[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

He abused his stepdaughter while a member of the church. His stepdaughter told her mother about it when she was about twenty and living out of the house. The fellow was promptly kicked out of their home. Both him and his wife continued to attend church albeit separately. The matter was brought before the church in a meeting with him seeking forgiveness from the church. He was forgiven by mostly everybody there but, made to understand that trust had been broken and would take time to mend. His wife said she could never forgive him. She was asked if she could cope with him attending the same services. She said she could. Before this was public knowledge he had been instructed to attend only evening services so she wouldn't have to see him in the morning services. He also said he was in counseling with the Pastor and would continue. This situation continued for about 8 months. That's where I got a first hand view of the difficulty of such a situation for those who had suffered abuse. No one left over it but, you could see that they didn't feel comfortable in a place that had always been comfortable for them. I'm sure some stayed only because of their desire to support his ex wife in this difficult situation. After about 8 months the Pastor brought him before the church again. During counseling it was revealed that he recognized he had sinned by committing adultery. But he doesn't see himself as a pedophile. He believes the affair was mutually consented to even though the girl was only 13. He also maintains that she was 15 when the affair started. We then voted to "cast him out" of the church. It means he isn't permitted to attend any services and the church membership shouldn't maintain any contact with him unless it is counseling leading towards repentance.

Yikes, that's messed up. I've seen a similar situation, though it was a true pedophile (13 isn't really pedophile, there's a different word for it I think, pedophile means attracted to prepubescent).. It's a total no win situation.

The censorship is to try to help him. He needs to understand the seriousness of his sin. Churches are not mandated to punish sinners. Punishment is the responsibility of the state and of course God.

True, though in the context of Christianity I would think that some church where he has a pastor above him would be desirable.

The reason I brought up the church incident was because through it I seen first hand the pain this fellow's presence brought to those who were at one time abused. In retrospect I can see validity in having just asked him to go. This would have caused him the pain rather than these women.

I can agree with that, I'm can be pretty pragmatic and him finding another church would be the easiest thing. But he should be able to go somewhere.

See you use a scenario where a fellow has hypothetically paid his debt and then you go on to say you don't believe in punishment:

I did that because that's the way our legal system currently works.

The idea of someone paying their debt to society; doing their time; taking their lumps; meeting justice; making it right, is still a value most Canadians hold. It is a good value.

I don't totally disagree, but I think it doesn't apply evenly or appropriately to all situations.

In the extreme cases the punishment would be so extreme that whatever would be an appropriate level of eye for an eye punishment would end up being barbaric. I'm not saying I have a good alternative, the good alternative would be to HELP these people stop doing what they do, we just don't have the understanding to do that yet. We're at the bloodletting and leeches stage of mental health.

When someone escapes justice in our failing legal system he has in fact not paid his debt. In that scenario I won't take justice into my own hands but, I also won't pretend he is debt free and welcome him back into my community.

To me that's still taking justice into your own hands; you don't feel the level of punishment handed out was appropriate so you're going to hand out your own punishment. Passive aggressive vigilantism?

I can understand the sentiment, having been around a similar situation.

I wish there were better answers to stuff like this.