Understanding the Psychology of Child Molesters: A Key to Getting Confessions

Police Chief Magazine  [...] Offender Interview Is Essential

When investigating a case involving a suspected child molester, the stakes are high and a full confession is critical. But the ability to interview and relate to this type of offender is something that doesn't come naturally for most police officers. Many officers find the subject matter, as well as the offender, repulsive. They cannot have an amiable conversation with a person who they believe has molested a child. They are not able to mask their feelings, and they allow contempt, disgust, and hatred to surface during the interview, greatly reducing the likelihood that the offender will open up and share his deepest secrets.

Deep down, most child molesters want to talk. Some are sexually attracted to children and have known it for many years. They may be married, have a family, have a successful business or career, and be active in their religious institution, yet they have a secret that they have never shared with anyone. Most of them have struggled with their desires. They wish that they could change, but they are not able to do it by themselves. They all know that child molesters are hated and despised by society and they believe that no one could really understand their situation. Many know they need help but don't have the courage to seek it.

Although many molesters would really like to talk to someone, they also know there are many reasons to not talk about their feelings and actions. They believe they have everything to lose if they confess. They risk losing their marriage, their children, their home, their friends, their job, and their freedom. They fear embarrassment and humiliation. They are afraid of how the interviewer is going to react to them if and when they make that first admission of guilt. And child molesters fear going to prison. They have heard and read stories about what happens to child molesters in prison. 

When interviewing a child molester, an investigator faces two competing forces: the molesters' deep desire to talk and his fear of consequences. The investigator must exploit the first force while helping the molester to overcome the second. [...]

Understand the Thinking Process: One of the critical keys to interviewing child molesters is understanding how they think. There are several different types of child molester; and each child molester has a particular way to meet his or her needs and justify his or her behavior. Molesters use distorted thinking to rationalize and justify their crimes, to make their own needs most important and to minimize their behavior. Many offenders convince themselves that the relationship they had with their victim was different; that it was a mutual, loving, caring relationship; that the sexual acts were consensual; or that the child somehow benefited from the relationship. The more an investigator understands the way a sexual offender thinks, the more prepared he will be to elicit a confession.

There is no magic interviewing formula that works for all child molesters. An investigator must understand the psychology of this type of offender and then be able to apply that understanding to the interview process. An investigator should understand the differences between a situational and a preferential child molester, because there are different interviewing approaches and themes for each type of offender. If an investigator is going to interview a suspected pedophile, he really should understand the term pedophilia-a sexual attraction to prepubescent children-and should know exactly what that entails. He should understand sex offender terminology that includes distorted thinking, thinking errors, sexual addiction, and the addiction cycle. 

By having a better understanding of sexual deviance, an investigator will be better able to recognize the importance of certain disclosures. For example, many pedophiles were themselves victims of childhood sexual abuse. In this research study, 78 percent of the pedophile offenders stated that they were themselves victims. During the investigative interview, a suspect might disclose his own history of childhood sexual abuse, trying to use it as a defense for his behavior. For example, the suspect might say, "It happened to me; therefore, I would never do that to someone else." In fact, rather than signaling a flat denial, a revelation like that should open the door for an investigator to explore how that sexual abuse might have affected the suspect's own sexual development. Many offenders will admit that their own victimization resulted in confusion and sexual experimentation during their teenage years. This line of questioning will sometimes help the offender to open up and admit to the offense he has committed. [...]

David Kramer convicted of child abuse in Australia

Tzedek  Victim's Impact Statement

I was abused and molested by David Kramer over the course of two years, between the ages of 9 and 11 years old. This abuse happened in the classroom (in front of the class, although hidden from them) in places of worship, in the school library, in his house etc.

I was the epitome of an innocent child. Growing up, we didn’t have a television, magazines, or any secular form of media. I grew up loving religion, excelled in its study and was generally a sincere innocent boy who knew nothing from any sexual conduct. At the age of nine this all changed. I became this horror student who respected nothing. I refused to take tests in school and generally misbehaved. I had no respect for any authority, as the most well-liked respected teacher who was in a position of authority was a total fraud and liar!!

Without getting into the details of my traumatic experience, I will lay out the facts and repercussion that followed & let them speak for themselves:

As soon after the abuse I was the whistleblower and, as a result of my talking he was exposed, the entire school knew that I was a victim. Immediately following Kramer’s expulsion from school I was bullied by other students. Some of these students were around five years older than me. In one incident I remember a boy who must have been around four years older than me, shin me in my thigh and went on to say “this is for making up lies about Kramer”. I was around 11 or 12 years old at the time. I remember running home crying to tell my parents that I was assaulted. I skipped school that day. [...]

Tamar Epstein: The Torah shows sensitivity to the mentally ill

I just came across an interesting article that Tamar Epstein wrote when she was a senior at Stern College. It deals with how the Torah shows sensitivity towards the mentally ill and enables them to integrate as much as possible in the world of business and marriage. The full article is found here. YU Torah Lectures

--------------------------

[...] In all instances Beis Din has the authority to determine who is a shoteh and what restrictions apply to him [4]. 

A shoteh is not only freed from mitzvos, but he is also not held accountable for damaging property to the same degree as normal people. For example, if an ox of a shoteh gores an ox from a normal person, the shoteh is not required to pay the fee that would be demanded of a normal person (Baba Kama 4:4). Similarly, if a shoteh's ox injures a person, or if a shoteh directly harms a fellow Jew, he is not required to compensate the victim (Baba Kama 87a). The Mechilta, under certain conditions, even extends this exemption from responsibility to murder (Mechilta, Mishpatim 4) [4].

The Torah provides a comprehensive model for integrating the mentally ill into society that is both compassionate and realistic. Halacha is sensitive to the limitations of a shoteh and requires the community, and specifically Beis Din, to provide him with care and support. In an effort to maximize a shoteh's quality of life, the Torah exempts him from the mitzvos, but at the same time allows him to integrate into society through commerce and marriage and other activities according to his abilities. Halacha appreciates the varying degrees of handicap and, therefore, offers a flexible system for Beis Din to apply case by case. The halacha is also sensitive to society's need for order and control. Beis Din, therefore, has the authority to prohibit the mentally ill from participating in business and marriage and other sorts of communal activities if the individual can not assume those responsibilities. We must emulate the Torah's example and treat the mentally ill with the same degree of sensitivity and respect.

References

[l]Margaret Talbot. "The Executioner's IQ Test." New York Times Magazine, 29 June 2003: 4.

[2]Zivotofsky, S. (1992). The Shoteh: A Discussion of the Jewish Rabbinic View of Insanity. Pharos. 55:13-16.

[3]Nitzavim - Mental Incompetence. Videocassette. Frand, Y. Yad Yechial Foundation, (1990).

[4]Ibin Ezra, Volume I, Responsa 120, Section 2.

[5]Strous, R. (2001). Halakhic Sensitivity to the Psychotic Individual: the Shoteh. Jewish Medical Ethics. 4:30-34.

Failure of religious leaders in abuse cases

NY Times   The men were spiritual leaders, held up before the children around them as wise and righteous and right. So they had special access to those kids. Special sway.  

And when they exploited it by sexually abusing the children, according to civil and criminal cases from different places and periods, they were protected by their lofty stations and by the caretakers of their faith. The children’s accusations were met with skepticism. The community of the faithful either couldn’t believe what had happened or didn’t want it exposed to public view: why give outsiders a fresh cause to be critical? So the unpleasantness was hushed up. 

This is not a column about the Catholic Church. 

This is a column about Orthodox Jews, who have recently had similar misdeeds exposed, similar cover-ups revealed. 

And I’m writing it, yes, because the Catholic Church over the last two decades has absorbed the bulk of journalistic attention, my own included, in terms of child sexual abuse. There are compelling reasons that’s been so: Catholicism has more than one billion nominal adherents worldwide; endows its clerics with a degree of mysticism that many other denominations don’t; and is just centralized enough for scattered cover-ups to coalesce into something more like a conspiracy. The pattern of criminality and evasion has been staggering. 

But some of the same dynamics that fed the crisis in Catholicism — an aloof patriarchy, an insularity verging on superiority, a disinclination to get secular officials involved — exist elsewhere. And the way they’ve played out in Orthodox Judaism illustrates anew that religion isn’t always the higher ground and safer harbor it purports to be. It can also be a self-preserving haven for wrongdoing.

Early this month, 19 former students of the Yeshiva University High School for Boys in Manhattan filed a lawsuit alleging sexual abuse by two rabbis in the 1970s and 1980s who continued to work there even after molestation complaints. The rabbis were also allowed to move on to new employment without ever being held accountable. School administrators, the lawsuit alleges, elected not to report anything to the police.[...]

The Rebellion of Chief Rabbi Sacks by Rabbi Cardozo

Cardozo Academy  Let it be said. Jonathan Sacks has been a rebellious chief rabbi. Now that he is stepping down, we had better keep an eye on him and hope he will become even more of an insurgent.

Over the years, most of us rabbis have become irrelevant on a global level. But isn’t that what we craved? Yes, we wanted to be spiritual leaders and teachers of our communities, serve our congregants, and become heads of yeshivot. Some of us did very well. But we shunned the idea of going beyond this noble task and taking on the world. We preferred to stay put, teaching conventional Judaism, creating our own comfort zone where our beliefs would not be challenged; where we wouldn’t get upset or begin having doubts and experiencing religious crisis. We wanted to ensure that Tradition would survive and be passed on to future generations. Once we succeeded in achieving that goal, we indulged ourselves in self-satisfaction, content with our own arguments, divrei Torah and Talmud classes. This was our Judaism.

The fact that outside our little world there was religious and moral turmoil was not our business. That religious faith was challenged as never before did not bother us. It was for the goyim to deal with. We buried our heads in the sand and lived happily ever after.

By doing so, though, we robbed the rabbinate of one of its most powerful tasks: to challenge, to disturb, to rebel and to send a strong, passionate message that is not always to our liking. After all, Judaism “is not a sustained, comfortable state of consciousness, but rather a painful, hard-worn and impermanent conviction—a breathing spell in the midst of an ongoing conflict” (*). Great Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard once observed that religion has to function like a thunderstorm, but that over the years it invented sundry lightening-conductors and lost its purpose. The same is true about the rabbinate. It has become a pleaser, a comforter, not a biting critic of our moral failure and our spiritual and intellectual mediocrity. It was not prepared to challenge its own institution, the Jewish tradition; it wouldn’t dare to take a fresh look at its holy texts, at Halacha, and at the spiritual conditions and needs of its own people. [...]

Rabbi Chaim Rapoport explains his views on the Menachem Levy case

Tzedek   Plan to provide my thoughts on the subject next week

See previous post

Rabbi Chaim Rapoport writes:

I have stated my opinion in numerous public forums that paedophiles, as all criminals who constitute a threat to society, should be incarcerated in jail, if necessary – for life, the primary reason being: to protect their potential victims from abuse. I have likewise stated unequivocally that victims and those with knowledge or reasonable suspicion of abuse in the Jewish community must report such cases to the legal authorities in order to ensure that the victims are fully supported, the criminals are penalized and society is protected. I decry those people who exhibit a grotesque lack of sympathy or attempt to belittle the trauma suffered by victims, or, worse still, perversely portray the predators (and their active or passive accomplices) as the victims and cruelly penalise and ostracise victims and their families. I support institutions that are designed to help victims. I myself have been instrumental in setting up support apparatus for victims and have asserted myself to help them in every possible way. Now to the issue at hand:

The case of Mr. Levy and Ms. Goldsobel (both of whom had previously come to me for counseling) went before a Crown Court jury on two occasions. Ultimately verdicts of not guilty on all rape charges and any other charges relating to post-16 activity were entered on the court record. The court was however satisfied that sexual conduct had started before Goldsobel was 16 and that it followed as a matter of law that she could not have consented to that activity, regardless of whether she had been a willing partner. Yet, when sentencing Levy, the judge stated explicitly that he does not constitute a threat to society.

From a Jewish perspective, even if the woman was over the age of 16 when (as the defendant claimed) a long-term consensual sexual affair began, the relationship undoubtedly constituted a transgression of Jewish Law and arguably an ethical misdemeanor. It was in this context that I stated in court that the age of legal consent is somewhat arbitrary, because whether a girl is 15 or 16 does not mitigate the religious misdemeanor and cannot truly be determinant in deciding whether the relationship was exploitative in nature. A clandestine relationship between a 16 or 17 year old girl and a man some ten years her senior may well be exploitative and constitute a breach of trust. Therefore, even according to the defendant’s version of the events, the woman was correct in not allowing the matter to be ignored and when she consulted with me, I offered her empathetic advice, encouragement and pastoral support. It is for this reason that, even before the case came to court, I counseled the defendant on penitential and spiritual ‘rectification’ and prescribed measures for his continuous ethical and religious rehabilitation, including the provision of financial assistance for the sexually offended.[...]

Most sexual abuse in military is covered up because of fear.

NY Times   Among the scores of memories that Tiffany Lucas collected during her years as a Marine gunnery sergeant, she wears most of them with pride.  [...]

But the memory that has haunted her was her failure to push back against a commander who told her not to report a young female recruit who said she was raped by a male Marine, who, Ms. Lucas said, went on to assault two more women. 

“I was too weak to stand up to my commanding officer,” said Ms. Lucas, who served in the Marines for 11 years, including in Falluja, Iraq, in 2006 and 2007. “I really wish I had done something. If I could go back in time, I would stand up for her.” 

In Oceanside, a scrappy beach town 10 miles south of Camp Pendleton, the Marine base that sprawls for 125,000 acres along the Southern California coastline, almost everyone who has served has a story to tell about sexual misconduct in the military. Some were harassed or assaulted themselves, while others worked among men and women who were victims of abuse.

But in more than a dozen long interviews, veterans and active-duty military personnel here sounded a consistent theme: they believe commanders in charge of deciding which cases to prosecute conceal far too much out of fear that the cases will taint their careers. 

“It’s a huge problem, mainly because of the fact it goes unreported,” said Jimmy Coats, who served in the Navy for eight years and was raped, he said, by a man he had been dating.[...]

Internet undermines faith of Mormons by providing historical facts

NY Times   In the small but cohesive Mormon community where he grew up, Hans Mattsson was a solid believer and a pillar of the church. He followed his father and grandfather into church leadership and finally became an “area authority” overseeing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints throughout Europe.

When fellow believers in Sweden first began coming to him with information from the Internet that contradicted the church’s history and teachings, he dismissed it as “anti-Mormon propaganda,” the whisperings of Lucifer. He asked his superiors for help in responding to the members’ doubts, and when they seemed to only sidestep the questions, Mr. Mattsson began his own investigation. 

But when he discovered credible evidence that the church’s founder, Joseph Smith, was a polygamist and that the Book of Mormon and other scriptures were rife with historical anomalies, Mr. Mattsson said he felt that the foundation on which he had built his life began to crumble. 

Around the world and in the United States, where the faith was founded, the Mormon Church is grappling with a wave of doubt and disillusionment among members who encountered information on the Internet that sabotaged what they were taught about their faith, according to interviews with dozens of Mormons and those who study the church.

Calling someone Amalek - is not a code word for genocide!

Update 7 21 2013: Rav Ovadia Yosef says only politicians were meant 
There have been a lot of hystical comments (click link) regarding Rav Shalom Cohen applying the word "Amalek"   to those who wear a knitted kipa. The common thread is that it was claimed that he was  calling for genocide against the Modern Orthodox - chas v'shalom! These comments reflect a gross misunderstanding [perhaps a deliberate one] of how the term Amalek is used in Orthodox verbal warfare and a very short term memory. [update: RCA and OU condemn Rav Cohen's use of term Amalek as escalation of rhetoric - not as call for genocide]

Everybody agrees with the gemora (Berachos 28a) that there are no specific people who can be identified as Amalek for the mitzva of destroying Amalek. Once you get past that obvious and well known fact, you can understand that the term "Amalek" is used to described attitude or views that certain people have that is viewed as destructive to the Jewish people. It is the attitude or views which are being criticized - NO ONE IS CALLING FOR THE MURDER OR GENOCIDE OF THOSE LABELED AS "AMALEK". Below I cite a number of articles - including those from anti-Semitic publications which insist that use of the term "Amalek" is a code word for genocide - much as those who claim that Rav Cohen's use of the term means genocide. However it is clear that the use not only by Chareidim but by the Modern Orthodox (kipa seruga) and secular Israeli's have the same connotation of referring to ideas or attitudes - not genocide of a particular people!

2006 Rabbi Jack Riemer (Clinton's rabbi)   calls Islam Extremists - but not ordinary Muslims - Amalek. This ignited a storm whether he in fact meant that there should be genocide against all Muslims.

2006 Rav Mordechai Eliyahu calls Palestinian's Amalek

2008 http://www.meforum.org/2564/amalek - After the Mercaz HaRav massacre of 8 student's -  The killer - and by extension the Palestinians - were referred to as Amalek by Rav Shapiro. This was described by the commentator as a dangerous escalation in vocabulary.

2009 Israeli government in reference to Iran. See New York Times and responses - Bibi's advisor explained the Israeli attitude to Iran by saying "Think Amalek" - this ignited a storm as to whether Bibi was calling for genocide against the Iranians. In fact it was clear that Israeli had no such intention and that "Think Amalek" was not meant to convey that understanding. 

2011 Anti-Semitic site claims that refering to Palestinians as Amalek is a call by Orthodox Jews for genocide and concentration camps

============================================

The correct understanding of describing someone as Amalek is that it is referring to traits or attitudes that the person or group has that are destructive to the Jewish peole and thus must be changed - it is not referring to genocide.

Chabad article about killing Amalek - Wiping Out Amalek Today

Rav Moshe Feinstein said in Darash Moshe Remember what Amalek did to you (25:17).

    We must understand why there is still a mitzvah of remembering the act of Amalek today, even though in our present exile we would be forbidden to perform the mitzvah of eradicating him even if we knew for certain which peoples belong to Amalek.

    In my humble opinion, the point of this mitzvah is to remind us now that it is possible for any creature of flesh and blood to become as wicked as Amalek, and like him to deny Hashem's role in the world even though he sees irrefutable evidence of it, as Amalek saw at the Splitting of the Sea and in the other miracles Hashem did for us in the Wilderness. The Sages (Midrash Tanchuma, Ki Seitzei 9) compared Amalek to someone who, seeing a bath of boiling water which all others were afraid to touch, nonetheless leaped into it. Despite the fact that he himself was badly scalded, he cooled the bath water to a degree where others could then also take the plunge of bathing in it. Similarly, all the miracles Hashem had done for the Jews did not deter Amalek from attacking them and making it possible for others also to want to wage war against them.

     The lesson we learn is that each of us, however great his spiritual accomplishments, must worry that he himself might be tricked into committing the most serious sins, even those that everyone considers to be most despicable. Just as Amalek fell so low, we must also be afraid that any of us can fall equally low. Not only must each of us distrust his ability to persist in the good practices he has established for himself, he must also be continually on his guard for even the most serious sins, such as theft, murder, adultery, and the like.

Menachem Levy given 3 year jail term for abusing teenager

 Update: July 21 2013 Rabbi Rapoport explains his views

The following represents a very difficult case from the point of halacha. On the one hand it is a seduction of a typically sheltered Orthodox girl from the ages of 14 to 21 - by a married family friend who is 14 years older. She clearly was an adult according to halacha. On the other hand it is obvious that someone who doesn't know what sex is - can hardly be accountable for what happened. Also problematic is that Rabbi Rappaport testified that the married man was the “embodiment of repentance”, for what he did over a period of years. This is truly bizarre since the man pleaded not guilty and is appealing the conviction. Does the seducer deserve 3 years in jail?

See older J.C. article for background information on this case

 For perspective on general issue: Would you react differently if the seducer was an Arab?
Jonathan Rosenblum: Jewish teenagers seduced by Arabs

The problem is whether there is a concept of statutory rape for teenagers in halacha? Statutory rape assumes that a party below a certain age can not consent. Penalties vary widely between states and are not universally regarded as desirable even in secular society.

CNN

In short, the crime of statutory rape may have originated from repressive and misogynist conceptions of sexuality. Nonetheless, it has (and may always have had) redeeming characteristics, even from an enlightened perspective that takes into account the realities of prosecuting rape and of women's equality. It makes it easier, for example, to prosecute and thus to deter real rapists who count on jury skepticism about acquaintance rape allegations.
Still, reducing burdens of proof relies a great deal on trust – in victims and in prosecutors – that the omitted element will truly be present when cases come to trial. If and when that trust is misplaced, as may or may not have happened to Marcus Dwayne Dixon, a grave injustice can result.

CGA

Most states do not refer specifically to statutory rape; instead they use designations such as sexual assault and sexual abuse to identify prohibited activity. Regardless of the designation, these crimes are based on the premise that until a person reaches a certain age, he is legally incapable of consenting to sexual intercourse. Thus, instead of including force as a criminal element, theses crimes make it illegal for anyone to engage in sexual intercourse with anyone below a certain age, other than his spouse. The age of consent varies by state, with most states, including Connecticut, setting it at age 16. The age of consent in other states ranges from ages 14 to 18. 

=========================

Jewish Chronicle  A young Orthodox woman who was sexually abused as a child has broken her silence to talk about the despair of being betrayed by her own community. 

After years of suffering at the hands of a long-time family friend, Yehudis Goldsobel finally reached out for help. But after reporting the crimes to the police, rabbis refused to acknowledge her suffering, her family were driven from their synagogue, and kosher shops refused to serve them.

Now, as father-of-six Menachem Mendel Levy, 41, begins a three-year jail term for two counts of sexual assault, his victim, now 27, has waived her legal right to anonymity to speak out in a bid to encourage other victims to come forward.

“Since the sentencing the reaction from the community has been really upsetting. I’ve had people closing doors, I’ve had people stop talking to me.[...]

The first trial ended in deadlock when the jury could not reach a decision, but Levy was convicted at the retrial of sexual assault, although he was acquitted of rape.

Levy argued that their sexual contact was a consenting extra-marital affair which began when she was over 16. The jury were shown a birthday card she had written to him after she had said the abuse began. [...]

Rabbi Chaim Rapoport, who until last year held the medical ethics portfolio on the Chief Rabbi’s cabinet, gave evidence as a character witness for Levy, calling him the “embodiment of repentance”, despite the fact that Levy pleaded not guilty and is appealing against both his jail sentence and his conviction.[...]

Counselor accused of abuse of 13 year old at Camp Dora Golding

Times of Israel   Originally reported in the Morning Cal

 A counselor at a Jewish summer camp for boys in Pennsylvania was taken into custody after a camper accused him of inappropriately touching him, police said.  [...]

According to an email sent to parents by the camp’s executive director, Alex Gold, the counselor was arrested within hours after the camper reported the alleged incident. He said the camp’s staff is cooperating with authorities in the investigation, and making mental health professionals and social workers available to campers, counselors and parents. [...]

Can molesters such as Mondrowitz and Lanner do teshuva & have a fresh start?

Updated I am raising an important question. Can a person, such as Mondrowitz or Lanner, who have abused numerous people over a long period of time - do teshuva and start fresh? Teshuva is a fundamental idea in Judaism. In addition once a person has done proper teshuva it is prohibited to remind him of his past misdeeds. Does this apply to every sinner and every type of sin?

This question does not present a problem for most of us concerning a person who once spoke lashon harah or stole a small amount of money when he was 14. However when we get to serious crimes that have been done to many people over an extended period of time - is teshuva possible? Let's start at the top. If Amalek or Hitler decided to repent - should they be accepted?  Does a person who lost his family in the concentration camps have to accept the sincere repentance of the Nazi soldiers who killed them? See this previous post

The issue recently was raised concerning Baruch Lanner who has allegedly been accepted by Rabbi Taubes into his home.  See Jewish Standard for more details .   Someone recently made the allegation on this blog that an alleged long time molester Richard Andron has been accepted as a baal teshuva by his rabbi who has allegedly prohibited anyone from reminding him of his past. Assuming these two individuals have in fact done teshuva - do they need to be accepted without reservation - as any other Jew? Would they get an aliyah in your shul?  Would you have them sit at the head table at any public affair? Would you allow your daughter to marry his son. Are you allowed to tell others about their past deeds?

My answer is that while on a theoretical level every sinner without exception can in fact repent and one is not allowed to remind a repentant sinner of his past - there is no halachic requirement to be stupid (in the immortal words of the Chofetz Chaim). The data on pedophiles and sexual abusers is extremely clear - they can never again be trusted.  Thus if it is a question of the welfare of your children or those of others - one does not have to be apologetic about reminding a pedophile to avoid yichud with children and to take appropriate steps needed to protect society from his possible urges.

A proof to this obvious and common sense understanding of halacha is found in a contradiction in the Mishneh Torah regarding heretic - which the Rambam himself reconciled in the way I am suggesting regarding sexual molesters. The following is from my Daas Torah page 106.

Is the Repentance of a Heretic accepted?

Contradiction in Rambam concerning repentance?

Rambam (Hilchos Teshuva 3:14): Concerning the sinners and heretics who lose their portion in the World to Come. … that is only if they die without repenting. However, if they truly repent then they obtain the World to Come since there is nothing which stands in the way of repentance. Therefore, if a person has been a heretic all his life but repents at the end then he has the World to Come…. All the wicked, the heretics and those like them, if they repent either openly or in private they are accepted…

Rambam (Hilchos Avoda Zara 2:5): … a Jewish heretic is not considered a part of the Jewish people and he is never accepted back even if repents…It is prohibited to talk with them or reply to them in any manner…

Resolution of contradiction

Rambam (Letter #615:8): …concerning the apparent contradiction [between Hilchos Teshuva and Hilchos Avoda Zara] as to whether a heretic can repent and obtain the World to Come. In fact, there is no contradiction. The statement found in Hilchos Avoda Zara that his repentance is not accepted means that he is always presumed to be a heretic. His apparent repentance is to be assumed to be from fear or to fool people. The other statement from Hilchos Teshuva that their repentance is accepted is referring to the case where they have in fact genuinely repented - in their relationship to G‑d. That is why they obtain the World to Come. It is specifically dealing with their relationship to G‑d. The first statement from Hilchos Teshuva is describing their relationship with other people - and in that case, their repentance is presumed to be false.

Rav Belsky is speaking this Shabbos Nachamu Weekend - Business as usual

A Concerned Lakewood Parent writes:

Enablers and supporters of molesters, after the fact, try to go on as if nothing happened. It's the most effective tactic they have, and the most hurtful.

Rav Belsky's notorious letter makes him, arguably, the biggest supporter of molesters in recent history. Click here for letter

 

Most people would be shocked when they hear what he wrote/did.  Everyone would be disgusted if they learn he still stubbornly holds those positions.

Attached below please find a poster that will be hanging in every Shul in the mountains this Shabbos.

This seems to be a call for action.

Potential attendees would be mortified to learn, that aside from listening to an entertaining shiur, they are being used to stab many victims in the back.

Aside from bringing it to the attention of would be attendees, there are a number of organizations that might want to steer clear. The event is being sponsored by The Beren Foundation. It's being held in The Woodridge Shul. And if they have ANY credibility left, it's being organized by the OU.

Beth Alexander Schlesinger fights for her children in the media

Jewish Week   The last two years have been a living hell for Alexander, a British woman who came to Austria in 2006 to be the doctor’s wife. She said she was promised family and security but instead found abuse, isolation and the worst fate imaginable — separation from her children.

Under a court order, Alexander, 29, is able to see her sons, now 4, only a few hours a day every Tuesday and every other Sunday. The handoff from mother to father is supervised at a state-designated contact center.

Frustrated by a court system that appears to favor the Viennese father, Alexander, a naturally demure and reserved Brit, has decided to fight back through journalism and social media. She has had nearly 100,000 hits on her blog, HelpBeth.org, and some 7,000 followers on Facebook. Her story has been told in newspapers in Austria, England, Australia and Israel. She has become something of a cause célèbre for British Jewry, which, from the office of the chief rabbi on down, has been fully supportive of Alexander. Over 100 people rallied for her in March in front of the Austrian Embassy in London. Until now her story has not been told in the American press, but it is a case that demands our attention.

“Cases like this are all too common,” said Phyllis Chesler, author of “Mothers on Trial: The Battle for Children and Custody” (Chicago Review Press). “Mothers are automatically suspected of being ‘crazy,’ of lying, of hating the father of her children, of seeking revenge, of alleging battery falsely, out of revenge.” [...]