Background checks in Boston Archdiocese!

[Kevin_Walker]

“The Archdiocese of Boston is running annual criminal background checks on more than 60-thousand priests, employees and volunteers to prevent sexual abuse.”

“Boston Archdiocese checks Background”

wlbz2.com/home/article.asp?id=20313

Well, its a start in the right direction. But I feel they should include psychological tests, like they do for Top Secret security clearances, to screen out all homosexuals who insipidly try to infiltrate back into the Church.

 

[StJeanneDArc]

We had to submit to background checks in the Galveston-Houston diocese about 6 years ago, well before the current scandal erupted. This was for any employee or volunteer who worked with children. I think they were a one-time thing, though.

Background checks are only useful to the extent that an offender has actually been reported and gone through the system. I agree that psychological tests for seminarians will be much more useful.

The state of Texas has a sex-offender database where you can look up who in your neighborhood might have gone through the system. This is only somewhat helpful as well, because it also includes men who may be guilty of statutory rape. There was one example of a guy in my neighborhood who was 19 and got criminal probation for his escapades with his 17-year-old girlfriend–hardly someone I would suspect of child-molestation.

 

[Kevin_Walker]

StJeanneDArc:

We had to submit to background checks in the Galveston-Houston diocese about 6 years ago, well before the current scandal erupted. This was for any employee or volunteer who worked with children. I think they were a one-time thing, though.

Background checks are only useful to the extent that an offender has actually been reported and gone through the system. I agree that psychological tests for seminarians will be much more useful.

The state of Texas has a sex-offender database where you can look up who in your neighborhood might have gone through the system. This is only somewhat helpful as well, because it also includes men who may be guilty of statutory rape. There was one example of a guy in my neighborhood who was 19 and got criminal probation for his escapades with his 17-year-old girlfriend–hardly someone I would suspect of child-molestation.

My most recent experience with criminal background checks are with the merchant marines (I held a secret security clearance twenty years ago in the Navy). The criminal background checks do not filter out the psychologically disturbed individual, unless he had commited a crime to that effect. So you could easily be at sea with a functional psychopath who might go berserk at the least provocation (and it has happened).

So I would really prefer a psych screening exam for all potential nuns and priests; I really don’t want to have to contend with an obvious homosexual Priest on any serious life matters.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I sorta wonder what St. Peter would think about doing a background screen on him? St. Paul would DEFINATELY not pass a screening test, he was a murderer of Christians for crying out loud. I think this emphasis on security in some ways lessens our dependence on God to protect His Church and His flock. I think that ultimately, the Bishops and the Pope need to be much more authoritarian about this issue. They are getting there, but more needs to be done from a religious point of view, not a secular one. I think defrocking and excommunications are in order, along with complete cooperation with law enforcement. Had they done this to begin with, the diocese’ in question would not have been nearly as materially culpable as subject to civil litigation.

 

[Kevin_Walker]

Scott_Lafrance:

I sorta wonder what St. Peter would think about doing a background screen on him? St. Paul would DEFINATELY not pass a screening test, he was a murderer of Christians for crying out loud. I think this emphasis on security in some ways lessens our dependence on God to protect His Church and His flock. I think that ultimately, the Bishops and the Pope need to be much more authoritarian about this issue. They are getting there, but more needs to be done from a religious point of view, not a secular one. I think defrocking and excommunications are in order, along with complete cooperation with law enforcement. Had they done this to begin with, the diocese’ in question would not have been nearly as materially culpable as subject to civil litigation.

If St. Peter and St. Paul had to submit to a Roman criminal background check, no I don’t think they would pass either (and neither would all the concurrent martyrs). Today is a different story.

 

[Kevin_Walker]

Scott_Lafrance:

I sorta wonder what St. Peter would think about doing a background screen on him? St. Paul would DEFINATELY not pass a screening test, he was a murderer of Christians for crying out loud. I think this emphasis on security in some ways lessens our dependence on God to protect His Church and His flock. I think that ultimately, the Bishops and the Pope need to be much more authoritarian about this issue. They are getting there, but more needs to be done from a religious point of view, not a secular one. I think defrocking and excommunications are in order, along with complete cooperation with law enforcement. Had they done this to begin with, the diocese’ in question would not have been nearly as materially culpable as subject to civil litigation.

More simply, if homosexuals were kept out of the Church in the first place, none of the above would ever have been necessary!

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Kevin Walker:

More simply, if homosexuals were kept out of the Church in the first place, none of the above would ever have been necessary!

What would the Church be comprised of if we kept out all of the homosexuals, adulterers, fornicators, tax-evaders, thiefs, murderers, liars, cheats, swindlers, gluttons, workaholics, child abusers, over-eaters, users of profanity, people who make false promises, etc…

 

[Kevin_Walker]

Scott_Lafrance:

What would the Church be comprised of if we kept out all of the homosexuals, adulterers, fornicators, tax-evaders, thiefs, murderers, liars, cheats, swindlers, gluttons, workaholics, child abusers, over-eaters, users of profanity, people who make false promises, etc…

Good honest trustworthy wholesome reliable and consistant Priests and Nuns who would not cause a homosexual abuse scandal, or any scandal, to the Church!

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Kevin Walker:

Good honest trustworthy wholesome reliable and consistant Priests and Nuns who would not cause a homosexual abuse scandal, or any scandal, to the Church!

You missing the point. Christ came to save the sinners, not the righteous. I’m glad our Church is made up of flawed people, it gives me hope.

 

[Kevin_Walker]

Scott_Lafrance:

You missing the point. Christ came to save the sinners, not the righteous. I’m glad our Church is made up of flawed people, it gives me hope.

I think you misread my post, I was referring to the Priesthood when I recommended preventing homosexuals from infiltrating the Church.

 

[tcay584]

Kevin Walker:

More simply, if homosexuals were kept out of the Church in the first place, none of the above would ever have been necessary!

As I recall, being homosexual is not a sin (even for a priest)…acting on it is. To say that homosexuals should be kept out of the Church is incredibly hateful. I’m sure there are many faithful, celibate homosexuals out there in the Church who are doing their best to follow Christ’s teachings and I think the Church is the better for it. We need more positive role models so others can know that the Church welcomes all who do their best to pick up their crosses and follow Christ.

 

[Kevin_Walker]

tcay584:

As I recall, being homosexual is not a sin (even for a priest)…acting on it is. To say that homosexuals should be kept out of the Church is incredibly hateful. I’m sure there are many faithful, celibate homosexuals out there in the Church who are doing their best to follow Christ’s teachings and I think the Church is the better for it. We need more positive role models so others can know that the Church welcomes all who do their best to pick up their crosses and follow Christ.

Hi,

It is incredibly responsible to prevent homosexuals from entering the Priesthood in the first place; homosexuality is de facto a mental health disorder and even if a homosexual is chaste, they are still incapable of emotional stability and clarity of thought. Homosexuals do not make positive role models any where in society, let alone in positions of authority and decision making.

 

[dumspirospero]

OH yeah…the the proverbial psych test…I remember taking one of those while in the Air Force to work with the Nuclear Ballistic Missle program…it was quite interesting…good idea

“The Archdiocese of Boston is running annual criminal background checks on more than 60-thousand priests, employees and volunteers to prevent sexual abuse.”

“Boston Archdiocese checks Background”

wlbz2.com/home/article.asp?id=20313

Well, its a start in the right direction. But I feel they should include psychological tests, like they do for Top Secret security clearances, to screen out all homosexuals who insipidly try to infiltrate back into the Church.

 

[dumspirospero]

I understand your POV, but I also think that a person found to be a pedophile…or any type of sexual predator for that fact… should not be allowed to join the Priesthood…maybe I am just too gunshy due to the recent events…

Hey Scott…you gonna watch the Daytona 500 this weekend?

Scott_Lafrance:

I sorta wonder what St. Peter would think about doing a background screen on him? St. Paul would DEFINATELY not pass a screening test, he was a murderer of Christians for crying out loud. I think this emphasis on security in some ways lessens our dependence on God to protect His Church and His flock. I think that ultimately, the Bishops and the Pope need to be much more authoritarian about this issue. They are getting there, but more needs to be done from a religious point of view, not a secular one. I think defrocking and excommunications are in order, along with complete cooperation with law enforcement. Had they done this to begin with, the diocese’ in question would not have been nearly as materially culpable as subject to civil litigation.

 

[Scout]

Kevin Walker:

More simply, if homosexuals were kept out of the Church in the first place, none of the above would ever have been necessary!

I’m sorry, but I have a problem with this statement. I hope that I’m misunderstanding you, but to suggest that every homosexual is a pedofile is absolutely wrong. Just because someone is a homosexual doesn’t automatically mean that they’re going to abuse children. Pedofilia is something completely different.

I have no problem with the security that the Church has to put in place now. Many other churches have been doing these things for years. If you’ve got nothing to hide, you shouldn’t care about a back-ground check or whatever other security measures your diocese puts into practice.

Scout

 

[Kevin_Walker]

Scout:

I’m sorry, but I have a problem with this statement. I hope that I’m misunderstanding you, but to suggest that every homosexual is a pedofile is absolutely wrong. Just because someone is a homosexual doesn’t automatically mean that they’re going to abuse children. Pedofilia is something completely different.

I have no problem with the security that the Church has to put in place now. Many other churches have been doing these things for years. If you’ve got nothing to hide, you shouldn’t care about a back-ground check or whatever other security measures your diocese puts into practice.

Scout

Hi Scout,

Thank you for this response. It is my opinion that pedophilia falls under the aegis of homosexuality; it is my view that pedophile and pedorast are two horns on the same homosexual devil.

Heterosexuals may have a mental health disorder, but I strongly believe homosexuality is a mental health disorder, and regardless of how chaste or celibant a homosexual might be, they are still incapable of emotional stability and clarity of thought.

A criminal background check will overlook homosexuals with no police record, thus allowing the “objectively disordered” access to the Priesthood and onward to a authoritative position requiring emotional stability and clarity of thought; so a psychology examination should be included in the semarian selection process.

So I do very much feel it was the tolerance of a homosexual presence in the Catholic priesthood which cumulated in the current sexual abuse scandal.

 

[Scout]

Well, I can agree with you that homosexuality is a sin that one has to fight against. However, to suggest that someone who is a homosexual should be put in the same group as a pedophile is simply wrong. Pedophilia is a disorder all on its’ own. I think it’s wrong for us to run around and make the assumption that because someone is gay then that automatically makes them a candidate for pedophilia. That is wrong.

The truth is that pedophilia doesn’t have anything to be with being gay. Just because someone is gay doesn’t make them some sort of deviant or sexual predator. Being attracted to the same sex doesn’t make you a deviant. Being attracted to children does. That’s the difference. Homosexuals aren’t attracted to children. Pedophiles are.

I find your arguement extremely disturbing.

Scout :tiphat:

 

[puzzleannie]

Scott_Lafrance:

You missing the point. Christ came to save the sinners, not the righteous. I’m glad our Church is made up of flawed people, it gives me hope.

but until they are saved and converted, they may not have contact with children as employees or volunteers in any Church programs.

 

[katherine2]

Kevin Walker:

Well, its a start in the right direction. But I feel they should include psychological tests, like they do for Top Secret security clearances, to screen out all homosexuals who insipidly try to infiltrate back into the Church.

I totally agree.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

puzzleannie:

but until they are saved and converted, they may not have contact with children as employees or volunteers in any Church programs.

While first I would like to say that I concur with everyone who agrees that someone, anyone, who is dealing with a sexual morality problem should not be in a position of authority over children. But before we say that we should “keep them out of the Church”, I would like to hear feedback from everyone who has conquored all of their moral dilemmas, all of them. They are living a life of untempted grace and are just passing the time until Jesus calls them into heaven. If you have even the slightest incling that you are still subject to sin, please keep your opinion to yourself.