Lutheran Pastor refuses to fire Pedophile receptionist.

i believe, because of the type of crime, he is required by law to register with the local law enforcement when ever he changes locations, that includes just around the corner. the problem with that is that it is up to the offender to register, good faith that they will.

i see no reason why the pastor could not help this guy find a job doing something else in the community and counsel him in private. it's a lot to ask a family to trust some one that science is still trying to figure out and the % of rehab is really very small.

 

The poster I was asking said the law should not be involved in limiting a pedophiles options for work. I wanted to know why not.

As far as what you're saying, I absolutely agree. I think the reason rehabilitation through the church is believed, is because people are confusing rehabilitation with redemption. The simple fact of the matter is that this man has real, uncontrollable urges, it is up to the pastor to forgive him, but curing him, is beyond his grasp.

Its like AA. They use the power of god to help them stay away from liquor. Problem is, every AA member relapses. So much so, that it is taught, they will relapse. However, when an alcoholic relapses, the odds are he's the only hurt, but if a pedophile relapses, then...

 

This guy has yet to be caught to actually be with children.

Unless i missed something in the article

 

No one said he was. A pedophile is an adult who is sexually attracted to children. Having kiddie porn, however, means he's absolutely responsible for those children in the photos, being abused. Especially, if he paid for them. If they weren't photos and he tricked a child into posing for porn, even if he never touched them, wouldn't that be the same as just looking at pictures?

 

I am not debating whether child pornography should be illegal. I am more on the idea of protecting the people's in the church's children. And unless their children are being taken naked pictures of and they are trying to destroy the market so the sick practice will no longer go on, their children should be safe.

If he does have a relapse then some other child who is in an unfortunate situation will be given more of a reason to be in that unfortunate situation. Still will not effect anyone in the churches children.

 

Fine, whatever. He should work there and no one should care. Its a wonderful scenario. Its not like he has a predilection for young children or anything. Its funny, to me how you know for a fact that the children of that parish are safe. Essentially, you are saying those who see this as a problem aren't allowed to assume that there would be a problem, yet, you are assuming that there won't be. The point in all of this is, he will be around children, by working there. He is a known and convicted pedophile. He shouldn't be allowed to work there. Whether he's ever been caught physically molesting a child or not, he's shown that he has an attraction to children and the poor judgment to act on it by seeking and collecting 100's of pictures of children, which is against the law. It is flat-out irresponsible of the pastor to put the man into a situation where other members of his parish could be hurt.

 

Wow, talk about going to the other extreme with it.

I do not know anything for a fact that the children of that parish are safe. Just going by history at this moment they are safe from him.

I am assuming that there will not be, just in history that there hasn't been. The guy has shown to be a risk and it would be irresponsible for anyone to allow him to be alone with a child.

There is still a disconnect between doing something online and doing something in real life.

If the church preaches redemption and forgiveness then turns away this guy, then they do not practice what they preach.

 

How is that the extreme? Actually his history points to the fact that they aren't safe.

Again he has an attraction to young children, poor judgment, and a willingness to break the law. How does his history point to anything other than danger. Its one thing if he's only been suspected of pedophilia, but it is confirmed.

His known history. For all we know he has done more. In fact, odds are he has. Again, this isn't some random guy off the street.

Not with this. These are real life photos of children, they were hurt in real life. We're not talking about message boards or video games.

No one is saying he should be kicked out or abandoned by the church. What we're saying is that he shouldn't work there. By working there he has access to children, and access to personal files of children. Its wrong. Should he be a receptionist for a day care center? A children's hospital? A family theme park?

 

I've purposely tried to steer clear of that. He's another one for you, though. My girlfriend at the time (who's now my wife) was let go (given the choice to be fired or quit) from her job as a child care worker at a church, because she was living with me before we were married. It was a Methodist church.

 

sorry dude, there is a big difference between photos and doing the action.

That is like saying someone who loves going to ebaums world or watches faces of death enjoys watching real people die in front of their faces. It is a huge jump.

What are the odds of him doing that? What is the correlation between looking at child porn on the internet and molesting a child?

What files do they have at a church? What files do they have on children at that church?

 

they probably wouldn't.

 

Of course I disagree. What about bum fights?

So in your mind the people are considering whether or not the child pornography exists when they are downloading it?

You give people a lot of credit.

You are also arguing a different subject.

 

Not when its real photos. Different thing altogether. No one looks at child porn for entertainment. They look at it for sexual arousal. Yes, I would say people who enjoy watching real deaths on video would also enjoy watching real deaths in real life. Your argument would make more sense if you were comparing watching real murder with wanting to commit real murder. And even then, I would say yes, those people have an astronomically higher propensity of committing murder. To say anything else is naive. Your point has a lot more to do with comparing stagged violence with wanting to commit real violence.

This ought to answer that.

Addresses for one. More than that if there is a daycare or any kind of child ministry were the children go off with a counselor away from the parents. Whether it b in the next room over or camp or sleep ins.

 

actually not. pedophilia is a compulsion that is rarely overcome. even with counseling, pedophiles often are unable to control their urges, resulting in relapses. if he is drawn to pictures and willing to down load them to his computer, it is not unreasonable to assume that, if unchecked, will advance in his compulsion. meaning eventually pictures will not be enough. their is a possibility that he has the power to control himself, but not likely.

i don't think the idea here is for the church to abandon this guy, but more realisticly placing him in the community. the pastor can still counsel him.

 

they might... they would just want to "redeem" him...

 

the offenders could care less. they are only trying to satisfy their urges.

 

since you are familiar with this congregation, just a question for you. even as you described, if the congregation as a whole requested that this person no longer be in the position that they are in, would you do as the congregation asked or do as the Pastor is doing at the risk of losing members?

correct me if i'm wrong, but the church serves the members, and, obviously, they are not going to run the day-to-day aspects but if they are unhappy with this person in the position they are in, is it not their right to request his dismissal? i'm curious because of the members threat to leave the church. right or wrong, ultimately it is the members church, no?

 

thank you for your answer. if you read through my posts you will see that i have never said that the church must chose the receptionist over its members. i understand and applaud the intentions of the Pastor, how ever, under different circumstances (where the possibility of children come into the picture) i think the placement of this person is REALLY, TRULY questionable. again, do what you can to bring this person back into the community, but not at the possible risk of "my child".

 

The confusing part for me is, is it really the Bible's stance that we as regular people, be the one's that forgive such a sinner? Forgive him enough that it is our responsibility, that we should welcome him with open arms? It seems to me his chance for redemption would be in front of his god, not us. All sins are supposed to be equal in the eyes of your god, but they clearly aren't in our eyes. If that is the case, isn't it an injustice to that man that we with our imperfect thoughts and feelings, should judge him redeemed or not?

 

Ok, but why give him a job? Isn't that part of his responsibility, for knowingly committing his crimes against man and god?

 

Sorry, didn't see this until now.

I'm going first by what the law states now, and the law doesn't prevent him from being able to have a job. Though different child sex offender laws justifiably restrict where a person can work, schools for example.

Do you believe the law should be stricter and prevent a free man from being able to work? Otherwise I'm not sure what you're contesting.

 

you give him a job because it is the right thing to do. there is always that hope that he may be in that small minority that can learn to control his urges and maybe even become productive in the community. the reality is that he is going to screw up some time in some way. being there as often as possible will also help reduce that possibility.

proper placement in the community is the issue here. is the job as receptionist in the church an appropriate place for him?

 

Yeah, that is exactly what we're talking about though, child sex offenders. I'm absolutely for the government restricting where they work. Aren't you?

Again, this was specifically about child sex offenders. But on a broader scale, once you're convicted of a major crime, you're never totally free again. Which is part of the deal.

 

Why is giving him a job the right thing to do? Not stoning him, is the right the thing to do. But where in any book of religion or law, does it say you must employ him, to do the right thing? The stigma that follows a convicted pedophile, is absolutely part of the responsibility, that follows that person, once they knowingly partake in such a heinous act. We are not talking about someone who has alternative sexual tendencies. We are talking about someone who receives pleasure by non-consensual children being forced into acts of sex. Not hiring this man breaks no rules of law or god. If you want to counsel this man, fine.

 

Of course, that is the law as well.

"Never totally free" to you means never being allowed to hold a job? That is ludicrous. Might as well keep them locked up.

 

Ok this is getting out of hand. Let's start over. I asked you about a specific statement you made:

I wanted to know why you felt the law shouldn't restrict a pedophile from certain jobs. Maybe you just missed typed or something, since you later agreed that is law.

As for the second thing, no where did I say, "never totally free means never being allowed to hold a job". But just as a pedophile can't work around children, bank robbers can't work at banks, etc. So, as I said, when you commit a major crime, you do not have all the same freedoms as a everyone else, hence you're not totally free. I am all for that. Its part of the responsibility you should expect when breaking the law to such a degree, you can't have any job you want. If you can't get any job, because of your past indiscretions, then that is also your fault.

 

I asked you to clarify the second half, and you reiterated the same point that 'breaking the law means losing rights.' Thanks for making it clear this time. You agree the law shouldn't prevent someone from being able to get A job. If a person finds it hard to find a job because of a criminal past, fine, but the law shouldn't prevent them from being able to work, simply restrict where.

The law already agrees with me that he shouldn't be prevented from working as a receptionist in a church, though I suggested common sense perhaps should.

We clear?

 

OK, I get what you're saying now. For the record, I did not ever say the law should restrict a pedophile from getting A job. But the law should and does restrict a pedophile or any major criminal from getting certain jobs. I made it as clear as I could. After all, I did say:

 

No I got that after your last post. It was just left a little vague before that. Thanks.

 

ok. for me it is the right thing. i tend to be an optimist tempered with realist when it comes to my fellow man. make no mistake this person is gonna have this follow him the rest of his life. even if he was unjustly accused and convicted it will be with him. this is serious. assuming that he asked for help or was assisted from either the jail or a halfway house, i would not be surprised if he was a member of that faith and placing him in the church probably, at the time seemed like the correct thing to do. hind sight obviously shows something different, and i have said through out, this person should have been placed in a job somewhere else in the community. the odds are against him to not act on his urges so alienating him further will only hasten his lapse.

i too am am for laws prohibiting pedophiles and sex offenders from certain jobs and, in some states, i believe they do. if not, then common sense should rule here. janitor in an elementary school for a child molester i would think be an obvious no-no.

 

Like Father Gheogan in Massachusetts :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Geoghan

What happened in this case is just unbelievable.