murdered people once, what’s to say he won’t do it again? Are our adults – not to mention our children – safe around him?

Most people would say: yes, of course. He saw the error of his ways, and he has repented. But, with sex offenders, the answer seems to be: no one can ever repent. And yet many sex offenders were arrested at an extremely young age. They were abused; all they knew was abuse. Is it our place to – as soon as they show signs of breaking out from this pattern – reject them out of fear?

I am not saying that we shouldn’t be prudent. I’m just saying that we don’t have a right to be anything more than prudent. Hysteria is never a good basis for action.
 
Let me give you a somewhat different case:

A friend of mine spent years selling hard drugs. Several times, the business being what it is, he murdered people. He ended up in prison, found the Lord, and now he is a powerful minister in the city of Detroit.

But, using the arguments in this thread, shouldn’t we lock him back up? If he murdered people once, what’s to say he won’t do it again? Are our adults – not to mention our children – safe around him?
Murder is different than sexual abuse. Murderers have what they consider good reasons to kill, even if society doesn’t agree. Therefore, he can be reasoned out of it, and can be reformed.

The sex offender, though, is addicted to sex, and doesn’t have, or even need, a good reason for doing it.
Most people would say: yes, of course. He saw the error of his ways, and he has repented. But, with sex offenders, the answer seems to be: no one can ever repent.
It was the belief that it was possible to reform sex offenders that led to the whole scandal with priests who were sex offenders. Let’s not fall into the same trap a second (third?) time.
 
It was the belief that it was possible to reform sex offenders that led to the whole scandal with priests who were sex offenders.
Gee, sorry. I thought that Jesus’ message was that anyone can repent. Apparently I misread the gospels.

Of course, if a compulsive gambler repents, I’m not going to send him to work in a casino, and if a rapist repents, I’m not going to make him security guard at a girls’ school. Likewise with those who reassigned priests, making these priests shepherds of new congregations.

But don’t you see the difference between making someone pastor and allowing a person into the doors of the church?
 
Murderers have what they consider good reasons to kill, even if society doesn’t agree. Therefore, he can be reasoned out of it, and can be reformed.
Why do you think that the same couldn’t be said for the sex offender? *All *perversion is desire for the good, in however warped a way. Every sinner has what he believes to be “good reasons” to sin.
 
Gee, sorry. I thought that Jesus’ message was that anyone can repent. Apparently I misread the gospels.
Of course they can repent. But they can never be free from this addiction, which is why they can never be allowed to be around children or teenagers, any more than a recovering alcoholic (having repented and been forgiven) can ever go to a bar again for as long as he lives.
But don’t you see the difference between making someone pastor and allowing a person into the doors of the church?
Since our job as church members is to support the pastor in his work, the occasion for trouble will always be there. What guarantee is there that he will never volunteer for a committee, or to assist with a one-time project, where kids are also involved?

Again, my suggestion to him would be to become a hermit, or join a monastery, so that he can practice his Christian faith without any likelihood of coming into contact with minors.
 
Okay, there is something really important that I missed somewhere. In his state are those restrictions for life??? If so, that is a very unjust law. I know a man who was a sex offender. In my state, for 4 years he had to have a chaperone to go with him to church, but he was not allowed to go anywhere that had children there as part of the programs there. This meant schools, daycares, church youth areas, etc. He followed these rules because he recognised them as concequences of his sin. After 4 years, he was cleared, and it back at church and able to attend his kids’ school functions.

I do not think such a law is unjust. These rules are often in place because sex offenders will often reoffend, but not all of them. Therefore to keep them locked up all 4 years is a waste, and doesn’t allow them to be properly treated for their disorder. Now, if they are forced to register their WHOLE LIVES, that is just ridiculous. Only for 4 years or so, depending on the nature of the crime, do they still carry this social stigma. And rightly so, it’s the natural concequence of doing that to a child.

This man should have, as is the case with the man I knew, served the concequence and punishment of his crime, followed the rules, then returned to society without the stigma. I am guessing he overlooked something because as is the case in my state, they make arrangements for offenders to attend adult worship services if chaperoned.
 
Of course they can repent. But they can never be free from this addiction, which is why they can never be allowed to be around children or teenagers, any more than a recovering alcoholic (having repented and been forgiven) can ever go to a bar again for as long as he lives.
So a person recovering from a porn addiction (however many years sober) can never go on the internet again? Where do we draw the line?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top