Timothy Bonney wrote:William Thornton wrote:Timothy, I don't think the letter of the man's present church is an example of protecting the perp. Why do you think it is?
Not the letter itself but their choice to let the man be anonymous when they knew who he was.
I know how it is raising a child in the church as many of you all do. My daughter thought of the church as home, she trusted the people she met there. It was both my responsibility and the church's responsibility to make sure that such trust is well founded. To let a known sexual predator in the church without so much as a word of warning to the parents of children and youth of the church is unconscionable. And frankly it is paternalistic. It says "we are the leaders of the church and we know better than the congregation would if they knew about this situation."
Anyone who messes with 15 year old girls IN CHURCH shouldn't be able to be anonymous IN CHURCH where other people could be endangered. That's my take.
Ed: So William how should every one in the church be notified? Must the offending individual wear a scarlet P .
Note the letter to which you linked says the man attended "essentially anonymously" The pastor know the deacons knew , it does not say that no one else knew. I read essentially anonymously to say with out fanfare.