Caught between Diocese and Parish Priest

[Corki]

larorec,

You say you have complied for all of the groups and volunteers for whom you are responsible. This is probably why the diocese keeps calling you. They see you as an ally and they already have your name on a bunch of docs. You did well to push this. The dioces may not realize that they are putting you in an uncomfortable position. Many youth ministers are themselves volunteers and they might not see this as a risk for your continued employment.

If I were you, I would be vigilant about keeping your group in compliance. I would also refer the diocisan rep to the Pastoral Minister. Give them her name, phone number, email or whatever and suggest that they speak to her directly. It sounds like, if you and she were covering your two groups respectively, almost all of the volunteers would be covered.

You started another thread about the teens who volunteer in the nursery. If I were you, I wouldn’t let any of the teens you are responsible for volunteer in the Children’s programs until those programs are also under compliance.

Folks, we have to remember that if laforec were to become unemployed over this, chances are that the program wouldn’t be implemented at all in the parish.

 

[tequilamac]

only one poster suggested you lied. the rest of us tried to offer constructive suggestion. this poster should speak for himself.

No you should make a reasonable attempt to actually read what is written first.
Two suggested it dear. Me and forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1677084&postcount=9

And it is a reasonable question that he refuses to answer. Probably because it would reflect badly on himself. The question is what was he telling the parents during the time that HE was out of compliance? Or did he just omit to inform them or did he outright lie to them? It is a good question.

Unless of course you feel there is a reason the parents do not have a right to know when the program is out of compliance. Do you?

 

[mosher]

No you should make a reasonable attempt to actually read what is written first.
Two suggested it dear. Me and forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1677084&postcount=9

And it is a reasonable question that he refuses to answer. Probably because it would reflect badly on himself. The question is what was he telling the parents during the time that HE was out of compliance? Or did he just omit to inform them or did he outright lie to them? It is a good question.

Unless of course you feel there is a reason the parents do not have a right to know when the program is out of compliance. Do you?

When all is said and done I don’t think that there is no moral imperative to tell the parents if they are in compliance or not. The reason for this is that the so called “child protection” acts/charters/programs/etc have no actual effect and do nothing to actually protect children. Since, in my estimation these programs are only for legal protection of the diocese against possible litigation I have a fundamental objection to these programs in the first place.

Granted, in the case at hand the pastor is not following the direction of the diocese for some other reason that is not related to my objection. However, if I were a pastor I would formally object to these programs as a farce and a nonsensical sense of false security provided to parents when no real work is being done to prevent misconduct. Unfortunately the reason why no meaningfully prevention is being does is because there does not yet exist meaningful prevention - only cleaning up discovered messes.

So, at root since the programs are stupid there is no strict moral imperative that they are even followed. However, as I said, in this particular case the pastor is making the excuse of no losing volunteers. This would not be a valid reason for objecting to the program and thus has not leg to stand on. However, in the larger scheme of things … well now I am just being redundant.

 

[tequilamac]

When all is said and done I don’t think that there is no moral imperative to tell the parents if they are in compliance or not. The reason for this is that the so called “child protection” acts/charters/programs/etc have no actual effect and do nothing to actually protect children. Since, in my estimation these programs are only for legal protection of the diocese against possible litigation I have a fundamental objection to these programs in the first place.

Granted, in the case at hand the pastor is not following the direction of the diocese for some other reason that is not related to my objection. However, if I were a pastor I would formally object to these programs as a farce and a nonsensical sense of false security provided to parents when no real work is being done to prevent misconduct. Unfortunately the reason why no meaningfully prevention is being does is because there does not yet exist meaningful prevention - only cleaning up discovered messes.

So, at root since the programs are stupid there is no strict moral imperative that they are even followed. However, as I said, in this particular case the pastor is making the excuse of no losing volunteers. This would not be a valid reason for objecting to the program and thus has not leg to stand on. However, in the larger scheme of things … well now I am just being redundant.

Whether it is effective or not (and actually having fingerprints on file is a good idea because it discourages the already apprehended from joining up), the parents expect that there is a program in place. It is not correct or responsible to not inform them there was no program compliance simply because a minister feels the program is ineffective.

The parents should have been told FIRST.

Believe me the priest would have made sure his parish was compliant as soon as the laity using the programs heard that it wasn’t.

But this OP is so concerned about losing his job, he is not thinking clearly and his judgment is poor. He should have informed every parent upon the child’s joining up that they “were not in compliance because Father believes it is unnecessary.” Once that word spread, he would never have had to go to the Diocese.

You know what lay Catholics are like these days. How active and aggressive they are. You see how on this forum they jump into every discrepancy and rip it’s head off. They are no different in their parishes especially when their kids are involved. I am sorry. I do not believe this OP acted in good faith in his parish. Also his statements aabout the diocese make no sense either. There is no reason he cannot garner the support of the other parish leaders instead of going it alone like some heroic martyr and being the “only Diocesan contact”. No way. I have a problem with this whole rendition of what happened here.

 

[AndyF]

puzzleannie:

Still waiting, what is the pastoral advice given to the subject?

If civil law ever conflicted with canon law and with God’s law we would be obliged to disobey.

And I’m sure you can be counted on has Catholic to be ever watchful of that occuring. But look no further, you now have a good reason to object.

…but nonetheless the diocese is still obligated to obtain background checks

The point was it can do so provided the material it gains was obtained legitimately, and now you and your institution knows it wasn’t. That makes it very pertinent to this thread. This exposes an example of compounding of evil, and the subject in my case bares the brunt of it. My point was a presentation of the obverse case pertaining to this thread.

Your diocese is committing wrong until it takes on the more pressing issue with civil authority, nor should it seek conformity with the Pupil(society), until it finds conformity with the Teacher(Christ). Until then, it should with reason of good conscience reject this policy.

There is an opportunity to set two standards here, one to assist the child, the other to assist the past offender, the active word being “past”, or “paid” for, or completely “reconciled”. But apparently some of us are having trouble with “reconciled”, and I’m saddened it is the Church that has the problem. If he is truly reinstated as civil authority states he is, and God says he should be then we can no more use “dirt” on this person than we can with anyone else who didn’t offend, and the Church knows it.

AndyF

 

[Traditional_Ang]

When the parents of the children enrolled them or signed them up for your groups, did you inform the parents that you were not in compliance with the Diocese because originally your priest would not allow it? Or did you just keep mum and let them think everything was fine until your priest agreed? that is where I and other posters are suggesting you lied.

You know there are two sides to every story. What makes you think you can come and make accusations against your Pastor and no one will question you, especially when your descriptions are not making sense? You are accusing your Pastor of nothing but negatives, but you state you will not allow us to suggest negatives about your actions? Just exactly who are you, anyway?
Maybe you need to be careful throwing around accusations about your parish unless you can back them up with something that even smacks of evidence besides your confusing words.

Taquilamac:

I just don’t see how laforec could meet your requirement for evidence without either publicly stating who his paster is or who he is, which just might result in his being fired or ostracized from his parish.

Although you probably do have a point about what was said to the parents - I think it would be wrong to suggest that the parish’s programs were in compliance, and that the parish was doing everything it could do to protect the children entrusted to its charge when, one knew knew the contrary was the case.

Since it doesn’t seem that you have evidence that he is lying, and since I don’t have evidence that he is lying, could you give him the benefit of the doubt on that one?

Very rarely will posters here be able to provide us with much evidence that what they are saying is true beyond the level of specificity and the consistency in their stories. This means that, more often than not, we will have to take at least some of what they say on faith esp. since people tend to come here asking for advice and counsel or with questions about the Catholic Faith.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

When all is said and done I don’t think that there is no moral imperative to tell the parents if they are in compliance or not. The reason for this is that the so called “child protection” acts/charters/programs/etc have no actual effect and do nothing to actually protect children. Since, in my estimation these programs are only for legal protection of the diocese against possible litigation I have a fundamental objection to these programs in the first place.

Granted, in the case at hand the pastor is not following the direction of the diocese for some other reason that is not related to my objection. However, if I were a pastor I would formally object to these programs as a farce and a nonsensical sense of false security provided to parents when no real work is being done to prevent misconduct. Unfortunately the reason why no meaningfully prevention is being does is because there does not yet exist meaningful prevention - only cleaning up discovered messes.

So, at root since the programs are stupid there is no strict moral imperative that they are even followed. However, as I said, in this particular case the pastor is making the excuse of no losing volunteers. This would not be a valid reason for objecting to the program and thus has not leg to stand on. However, in the larger scheme of things … well now I am just being redundant.

Mosher:

These programs, as ineffective as they sometimes are, have been known to preven Sexual Predators from coming in contact with the Children they would victimize.

Until the Bishops in this country do what Cardinal Pell of Australia did and use the investagative facilities of Law Enforcement to find and remove the Predators, it’s probably going to be the best we can do.

I’d rather us the most effective and best tools to protect outr children, but I’ll take whatever is available if it looks as it’ll work.

And, The Bishop-Ordinary is the one who has the authority in the Diocese, and if he’s ordered the program, the pastor has to obey. The pastor can question the efficacy and other things about the program, but when all is said and done, he has to obey his bishop.

Because, When all is said and done, it’s his Bishop who will be held responsible for whatever happens in the Diocese.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[puzzleannie]

Hello, I am a youth minister. We have a program that is susposed to help protect our children. Anyone working in with children need screening a police clearences. The Diocese has been calling me to ensure i am implementing the program. …

the Diocese is not calling, a specific person is calling, who is that person, what is their position and responsibility. If this is the person appointed to oversee the child safety program, you report on your compliance, and when he asks about the rest of the parish you simply state what you know for sure: that your ministry is in compliance, but that the pastor has told you he does not enforce it for other ministries. Let that person take the ball from there. Ask to speak to the legal department of your diocese, or to the directo supervisor of your ministry, about your own liability exposure in this situation. since it is the consensus of participants in this discussion that we abandon topic of OP and slide off onto side issues, I’m outa here

 

[mosher]

Mosher:

These programs, as ineffective as they sometimes are, have been known to preven Sexual Predators from coming in contact with the Children they would victimize.

Until the Bishops in this country do what Cardinal Pell of Australia did and use the investagative facilities of Law Enforcement to find and remove the Predators, it’s probably going to be the best we can do.

I’d rather us the most effective and best tools to protect outr children, but I’ll take whatever is available if it looks as it’ll work.

And, The Bishop-Ordinary is the one who has the authority in the Diocese, and if he’s ordered the program, the pastor has to obey. The pastor can question the efficacy and other things about the program, but when all is said and done, he has to obey his bishop.

Because, When all is said and done, it’s his Bishop who will be held responsible for whatever happens in the Diocese.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

Let me put my opinion in perspective. Currently in my Archdiocese all ministers (cleric or lay) that have the probability of dealing with minors are required to go to two sexual prevention workshops. These workshops do two things: “don’t do this an don’t do that” and “this is how to identify sexual abuse and this is how it must be reported.” There are no background checks there are no fingerprinting or anything of the sort. Many Diocese that I am in contact with have similar “paper tiger” policies currently in force.

If I were a pastor of souls I would feel that it was my obligation to not comply with such a program until said program was actually made into at least a quasi-preventative program such as what tequilamac is familiar with. I agree that something as robust as this would benefit our children. However, if the policy of the Diocese where the OP works is similar to mine I don’t see the necessity since it is not really a program of prevention in the first place.

Just as a school district does not provide this type of information to parents unless requested I don’t see why the same standard is applied to the Church. The idea of holding the Church to a higher standard than any other social institution is hypocritical in my estimation and does not speak to a consistent ethic.

 

[tequilamac]

Taquilamac:

I just don’t see how laforec could meet your requirement for evidence without either publicly stating who his paster is or who he is, which just might result in his being fired or ostracized from his parish.

Although you probably do have a point about what was said to the parents - I think it would be wrong to suggest that the parish’s programs were in compliance, and that the parish was doing everything it could do to protect the children entrusted to its charge when, one knew knew the contrary was the case.

Since it doesn’t seem that you have evidence that he is lying, and since I don’t have evidence that he is lying, could you give him the benefit of the doubt on that one?

Very rarely will posters here be able to provide us with much evidence that what they are saying is true beyond the level of specificity and the consistency in their stories. This means that, more often than not, we will have to take at least some of what they say on faith esp. since people tend to come here asking for advice and counsel or with questions about the Catholic Faith.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

On the other hand, there are people in the Church who knew their priest was molesting children and said nothing because they were afraid of being ostracized. Or fired. Where are they now? Ostracized and fired- because their silence made them complicit.

If he continues to keep his mouth shut because he finds having his job is more important, if some child is molested or kidnapped, he will probably be fired anyway. Because he knew they were not in compliance and did nothing about it and would not reveal to people that the priest will not support the program. Believe me, if a crime goes public, his role and the Pastor’s role and the Bishop’s role will all go public.

If he reveals this to the world at large, meaing the parents, before a crime develops, he can’tbe fired. And if he was, he would have excellent grounds for a lawsuit. So this whole thread to me is merely a red herring. He does not really have a problem. But he could have a problem in the future the way he is handling it now.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Hello, I am a youth minister. We have a program that is susposed to help protect our children. Anyone working in with children need screening a police clearences. The Diocese has been calling me to ensure i am implementing the program. Our parish has not been using, and it has been out for 5 years. Our priest said that he doesn’t want to lose volunteers, so he doesn’t want it. I have finally convinced him of the importance, b/c the Diocese told me if my adults don’t go through the program, on a field trip if their was an accident, there would be no insurance coverage. So he conceided, but only what is directly my area of ministry.

I can’t speak with anything except nominal experience in this. I have been through the Virtus training (“Protecting God’s Children”) and realize this is a very important issue. Mainly for the added assurance that hopefully leaders are going to not abuse children and actually look out for potential abuse situations to stop them. But also for legal protection.

I can say that the Church in the US has responded in a way rivaling any other organization in the area of sexual abuse prevention.

So, bravo to you for implementing and maintaining this program. Did you lose any volunteers? I hope not, but if so, it’s unfortunate they didn’t see the importance of this.

Perhaps, if you haven’t already, I would take your concern to the DRE for the Diocese. Whoever that is, or the equivalent.

** 1> **Discuss the situation with the other people like yourself in your parish who are over their ministry like you are.

** 2>** Report to the Diocescian DRE and let them know you don’t understand why you’re getting flak for other people not implementing the program.

** 3>** Maybe if Fr. says you will be over the program for all ministries in the parish that require the training, that would be a perfect opportunity to ask for a raise. You’re taking on more responsibility and would deserve it.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

No you should make a reasonable attempt to actually read what is written first.
Two suggested it dear. Me and forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1677084&postcount=9

And it is a reasonable question that he refuses to answer. Probably because it would reflect badly on himself. The question is what was he telling the parents during the time that HE was out of compliance? Or did he just omit to inform them or did he outright lie to them? It is a good question.

Unless of course you feel there is a reason the parents do not have a right to know when the program is out of compliance. Do you?

Taquilamac:

Karin didn’t accuse Laforec of lying to the forum. She asked if he was lying to the parents. You accused him of both.

The fact that Karin has dropped her charge can be shown by the fact that she didn’t repeat it after that post even though she posted several posts begging Laflorec to tell the parents of the kids in the other programs that the other programs weren’t in complience. Could it be that she decided that he hadn’t lied but had been cowed or was in fear of his job? And, Can she have learned from reading the other posts that his program was in complaince?

I think he’s to be commended for confronting his parish priest on his issue and trying to get him to comply with the commands of his Bishop-Ordinary. The problem is allowing the fear of feing fired or being ostracized from the parish to keep him from doing his duty to notify the Diocese and the parents about the Parish’s noncompliance when the parish priest refused to do it.

I recently survived a situation where I risked being ostracized by my whole parish, but I didn’t think I had much of a choice given the circumstances, and the harm being dome to the parish by the individual involved and the real danger he was in. It wasn’t easy sending the emails to my Bishop, but again, because of the danger to the parish and the former Rector, I don’t think I had much choice. That doesn’t mean that I wasn’t ostracized for a couple months.

I think that’s the situation here, and that Laflorec has to inform the Bishop and the the parents who are trusting him and the programs of the parish, that most of the parish isn’t in compliance with the Diocesan guidelines, and possibly with the law.

The priest should know that he needs to follow the orders of his bishop and submit to him. The Diocese should be able to send appropriate reminders once they’ve been informed.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[Karin]

Taquilamac:

Karin didn’t accuse Laforec of lying to the forum. She asked if he was lying to the parents.

Thank you…that is exactly what I asked.

The fact that Karin has dropped her charge can be shown by the fact that she didn’t repeat it after that post even though she posted several posts begging Laflorec to tell the parents of the kids in the other programs that the other programs weren’t in complience. Could it be that she decided that he hadn’t lied but had been cowed or was in fear of his job? And, Can she have learned from reading the other posts that his program was in complaince?

Yes, you are right…I thought perhaps he did not lie but was bowing under pressure from the “boss” and for “fear” of his job…**and yes I did read that other post that his program was in compliance. **
**
I think he’s to be commended for confronting his parish priest on his issue and trying to get him to comply with the commands of his Bishop-Ordinary. The problem is allowing the fear of feing fired or being ostracized from the parish to keep him from doing his duty to notify the Diocese and the parents about the Parish’s noncompliance when the parish priest refused to do it.

I recently survived a situation where I risked being ostracized by my whole parish, but I didn’t think I had much of a choice given the circumstances, and the harm being dome to the parish by the individual involved and the real danger he was in. It wasn’t easy sending the emails to my Bishop, but again, because of the danger to the parish and the former Rector, I don’t think I had much choice. That doesn’t mean that I wasn’t ostracized for a couple months.

I think that’s the situation here, and that Laflorec has to inform the Bishop and the the parents who are trusting him and the programs of the parish, that most of the parish isn’t in compliance with the Diocesan guidelines, and possibly with the law.

The priest should know that he needs to follow the orders of his bishop and submit to him. The Diocese should be able to send appropriate reminders once they’ve been informed.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael**

 

[tequilamac]

Taquilamac:

Karin didn’t accuse Laforec of lying to the forum. She asked if he was lying to the parents. You accused him of both.

The fact that Karin has dropped her charge can be shown by the fact that she didn’t repeat it after that post even though she posted several posts begging Laflorec to tell the parents of the kids in the other programs that the other programs weren’t in complience. Could it be that she decided that he hadn’t lied but had been cowed or was in fear of his job? And, Can she have learned from reading the other posts that his program was in complaince?

I think he’s to be commended for confronting his parish priest on his issue and trying to get him to comply with the commands of his Bishop-Ordinary. The problem is allowing the fear of feing fired or being ostracized from the parish to keep him from doing his duty to notify the Diocese and the parents about the Parish’s noncompliance when the parish priest refused to do it.

I recently survived a situation where I risked being ostracized by my whole parish, but I didn’t think I had much of a choice given the circumstances, and the harm being dome to the parish by the individual involved and the real danger he was in. It wasn’t easy sending the emails to my Bishop, but again, because of the danger to the parish and the former Rector, I don’t think I had much choice. That doesn’t mean that I wasn’t ostracized for a couple months.

I think that’s the situation here, and that Laflorec has to inform the Bishop and the the parents who are trusting him and the programs of the parish, that most of the parish isn’t in compliance with the Diocesan guidelines, and possibly with the law.

The priest should know that he needs to follow the orders of his bishop and submit to him. The Diocese should be able to send appropriate reminders once they’ve been informed.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

Boy. Every thread. You have a problem with me.

I did not accuse this guy of lying to the forum. So you are clarifying it for what reason? To be merely contrary?
I asked him if he were lying to the parents. I made it clear that the parents had a right to know.
I have no idea why you choose to distort my intentions and slander my motives in every thread. I’ll pray for you.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Boy. Every thread. You have a problem with me.

I did not accuse this guy of lying to the forum. So you are clarifying it for what reason? To be merely contrary?
I asked him if he were lying to the parents. I made it clear that the parents had a right to know.
I have no idea why you choose to distort my intentions and slander my motives in every thread. I’ll pray for you.

Taquilamac:

I am saying that Karin’s accusation was only transitory and that it was withdrawn as soon as she read that HIS program was in compliance with the Diocesan guidelines, and that, as soon as she understood the truth of the matter, she understood that he was absolutely terrified of being fired and of losing the ability to feed his family, not that he believed the parents didn’t have a right to know.

I’m frankly appalled that you’re bullying a man who’s terrified of being FIRED, when he needs encouragement to do the right thing in spite of the obvious risk.

2 Years ago, the Ceremonarius in my parish had a series of what should have been fatal strokes. I had some friends of mine risk almost certain death taking the buses in Israel to the Kotel to place sheets of paper with Steve’s name on them and place them in slits in the wall. The only reason they did this is because they knew I would do it for them if the situation were reversed, and their religion requires them to do it.

I’m not going to say it was easy to ask them to do it.

Right now, we’re asking Laflorec to risk losing his job and his income. If the roles were reversed, can you honestly say that, if this were your only income, that you would do as you’re demanding Laflorec to do and to risk losing your job?

Before you answer the question, remember that bravery doesn’t pay the rent, and courage doesn’t feed the kids.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael