Caught between Diocese and Parish Priest

[tequilamac]

I find you comment very rude. This is a difficult situation. Obviously you don’t understand the internal politics of the church. It is very easy for Lay people to point fingers, but it is much more difficult for those who work in the church. All my programs are in compliance with the Diocese. I am talking about the other ministries in the parish that do not use the program. IF it wasnt’ for me working in the parish, there would be ZERO compliance! Please be more kind in your words in the future.

No again you err. I do not understand the internal workings of your church as you describe them.

And you did not answer any questions either.
Were you lying to the aprents during the time your programs were not in compliance?
2. Why is the Diocese asking you about the other ministries instead of the people in charge of the other ministries unless you are in charge of ALL ministries in your parish? For instance to simplify- our Diocese would ask the Director of RCIA if they were in compliance. If our Diocese wanted to know if the RCIA was in compliance they would not ask the greeters, or the lectors or the Eucharistic ministers or the Youth Minister. So I ask you, why does the Diocese not ask these other ministry leaders if they are in compliance? Why do they ask you?

1. You think I am rude? I think it is more rude to lie to the parents and let them think you were in compliance when you weren’t thereby exposing their children to potential harm because you are afraid of losing your job. That is just TERRIBLY rude.

And for those who are interested here is another thread started remarkably today about youth minister troubles:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1674953&postcount=1

 

[ErichsGurl2]

1. (You do not have a lady named Cathy working as a Youth Leader do you?)

ROFL!

 

[Karin]

I don’t believe the parishioners are really aware of the policy. Also, all my programs are using the program. So my but is covered. It is the other programs run by the Pastoral minister that are not using it. Children’s ministries are under the pastoral minister, youth ministry (my area is grade 4 to young adults)

here in the states we are aware of these programs in the parish…perhaps you should inform your fellow parishoners?

 

[puzzleannie]

As you have information of your direct supervisor not conforming to policy of his superior, you have an obligation to inform them of this problem. To fail to do so makes you an accomplice.

exactly right.
as a supervisor of volunteers, you have no right to place them in a position where they are vulnerable to accusations, and are obligated to do all in your power to make sure they understand the rules, are instructed in the policies, understand the reasons for them, and are protected from situations where they might be accused. You are even more stringently required to make sure volunteers and youth under your supervision are never in situations where improper conduct could take place, insofar as you are able.

 

[puzzleannie]

That is quite the difficult thing to do when the Parish Priest is your employer and your income pays the bills.

who is going to pay when you get sued, or even arrested, as happend to a colleague of mine this past week?

I add that I am having trouble tracking OP and his dilemma, since in the beginning it seemed he was saying pastor would not allow him to follow policies in his ministry, and it seems he has clarified in later posts.

If youth ministry is in compliance, great, but if a diocesan policy is not being followed it is your duty to inform the bishop if the pastor will not act. I just had this same discussion with another colleague yesterday, together we went to her superior, asked the question, and received guidance on how to act. If there is a diocesan contact who supervises your ministry, that is the next person to talk to.

 

[laforec]

No again you err. I do not understand the internal workings of your church as you describe them.

And you did not answer any questions either.
Were you lying to the aprents during the time your programs were not in compliance?
2. Why is the Diocese asking you about the other ministries instead of the people in charge of the other ministries unless you are in charge of ALL ministries in your parish? For instance to simplify- our Diocese would ask the Director of RCIA if they were in compliance. If our Diocese wanted to know if the RCIA was in compliance they would not ask the greeters, or the lectors or the Eucharistic ministers or the Youth Minister. So I ask you, why does the Diocese not ask these other ministry leaders if they are in compliance? Why do they ask you?

1. You think I am rude? I think it is more rude to lie to the parents and let them think you were in compliance when you weren’t thereby exposing their children to potential harm because you are afraid of losing your job. That is just TERRIBLY rude.

And for those who are interested here is another thread started remarkably today about youth minister troubles:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1674953&postcount=1

Although I don’t feel like wasting the energy to your comments, I will to satisify you inqury. Where do you come off accusing me of lying? As soon as I was hired i had to fight with the priest to get youth ministry under the screening program. There is no lie. I have only been working at the church 10 months. If the Pastor and Pastoral Minister choose to ignore the Dioesan directive for 3 years, I can’t change that. I have no idea how they got around it. But I don’t believe the parish really understands the program, and that is not my area to be concerned with. If the Parish “lied” to parishiones, or i guess choose not to inform the parishiones, i was not even a parishioner at the time.

That is a good question why the diocese is asking me. Perhaps they know, which they do, but somehow want me to confront the pastor??? i don’t know. I have already spoken to him on several occasions.

I am not lying to anyone. you need to be careful throwing around accusations. this board is to ask questions and get support and answers, not finger pointing back the person who is trying to set things in order. If you are going to accuse me anymore of something neg. then just don’t bother posting a reply. I am trying to get the whole parish under the porgram, but i have NO authority to make the Pastoral Minister or Priest comply. I was just asking for suggestions, and many people have provided many good answers which i think i will take some of their advice.

 

[tequilamac]

Although I don’t feel like wasting the energy to your comments, I will to satisify you inqury. Where do you come off accusing me of lying? As soon as I was hired i had to fight with the priest to get youth ministry under the screening program. There is no lie. I have only been working at the church 10 months. If the Pastor and Pastoral Minister choose to ignore the Dioesan directive for 3 years, I can’t change that. I have no idea how they got around it. But I don’t believe the parish really understands the program, and that is not my area to be concerned with. If the Parish “lied” to parishiones, or i guess choose not to inform the parishiones, i was not even a parishioner at the time.

That is a good question why the diocese is asking me. Perhaps they know, which they do, but somehow want me to confront the pastor??? i don’t know. I have already spoken to him on several occasions.

I am not lying to anyone. you need to be careful throwing around accusations. this board is to ask questions and get support and answers, not finger pointing back the person who is trying to set things in order. If you are going to accuse me anymore of something neg. then just don’t bother posting a reply. I am trying to get the whole parish under the porgram, but i have NO authority to make the Pastoral Minister or Priest comply. I was just asking for suggestions, and many people have provided many good answers which i think i will take some of their advice.

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.

 

[seremina]

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.

**Ouch. Is this a kind response? It doesn’t seem very Catholic of you to be acting this way and asking such questions. He asked for help and advice, not for people to jump in and pretend to be interrogative police! My goodness, with such a response from you, I wouldn’t blame him from wishing there was a “ban from all posts I make” button that would keep you from posting on his threads and replies.

Laforec, here’s my suggestion. Take your explanation of the situation and all you asked us, and send it to your bishop. Explain that you’re feeling too timid to go any further with trying to better this situation and would like the bishop’s advice or even intervention. Such a mild and confiding letter to him should help you with your troubles without being hailed as the whistleblower. I’m not sure if the bishop would grant you immunity, but it would certainly help keep you protected from any offensive actions.

At the very least, you won’t be in trouble for trying to seek help but if you DO lose your job…what does that say about your boss? I agree with a poster earlier… he -may- be hiding something, but I pray this isn’t the case. His laziness would be preferable to the cold idea that he’s been toying with kids. I know you are trying to protect your job, but I’m afraid that no matter how bad your financial situation would be…you have a duty that is higher. To protect the children and the vulnerable. You would be getting heavenly reward for sacrificing your job just to make sure that parish program was safe and the volunteers there are safe too.

I pray you’re soothed by the gentle words and will try to do something. God bless.
**

 

[Woodstock]

Some options I can think of-

1. When the bishop’s office calls to bug you, say, “I am in complete compliance in youth ministry but I don’t think the rest of the church is. I’m concerned about losing my job so I’d rather you follow up on it independently.” Or you could just say that you do not know about the rest of the church because you haven’t worked with the other departments like pastoral ministries in implementing it so the diocese will need to contact them directly to check their compliance.
2. Call the pastoral minister and don’t say who you are. Just ask about programs in place and casually ask about the adults’ training. If she says she doesn’t do it, you can call the diocese anonymously and say that you talked to her and she said she doesn’t do it and you are concerned for the kids. If she lies and says she is doing it when you know she isn’t then I think you will know you have a moral responsibility to follow up on that with the diocese somehow.
3. Make it easy for the priest by offering to do the screening paperwork yourself.
4. Bank on your priest not wanting the work or confrontation involved with firing you and just start making plans for a full parish wide roll-out of the program for the fall session. Blame it on the diocese and say they keep calling you so the responsibility is on you to make sure the parish has it and to report compliance back to the bishop. You can even be apologetic and say you know it is so much more work and you are so sorry and you wouldn’t be having them do this if the bishop hadn’t said to do it, all the while getting it done.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

That is quite the difficult thing to do when the Parish Priest is your employer and your income pays the bills.

Lforec:

I wouldn’t want to risk my job either, but your first duty is to the children entrusted to your care. Moral Courage is doing the right thing when we know there just might be a cost involved. I have a couple of situations I could talk to you about, but they would be off-topic, but it comes out as whom do you fear more, the parish who can throw away your job, or God, who can throw you into the fires of hell?

The Diocesan Policy is there for the protection of the children and the Employees. If you don’t report the noncompliance, and something does happen to any children in the custody of volunteers of your parish, you could be in quite a bit of legal trouble as you knew about the willful noncompliance, not the mention whatever our Lord said about failing to protect the innocent when we had the chance.

If you reports this to the appropriate people at at the Diocese, they should be able to protect you from retaliation while they remedy the situation. And, you might save some child from being the victim of a sexual predator. And, If the paisih fires you for reporting this, as one poster suggested, what would that say about the parish?

My thinking is that they are like me, lazy and disorganized, or that they’ve hired a few “projects” who have “histories” in other areas, and the Pastor or whoever is administering the program from the parish doesn’t understand those people wouldn’t have any problems. I could see myself doing that and not trusting the Diocese not to understand that the people have repented of their thefts or other crimes and trying to hide them from the Diocese.

If it’s not something innocent like the above, which the Diocese could find out, there are things worse than being fired for trying to protect the children entrusted to the people you work for.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[Crumpy]

I’ve not been on the Parish Council or close to it, but I wonder what they do about enforcing such a personnel screening policy.

I worked in the nuclear power industry, and each worker has to pass psychological screening, criminal checks, and on-the-job behavior surveillance and random drug checks, in jobs where public safety is involved.

It’s good as far as it goes, but it’s no guarantee of child safety, per se.

I don’t know that all this should be a permanent requirement, but it seems it is needed in the foreseeable future to “do something” to ensure child safety.

Why stop here? Why not have a loyalty oath to orthodoxy and to the Catechism of the CC? I’m serious. Why would anyone object to this?

 

[tequilamac]

I’ve not been on the Parish Council or close to it, but I wonder what they do about enforcing such a personnel screening policy.

I worked in the nuclear power industry, and each worker has to pass psychological screening, criminal checks, and on-the-job behavior surveillance and random drug checks, in jobs where public safety is involved.

It’s good as far as it goes, but it’s no guarantee of child safety, per se.

I don’t know that all this should be a permanent requirement, but it seems it is needed in the foreseeable future to “do something” to ensure child safety.

Why stop here? Why not have a loyalty oath to orthodoxy and to the Catechism of the CC? I’m serious. Why would anyone object to this?

I kind of always thought that was what the Profession of Faith we say at Mass every Sunday was. A sort of loyalty oath.

 

[AndyF]

laforec:

I have read the posts here, but I would like to flip the coin if I may. Gathering police data is commendable, but it should be remembered the police have no such commitment to discretion.
Discretion must come from the diocese, and it would appear there is irresponsibility in that respect.

One such volunteer has discovered to his horror that his innocent attempt to aid his parish has turned his world upside down, and he is in the process of selling his home. He filled his application and the diocese clerk sent his name in for clearance. Instead of asking for a yes/no answer in regards to child related crimes, a complete history of the individual was returned to her. As rural gossip goes, she passed this information on to others in his rural neighbourhood, and it snowballed out of control. Apparently it was a misdemeanor that occured almost 40 years ago, and now this person who is one of good standing in the community has lost credibility socially as well has in his family.

Every parish priest risks being mistrusted, as by chance it could occur that he has learned beforehand through confession, of information he could possibly obtain through the checking process. The penitent could conscrue quite rightly that he is using his confessional knowledge in passing judgement, and he will persuade others that this is occuring.

In this case the priest has valid reason for concern. Since that episode, the diocese has cleaned up it’s act now that it has burned it’s fingers in this new task of criminal work it has taken upon itself. If it were on the level, it should have placed procedural checks on itself to ensure that this new privledge is not abused. I think the confessional will be next on the hit list.

There is a moral precedent as well. All actions oriented to an individual who has committed a crime is a sentence, and scripture states that settlement must occur in front of the magistrate. At this time the magistrate as rep for society states to the offender what is needed to reconcile. If an application is to be applied that would not normally be applied to a non offender, such has a criminal record, then he needs to have that proclaimed at sentencing along with other punishments. In effect the Church is using information that has been gotten under evil circumstances, has this one additional punitive measure, ie: the document, is being used to potentially curtail his activities, therefore it is a punitive measure.

The sinful process can be labelled has the unwillingness of society to reconcile, and the Church is making use of this. The ball comes into the court of society, has now the table is turned and the celestial court is watching to see if society can keep God’s laws as well.

AndyF

 

[puzzleannie]

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.
.

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

 

[puzzleannie]

laforec:

One such volunteer has discovered to his horror that his innocent attempt to aid his parish has turned his world upside down, and he is in the process of selling his home. He filled his application and the diocese clerk sent his name in for clearance. Instead of asking for a yes/no answer in regards to child related crimes, a complete history of the individual was returned to her. As rural gossip goes, she passed this information on to others in his rural neighbourhood, and it snowballed out of control. AndyF

this is another diocesan law, not guideline, not suggestion, that was violated. The pastor is the only person who may see these results, and the only person authorized to act on them. They must be made part of the file on that employee or volunteer, and those files must be kept under lock and key. Only the pastor, or the one person he designates as the clerical person may have access and then only for appropriate purposes. Every employee and volunteer of the diocese also signs a Code of Ethical Conduct, and confidentiality is part of that promise. Confidentiality on the part of parish and diocesan employees is and always has been a condition of employment.

It is tragic and a grave violation when such confidentiality is breeched, but nonetheless the diocese is still obligated to obtain background checks on anyone who works with youth or children. The bishop should have jumped on this immediately.

In practice, the pastor is supposed to appoint someone to garner and preserve these personnel records, and it is supposed to be someone outside the actual ministry. That means in parishes with a small staff the bookkeeper or parish secretary keeps the files, under lock and key just like sacramental registers. A parish with a secretary who violates confidentiality is in severe trouble.

Here one of the deacons has this responsibility, so the clerical staff will never see these files, and I as the DRE will not see the results of the background check. If one comes back with a “hit” (it only happened once) it goes directly to the pastor. He simply informed me that Mr. X would not be serving in this capacity, and wrote a brief note to Mr. X. I just informed the coordinator of the activity that this volunteer was unable to participate without stating a reason. I should also add that because this person had a common name, our pastor followed procedure, returned the release to the agency who runs the checks, and verified with them and Mr. X that he is indeed the person whose record came up. This is also mandated.

there are two parallel things going on that govern how we do our jobs. One is canon law, administered by the bishop and his delegates, and one is civil law. We are obligated to comply with both. The problem with the child safety issue is that civil law has lagged behind reality for years in many jurisdictions, and even though canon law was followed in many or most cases of abuse, civil law either did not require reporting or did not respond sufficiently when reports were made.

As an employee of the parish or diocese we operate only under the authority of or pastor and bishop, and we may not step outside out stated duties, and we are obligated to follow canon law where it touches on our duties. We are also obliged to follow civil law where it touches on our duties. Very often there is conflict, and it is always resolved for the welfare of the children in our care.

 

[puzzleannie]

I should also add that when a background check comes back it does not describe the actual violation or conviction, it simply lists a code number, and the pastor has to inquire what that code refers to. This is another level of protection from another person inadvertantly seeing that information.

In addition, if anyone working for the Church (or any Catholic for that matter) inadverntently hears information that is matter for confession, he is obligated under the same strict rules of confidentiality that the priest is.

I repeat my advice to OP: there is a person in your diocese who supervises and administers your ministry, and there is a person (maybe the same one) who administers and oversees the child safety program. These are your next contacts if the pastor is uncooperative. This is not going over his head, this is reporting to the persons with legitimate concern, delegated by the bishop, for advice on how to proceed. the value and efficacy of child safety programs is not the topic under discussion. OP’s next course of action is the topic.

 

[quasimodo]

I wonder about the source of the pastor’s resistance. In my parish, every employee and volunteer must do the child protection thing including the classes and fingerprinting. We have literally hundreds of volunteers. No resistance ever developed. I went through the process and I don’t work with kids at all. Why does he think there will be backlash? If this has been answered, just tell me to “read the thread, ya bonehead.”

 

[AndyF]

puzzleannie:

What example is set by the Church’s obstinate use of ill gotten information that would assist in the pastoral care of the subject in question?

We are obligated to comply with both.

This is always conditional. If it were not, the Church would have submitted fully in agreement to the wishes of the Nazi regime in regards to the Jewish question. The Church can also voice consciencious objection as it also teaches it’s flock. The Church is the teacher, not the unquestioning obedient servant, and it is to formulate decisions as they arise and to access civil law for it’s conformity to the moral principles of Christ, and ESPECIALLY not make use of the evil it finds. The Church, in regards to these individuals who it concerns, has let them down. The common good can not depend on evil as it’s justification for it’s motivation, and the ill gotten criminal record sentence will remain so until the magistrate states it’s existance at sentencing where it belongs. Mat 5,25-18,15. The remaining sentencing that is hidden should be proclaimed as well, ie: rejection for military service,restriction to gov’t jobs,international travel,etc. Only then can the enormous injustice that is the cause of non reconciliation to past offenders be brought to the forefront, and the Church has the means to bring this about.

If the Church would set the example, governments would take notice and be forced to adopt legislation to change their judicial systems to state these hidden punishments. The Church should only implement when it has cooperation. It accomplishes a double effect by this hoped for new change of societal attitude, the Church now uses sanctioned documents that are valid in the eyes of God, and, it sends the message to society that the Church approves it’s change of heart. Using ill gotten information sends the message it is willing to conform regardless. A like anology is the use of the body of an aborted fetus to be made to good use.

1903 "Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, "authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse."Some rules apply in every case:

1789 - One may never do evil so that good may result from it;

Mat 10,24 “No pupil outranks his teacher” Pupil/society, Teacher/Magisterium.

If it were your duty to know the punishment applied to individuals, could you accurately judge if proper proportion and measure was being used if only that which is reported to you is a certain percent of it? If the person were your son, wouldn’t you like all punishment be unhidden?

AndyF

 

[puzzleannie]

quite honestly I do not see the point of Andy’s post. we are discussing legitimate responsibilties placed upon diocesan employess by canon law and be legitimate duly constituted civil law. If civil law ever conflicted with canon law and with God’s law we would be obliged to disobey. However, such a contingency is NOT the topic of this thread.

 

[Pug]

I wonder about the source of the pastor’s resistance. In my parish, every employee and volunteer must do the child protection thing including the classes and fingerprinting. We have literally hundreds of volunteers. No resistance ever developed.

They’d most likely lose me as a volunteer, and I know other people who’d likely quit. But they wouldn’t “resist”. They’d just quit. I am willing to sign a bunch of paperwork, however. I’ve already done that. Perhaps they will take the “boil a frog to death” method, and perhaps it will work.

However, I agree with your concern about the pastor’s resistance, because he has allowed some people to selectively be checked, but not others. This selective application could bite back if it turns up that one of the ones selectively not checked is harmful.