In our particular case, I do not believe the church should be supporting Patrick, because he has chosen not to confess the names of his five other victims. He has made it clear that avoiding additional charges is more important than confession and repentance. His choice to avoid taking responsibility for his crimes has set in motion the hiding of his minor sisters. His lack of confession continues their victimization. Consider for a moment what message that sends to these girls. The family seems to be saying that Patrick's freedom is more important than his sisters' chances for healing.
Patrick used the letter of the law and confessed his crimes, but chose to take his attorney's advice not to name his additional victims to avoid additional charges. Patrick knew without named victims he could not be charged for the crimes he admitted to in his evaluation. The state would need to interview the suspected victims in order to press further charges. All of this was known by Patrick.
Until Patrick contacts Kelly Montgomery and names his other victims, I believe he is still actively choosing to live in darkness. Therefore, I believe the Christian community should not be supporting Patrick, except in encouraging him to confess his crimes and allow his victimized sisters to begin getting the therapy and support they must desperately need. While Patrick's victimized sisters are still suffering because of his unconfessed crimes, he should not be treated as if he is walking in the light.
Until Patrick contacts Kelly Montgomery and names his other victims, I believe he is still actively choosing to live in darkness. Therefore, I believe the Christian community should not be supporting Patrick, except in encouraging him to confess his crimes and allow his victimized sisters to begin getting the therapy and support they must desperately need. While Patrick's victimized sisters are still suffering because of his unconfessed crimes, he should not be treated as if he is walking in the light.
2 comments:
When I made the comment a few days ago regarding the "Taking A Stand" article, arguing that sex offenders should not be banished from the Church, I was referring more to sex offenders in general, using Patrick as an example.
But in Patrick's case, I would have to agree with Danielle that the evidence of his walking in the light would be to confess and face the consequences of his crimes against his sisters.
Likewise, the evidence of his parents, Eddie and Kathy, walking in the light would be to quit running from the law, come out of hiding, and face the full reality of what their son has done, and whatever role they played in allowing it to happen.
Otherwise, any claims of "loving God" or "getting closer to God" on their part ring pretty hollow. Knowingly walking in hypocrisy and deception is definitely NOT walking in the light.
Brian, I appreciate you making the clear distinction between Patrick and a sex offender in general. Although, as I hear more personal stories from survivors of childhood sexual abuse and talk with the ones that try and "help" the offenders, it seems Patrick is not unique. It is the mode of operation for the offender to deny or only admit what can be proved. Then immediately start to live as if the offender doesn't have a serious problem and needs clear boundaries and knowledgeable accountability with a professional.Naivety in the church makes it a playground for offenders. This is one of the reasons I wanted to take on this blog...to bring awareness.
Post a Comment