As part of the media response to widespread publicity generated by a CCPAS press release about sex offenders, I found myself on the radio having been lined up against a senior police officer. One of the comments he made about the CCPAS-backed initiative was that it amounted to 'misplaced compassion' and that Christians ought to direct their compassion at victims of sexual abuse, not at the offenders that the police have caught downloading child pornography on to their computers.

In the brief radio interview I attempted to argue that it was precisely our concern for child victims that compelled us to do something about offering some help and treatment to people who might otherwise go on to abuse children in the future. However, the phrase 'misplaced compassion', which fits so neatly into common stereotypes about naïve Christian do-gooders completely out of their depths when it comes to human wickedness, stuck in my mind and refused to go away.

Of course we must not ignore the dangers of those living in the community who pose a risk to children, and of course the law must be upheld in terms of punishing those who have committed what society views as the most odious of crimes. It is also true that some people are so dangerous that they cannot be safely accommodated in the community, so what was the police officer really saying when he talked about 'misplaced compassion'? I think that he was saying that some people deserve our compassion and others don't; that victims of child sexual abuse should be helped and supported but that perpetrators of sex crimes shouldn't be. The underlying assumption here is that the world is divided up into victims and villains. Victims deserve our sympathy and compassion but villains don't.

This sort of simplistic dualism is very attractive to the general public and to politicians, especially around election time! People feel better for having some victims to sympathise with and some villains to hate. Victims are 'us', we identify with them because all of us at some time have had bad things happen to us. Villains, on the other hand are 'them', we don't associate with them in case their guilt contaminates us. Whereas in the case of victims the commonality is emphasised, in the case of villains the difference is emphasised. We are not like them, we would never treat people like that. The only thing we need to know is whose side we are on. We are for the victims, they need our help and support. It follows inevitably that we are against the villains; they should be punished. It is worth mentioning here that CCPAS has long campaigned for better help and support for all those affected by abuse and a training DVD 'Sharing the Load' was released by the organisation last year that aimed to address this pastoral issue.

But, this black and white approach to right and wrong has a long tradition in this country. One thinks of the Poor Laws which directed charity towards the 'deserving poor' whilst the undeserving poor were left in the gutter where they belonged. If, as the police officer suggested, our compassion should be reserved for those who deserve it, what are the implications for those other groups of people who are marginalized and unpopular?

We rightly have compassion on victims of child sexual abuse, but not on those who perpetrate these crimes. We have compassion on young people in need, but can be dismissive of young people in trouble. We have compassion on children who have a medical label attached to them (such as “special needs” or “ADHD”) but there is little understanding displayed towards those who are just plain naughty. We have compassion on genuine refugees but not on asylum seekers who are assumed to be 'bogus'.

There are a number of problems with this solely punitive approach in relation to child protection. Firstly, it doesn't work because it does not protect children from abuse. We have to be careful that our response doesn't have the effect of driving sex offenders underground.

Supposing a man is developing an addiction to child pornography. He is aware of what he is doing; he knows that there are children somewhere who have been sexually abused in order to create the images that he is watching. He feels bad about what he is doing and he is fearful about where it may lead him. What possible incentive is there for him, in the current climate, to admit that he has a problem and ask for help? If the likely outcome is public exposure leading to extreme vilification and abuse, then who would be brave enough to venture down this path?

This vigilante response from some corners of society has even been aimed at conscientious paediatricians who, having devoted their lives to children, have been at the receiving end of insults and abuse simply because their professional title shares so many letters with that dreadful word 'paedophile'!

There is another problem with the simplistic approach that divides the world into victims and villains, and that is that it's just not true. Life is rarely that simple. Those who work with sex offenders, and any other sort of offender come to that, will tell you that offenders are frequently victims as well. This is not to excuse or minimise their crimes. It is simply to acknowledge that some people who have been hurt and damaged themselves go on to hurt and damage others.

As a child protection social worker I have interviewed scores of parents whose children have been removed from their care because of concerns around abuse and neglect. Almost without exception those parents describe childhoods that were emotionally deprived and unhappy.

People who have never experienced consistent and reliable nurturing themselves are unlikely to be equipped to provide such care to their children. Of course, this doesn't make the experiences any less damaging to their children but it does, or should, make us less inclined to respond towards such people in a dismissive and condemnatory way.

However, the biggest problem for the Christian, with the concept of 'misplaced compassion' is that the phrase contradicts itself. Compassion cannot be misplaced because the whole point about compassion is that it is indiscriminate.

Like grace and mercy, compassion is bestowed on those who don't deserve it. If compassion can be said to discriminate, it discriminates in favour of the outcast and the marginalized of society and Jesus' life and ministry is one of the clearest examples of this. It was the poor and the needy, the despised and the rejected with whom Jesus chose to associate. As he said:

'Those who are well have no need of a doctor, only those who are sick.'(Matt 9 v12 NIV)

This is the reason why Jesus often clashed so strongly with the Pharisees who were anxious not to contaminate themselves by associating with ‘gentiles and sinners’ and it is still the reason why Jesus' call to discipleship is such a radical and uncomfortable call for us today.

In a hauntingly beautiful song entitled ‘Grace’ Bono of U2 sings about the transforming power of grace:

What once was hurt
What once was friction
What left a mark
No longer stings
Because Grace makes beauty
Out of ugly things

God's grace and compassion reaches out towards the ugly things of this world in order to transform them. We have to learn not to be afraid of people who are trapped in wrong habits and behaviours but, in compassion, reach out to them and identify with their shame and pain. This reaching out to the marginalized and excluded is not enough, in itself, to change the ugliness into beauty. But at least it is a start and it is a necessary precondition for the transforming power of Christ's love to do its inimitable work.

Click here to return to the Articles menu.