Rabbi David J.B. Krishef asks leaders of different religious congregations, “How would your congregation receive sex-offenders as participants in worship and other activities?”
Their answers demonstrate religious leaders are insightful, enlightened and informed on the issues.
Fred Stella, the Pracharak (Outreach Minister) for the West Michigan Hindu Temple, responds:
“West Michigan Hindu Temple has not had to deal with this issue up to date so I have to speculate on this one. Before anything we must understand that the term ‘sex offender’ has multiple meanings. It stretches from a make out session gone a bit too far between teenagers who have just a couple of years of age difference between them all the way to the most heinous crimes beyond the imaginations of most people. I suspect that we would do little to safeguard ourselves against those who may have made unwise decisions but pose no threat to the community. As far as accommodating those convicted of more serious offenses I would hope that we would deliberate each case on its own merit. The most important aims of any discussion should be maintaining a safe space for all congregants and providing the person in question with the opportunity for spiritual growth. Both common sense and compassion should be used in this situation.”
R. Scot Miller, who writes from an Anabaptist and Quaker Christian perspective, responds:
“With open arms, open eyes and ears, and very firm boundaries that are just as firmly stated to the offender as they are discussed by elders and others with weighty opinions. I am not concerned about broken people if I am invested enough in relationship to tell them they are welcomed, they can be part of us, and, they will be caringly considered; and not assigned to any role that makes them, our children, or others, vulnerable to abuse. While redemption is the anticipated outcome, it cannot be assumed. The boundary must be maintained. A violation of boundaries would mean that the relationship will be continued in an adults only environment with elders accountable for that relationships.”
Father Kevin Niehoff, O.P., a Dominican priest who serves as Adjutant Judicial Vicar, Diocese of Grand Rapids, responds:
“Sex offenders are welcome in Catholic Churches! That said, one needs to place the text of these words into context.
“A worshipping community needs to be responsible, which includes not only being aware of the presence of a sex-offender but also the need to develop mentoring programs to help these individuals transform their lives. This outreach must include his/her family, because when one member of a community is guilty of a crime the whole community suffers. Likewise, when that person is treated with dignity healing may begin not only with the individual but also his/her family, and the larger community of faith.
“If you would like to read more about this topic the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops published a paper 15 November 2000, entitled, ‘Responsible, Rehabilitation, and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective On Crime And Criminal Justice,’ that may be found here.”
Fred Wooden, the senior pastor of Fountain Street Church, responds:
“We would not announce it, for one. The segregation of sex offenders as an ‘especially heinous’ class is proving to be less certain. The premise behind the registry is questionable – that they are more likely to re offend – has been shown to be flawed. But the registry is real and the law is quite firm. Having worked with some congregants on the sex offender registry I know the range of crimes is wide, down to public urination in some places. So long as they comply with the law, and know our policies and agree to them, we have no problem. Funny, how no one ever asks about embezzlers or con artists which really have exploited churches.”
My response:
First of all, my response is based on my own personal understanding of a Jewish attitude towards a communities obligation towards offenders (sexual or otherwise). It does not necessary reflect the policies of my congregation.
I have written previously in this column that I believe that as it is currently written, the law creating a sex offender registry is unethical. Leviticus 19:16 say, “You are not to traffic in slander among your kinspeople.” Jewish ethics cautions us not to share even verifiably true information which might damage someone’s reputation unless we have a compelling reason to do so.
The Sex Offender Registry might be ethical if it only listed individuals who have been determined by a professional to constitute a high risk to society. Only a small percentage on the list (pedophiles) have a high recidivism rate. The vast majority, however, have a recidivism rate comparable to or less than that or other crimes.
The Sex Offender Registry, as currently constituted, lumps all sex offenders together as if they all pose the same risk. In this Internet era, the reputation of a person on the registry, even one who has served his time, properly repented, and poses no risk, will be forever smirched.
A congregation ought to welcome a sexual offender with supervision appropriate to the level of risk he (or she) poses.
Thats funny because when i was first labled an RSO i went to the head of my church that i had been attending for 11 years christ fellowship and pastor mullins and his wife said i was not welcome and that i could view services on the internet. the only problem as i told them was that i was no allowed on the internet. i then tried Calvary on the advice of a friend and before entering i contacted the head of the church and explained my situation and i was told the same thing as Christ fellowship that i was not allowed to attend in person. So whomever wrote this article should have these open minded leaders talk to the local church’s and explain to them the whole reason for worship is to praise god and help those that are having trouble helping themselves no matter race/creed/past transgressions
As in the Bible, these leaders talk it just like Jesus did. In reality the congregation make the difference. My experience has not been in that area. What they say and actually do are two different things, especially in smaller towns. But then again that is just me.
It’s a giant step in the direction to change the conception of sex offenders as a group of monsters who will / may commit future sex offences. There is a story out of Michigan where the Prosecutor objects to a repeat offender from getting out on Parole . http://www.mlive.com/ news/Detroit/index.ssf/2017/judge_blocks_release_of_sex_of.html….I paroled out of Michigan to Marion county Fla. I was told by my Phycologist, that if you don’t do well, or are “kicked out” of sex offender group, you will be close to your maximum sentence before you can get a Parole.
My wife, son and I want nothing to do with Christians or religion any longer. Our family was abandoned by our church once my mother had a stroke and stopped attending and “giving” to the place we all used to worship at. They knew I was a Registered Citizen, so it wasn’t a surprise to them.. Christians can pack sand as far as we are concerned. We don’t need you. Jesus loves my family. That’s all we need.
Well considering that there are countless unregistered sex offenders in every church in the world you would think that they would have no problems welcoming registered sex offenders.
I am an atheists but it my understanding that churches are supposed to welcome those who society shuns (Jesus and hookers come to mind) and they also are supposed for forgive “sins” so again I would think that churches would be most welcoming to sex offenders both registered and unregistered.
Moving and hopeful.
I live on a street that has several children within 3 houses of me. A man in the house next to me is a convicted murderer (I mean real murder not just killing) and the man across the street is a ex-drug dealer and current user. But these are the people that the parents let their child visit and watch their children. You never know who you are sitting next too in church or living next too.