Post by Admin on Jul 28, 2010 22:26:36 GMT -5
An excerpt from a recent post by ex-worker Al giving his views on CSA and its victims.
I know the perpetrator here (I am Sheri's cousin), and I have for years viewed him as a "smooth talker" personality. My initial reaction to the accusations was "he has it coming!" And I still feel he needs to be dealt with very firmly. I am also very familiar with ways in which workers evade questions of real import, whether it be in a CSA issue or some other, unrelated issue. My wife and I were very painfully lied about and "marginalized" when I inadvertently became a threat to the wrong man. He was not a worker, but many workers, including former companions and many whom I had regarded as friends, absolutely refused to discuss the issue.
While we have "moved on" and are happy, not bitterly chewing over the problem, I still believe it needs to be addressed, rather than just covered up, or ignored, as it is now that the man has moved elsewhere.
I've said these things in an attempt to show that I do not at all mean we must "go soft" on people. Things must be addressed, and a most, if not all, of the various issues involve power - power to define the story as certain people want it defined, to hide the stories they don't want told, to silence people who "know too much." But, I feel we must be careful to let the persons involved know that they will be listened to, and they will be respected as they make changes.
.....
Though we obviously cannot implement this actual practice today, I feel the basic focus of entering negotiations with the thought of resolution and healing is very important. There may have been one person who was a very serious offender, and his/her offense was not overlooked at all, but they still went in knowing they were safe from a "mob mentality," and that there would be a way to re-enter community life, even if it was a very difficult, humbling thing.
To me, this model moves from a matter of "blame" toward one of healing. We all live in a complex web of power and relationships, and we learn, from infancy, ways of interacting with others, which may or may not be healthy. It's true that the perpetrator in this case has tried to place blame on the victim (with the Hall and Oates song, for instance), and that is very problematic. Please do not misunderstand me as saying "some of the blame goes to the victim." That is not true. But, I am trying to say we all need to look at our own words and actions - our ways of relating.
Sometimes a child's parents are "not there" - this can happen even through a parent dedicating a lot of time to the workers and friends. Maybe a child's father is "not there" because he is so busy making a living. And this is hardly unique to professing people! Children need attention, and learn to get it in certain ways. Again, please do NOT take me as "blaming the victim." I am stating that I feel we all need to look at our own involvement - our own complicity - in many situations, even though we may not know the perpetrators or victims in this case, and maybe have never had a CSA case in our own family. But how many times have we hurt people in other ways, wishing we could undo our words and actions? How often have we hurt people without even realizing it?
Jesus taught us to "remove the beam from our own eye," and then we will be able to "remove the mote from out brother's eye." We could argue hear about the perpetrator having the "beam," but I feel the point is to lay aside our own defenses first - make ourselves vulnerable. I do not feel it is enough to just say, "Well, I would never do something like that, so I can judge him." I do feel that Jesus was showing us a way to constructively judge - not to just say, "Well, none of us are perfect." But shouldn't judgment always involve implicating ourselves first? Jesus said the one without sin could cast the first stone at the adulteress, but then he also acknowledged that she had sinned, and gave her opportunity to do differently.
It is true that a perpetrator may often have multiple victims, and it may be true in this case. But I feel safer in not assuming it is so. Those who have the expertise in working with this issue can work to establish whether there are other victims or not. And in any event, the perpetrator must know he is not going to "get off easy", but at the same time, I feel he needs to know that IF he is willing to comply with restrictions placed by law, by professionals, and by the workers and friends, he will be accepted. This will of course mean things like not being alone with children, not having a meeting in his home, and of course not having contact with Sheri or her family. But can those whom he does meet and work with still accept him, as he makes it evident he is complying? I would like to hope so.
One last point: The Wikipedia definition that "rational" pointed us to stated that defining pedophilia is very complex, and the reasons for CSA can vary. Not every offender fits the definition of a pedophile. This is not to say the offense is not serious, but it does affect the manner in which it is dealt with. One possible reason given is "the lack of an adult partner." Does this not relate to celibacy? It's not an excuse, but it does happen, and it means that the perpetrator is not necessarily a person who always seeks children as sexual partners. A worker may be - and likely is - struggling intensely with this. It might be easy for us to just say, "Well, leave the work and get married," but it's not that simple. A worker often feels that he/she is breaking a vow, or letting down family and friends. I've been there. It is an immense step - and an immense relief - to finally say "I need to get out of here." Maybe we all need to begin regarding workers more as humans - not suspiciously, but as humans with struggles, leaving them at liberty to move away from the work if necessary. Didn't Paul say something like "It's better to marry than to burn"?
I don't care to make lengthy posts, but I've been thinking this over for the past week or so, and feel we have an opportunity to make a critical difference in policies right now - so, here it is . . .
[/size]
I adjusted the font size-Scott
I know the perpetrator here (I am Sheri's cousin), and I have for years viewed him as a "smooth talker" personality. My initial reaction to the accusations was "he has it coming!" And I still feel he needs to be dealt with very firmly. I am also very familiar with ways in which workers evade questions of real import, whether it be in a CSA issue or some other, unrelated issue. My wife and I were very painfully lied about and "marginalized" when I inadvertently became a threat to the wrong man. He was not a worker, but many workers, including former companions and many whom I had regarded as friends, absolutely refused to discuss the issue.
While we have "moved on" and are happy, not bitterly chewing over the problem, I still believe it needs to be addressed, rather than just covered up, or ignored, as it is now that the man has moved elsewhere.
I've said these things in an attempt to show that I do not at all mean we must "go soft" on people. Things must be addressed, and a most, if not all, of the various issues involve power - power to define the story as certain people want it defined, to hide the stories they don't want told, to silence people who "know too much." But, I feel we must be careful to let the persons involved know that they will be listened to, and they will be respected as they make changes.
.....
Though we obviously cannot implement this actual practice today, I feel the basic focus of entering negotiations with the thought of resolution and healing is very important. There may have been one person who was a very serious offender, and his/her offense was not overlooked at all, but they still went in knowing they were safe from a "mob mentality," and that there would be a way to re-enter community life, even if it was a very difficult, humbling thing.
To me, this model moves from a matter of "blame" toward one of healing. We all live in a complex web of power and relationships, and we learn, from infancy, ways of interacting with others, which may or may not be healthy. It's true that the perpetrator in this case has tried to place blame on the victim (with the Hall and Oates song, for instance), and that is very problematic. Please do not misunderstand me as saying "some of the blame goes to the victim." That is not true. But, I am trying to say we all need to look at our own words and actions - our ways of relating.
Sometimes a child's parents are "not there" - this can happen even through a parent dedicating a lot of time to the workers and friends. Maybe a child's father is "not there" because he is so busy making a living. And this is hardly unique to professing people! Children need attention, and learn to get it in certain ways. Again, please do NOT take me as "blaming the victim." I am stating that I feel we all need to look at our own involvement - our own complicity - in many situations, even though we may not know the perpetrators or victims in this case, and maybe have never had a CSA case in our own family. But how many times have we hurt people in other ways, wishing we could undo our words and actions? How often have we hurt people without even realizing it?
Jesus taught us to "remove the beam from our own eye," and then we will be able to "remove the mote from out brother's eye." We could argue hear about the perpetrator having the "beam," but I feel the point is to lay aside our own defenses first - make ourselves vulnerable. I do not feel it is enough to just say, "Well, I would never do something like that, so I can judge him." I do feel that Jesus was showing us a way to constructively judge - not to just say, "Well, none of us are perfect." But shouldn't judgment always involve implicating ourselves first? Jesus said the one without sin could cast the first stone at the adulteress, but then he also acknowledged that she had sinned, and gave her opportunity to do differently.
It is true that a perpetrator may often have multiple victims, and it may be true in this case. But I feel safer in not assuming it is so. Those who have the expertise in working with this issue can work to establish whether there are other victims or not. And in any event, the perpetrator must know he is not going to "get off easy", but at the same time, I feel he needs to know that IF he is willing to comply with restrictions placed by law, by professionals, and by the workers and friends, he will be accepted. This will of course mean things like not being alone with children, not having a meeting in his home, and of course not having contact with Sheri or her family. But can those whom he does meet and work with still accept him, as he makes it evident he is complying? I would like to hope so.
One last point: The Wikipedia definition that "rational" pointed us to stated that defining pedophilia is very complex, and the reasons for CSA can vary. Not every offender fits the definition of a pedophile. This is not to say the offense is not serious, but it does affect the manner in which it is dealt with. One possible reason given is "the lack of an adult partner." Does this not relate to celibacy? It's not an excuse, but it does happen, and it means that the perpetrator is not necessarily a person who always seeks children as sexual partners. A worker may be - and likely is - struggling intensely with this. It might be easy for us to just say, "Well, leave the work and get married," but it's not that simple. A worker often feels that he/she is breaking a vow, or letting down family and friends. I've been there. It is an immense step - and an immense relief - to finally say "I need to get out of here." Maybe we all need to begin regarding workers more as humans - not suspiciously, but as humans with struggles, leaving them at liberty to move away from the work if necessary. Didn't Paul say something like "It's better to marry than to burn"?
I don't care to make lengthy posts, but I've been thinking this over for the past week or so, and feel we have an opportunity to make a critical difference in policies right now - so, here it is . . .
[/size]
I adjusted the font size-Scott
