Let me start with a quick summary of the situation. In 2005, Wilson asked the judge for leniency in sentencing Steven Sitler for molesting young children, declaring him “genuinely repentant.” Some years later, Wilson married Sitler to one of his parishioners and asked God to bless them with children. Earlier this year, Sitler’s wife gave birth to a baby boy, and this month the court found that “(Sitler) has had contact with his child that resulted in actual sexual stimulation.” If that’s all you feel you need to know—and it may be—you can stop reading here. I’m going to provide more of the backstory, and while I won’t be graphic, some readers may find it triggering.Doug Wilson’s Pedophile Problem: Sex Offender For Whom Wilson Begged Leniency Back in Court with Infant Son
[,,,]
Regardless of what the judge ultimately decided, the Department of Corrections argued adamantly against allowing Sitler to marry because of the high level of risk to any children Sitler might father. This should have made an impact on Wilson, but apparently it did not. Wilson chose to officiate the ceremony in spite of this opposition. In doing so he very clearly and unambiguously endorsed the match. In addition, while Wilson insists that the match was not arranged, Travis went to Christ Church elder Edwin Iverson looking for a husband and was immediately set up with Sitler. While I don’t know whether Wilson was asked beforehand, it remains a fact that the idea for the match originated with one of his elders.
[,,,]
I don’t pretend to understand Stegner’s reasoning here. If Sitler has molested his child, he has violated his parole. Shouldn’t that mean a return to prison? [Edit: Some readers have suggested that the sexual stimulation referred to in the article above indicates that Sitler was sexually aroused by contact with his son rather than that Sitler has now sexually molested his son. If this is the case it might explain why he is not now in prison for a parole violation. However, if that is the case, at the very least it ought to disqualify Sitler from living with his wife and son.]
I am also baffled by the fact that Sitler’s wife’s disqualification from serving as a chaperone is only temporary. She has already proved her willingness to hide things the court believes are relevant. Shouldn’t this disqualify her from serving as a chaperone more permanently? Both Sitler and his wife come from communities that teach male leadership and female submission. Could this be contributing to Katie’s willingness to hide information from the court? Or perhaps she’s simply more afraid of losing her husband than she is of her baby being molested?
See also:
No comments:
Post a Comment