Forbidden to lector or cantor

[jmcrae]

Give me a break! You’re making it sound like the people doing the investigation are a bunch of idiots who will be fooled by the first prankster who calls in with an outrageous claim! They’ll obviously conduct a thorough investigation and weed out the false testimonies.

And besides, even if the applicant knew that a prankster had called in, what good would knowing about it do you?

You can defend yourself.

You can say, “That never happened. I was on vacation with my wife and children at the time of this alleged incident. Here are my hotel bills and my airline tickets to prove it.” Or whatever the truth is. If you catch it at the time that it’s happening, it’s way easier to prove that they are lying than if it comes up months or years later.

Once tha accusation has been made, it’s been made, so unless you plan on beating up the person who made it to make them retract their statement, all you can do in either case is let your good record speak for itself. And if you have a good track record, the person investigating will obviously see that and seriously doubt any outrageous allegations made against you. I just don’t see what the big deal is about knowing what’s being said - all it does is compromise the integrity of the investigation by making the investigator wonder if the person is saying what they’re saying because it’s true, or because they’re afraid of the consequences of not singing the applicant’s praises.

My take on it is that if people know that they will be asked to back up their statements with evidence, and that the person they are accusing will have the right to defend themselves, then they will be more likely to say what is true.

A good friend of mine was once falsely accused of molesting a child, and it destroyed ten years of his life. That’s why I recommend being very cautious when it comes to this sort of thing - and for the love of all that is holy, don’t do anything completely insane, like allow people to anonymously make stuff up about you behind your back and put it in your police report without your prior knowledge.

 

[estesbob]

I had the exact same problem and finally after much discussion with my Pastor went ahead with the process.Like you I was a lector. In my case i was forced to take a course called Virtus which basically tried to disavow that homosexualtiy had anyhting to do with the homsosexual priest scandal. When I and a dr who was also attending started pointing out the fallacy of this the moderator got quite defensive and then quite testy.

My belieffis we had to go through all this for insurance purposes. The problem , of course, was not with volunteers, it was with homosexual Priests. Priests the Church knew were homosexual when they ordained them and priests the Bishops enabled to continue raping boys unitl it all blew up in their faces. The Bishops got sued, the Priests jailed and I got to waste a Saturday listening to nonsense.

 

[jpjd]

estesbob, I also went through the Virtus program. I have to wonder if you and I experienced the same program. If so, you have missed the entire point. It didn’t say anything about homosexuality or the priest scandal. It was about being aware of how perpetrators (child molesters) operate, and how to be aware of your environment, minimizing the risks to children. Everyone in my Virtus class appreciated the program. I’m sorry you didn’t find any value in it. The children in your parish are the poorer for that.

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

You’re making it sound like the people doing the investigation are a bunch of idiots who will be fooled by the first prankster who calls in with an outrageous claim! They’ll obviously conduct a thorough investigation and weed out the false testimonies.

all you can do in either case is let your good record speak for itself. And if you have a good track record, the person investigating will obviously see that and seriously doubt any outrageous allegations made against you. I just don’t see what the big deal is about knowing what’s being said

Okay. (deep breath here)
Let’s start with what I bolded and underlined.
The only people who have the right and the training and the objectivity to do any “investigation” is law enforcement. Anyone who is being investigated has the right to contact a lawyer for representation. In fact, in my state the law clearly states that if there is ANY concern about possible abuse - it MUST be called into the police for an investigation. It doesn’t matter if you think it’s bogus or not. You have to call it in when someone makes a claim. You can’t just say, "I looked into it and I don’t believe it."

---

Then there is the section I put in red ink. Here’s the big, huge problem that everyone does not want to admit. A sex offender is often someone people trust and get along with and would never imagine has a monster that preys on innocent children. That person making the “outragous claim” may be the only one who had the guts to make it. Because they know how crazy and terrible it sounds that someone others respect would do such a horrid thing. Those who don’t ever say anything is usually because they don’t think anyone will believe them.

 

[Digitonomy]

Some prankster you’ve never even met decides that it would be really funny to make up a story about you being in a homosexual orgy at his house one time where minors were present, and this goes into your police file, without your knowledge. Suddenly, you are barred from volunteering at your church, and you lose your job, and you have no idea why.

This is all possible, and in many cases you’re out of luck even if you do protest and know the accuser. The diocese doesn’t want to take any chances.

However, you are not losing any rights with regard to your police file - the police are not bound by this document, they are bound by public law, which may require that they provide you with certain information, depending on the circumstances.

jmcrae:

It doesn’t matter that filling out the form is optional. It should be illegal for the form to contain any clauses that are illegal in the United States. Why should people even give the appearance of signing away their civil rights? Nothing could be more stupid than that.

The clauses are not illegal. Similar situation:
Imagine that a new employer requires you to sign a promise not to badmouth another employee, due to your history with her as a former girlfriend, or boss, or some other run-in. Does that violate your freedom of speech? No. If called by a court of law to testify against her, can you do so? Yes. Such a statement merely allows the employer to discipline or fire you more freely than they would have otherwise been able to, if someone hears you mutter something unkind about the other employee.

This situation is essentially the same. It allows the priest to more easily remove you from a position where you could put children at risk, without having to arrange a confrontation between you and your accuser, or to put the accuser at risk when you are told his identity.

Now what happens if the police arrest you on the basis of the accuser’s testimony? Suddenly all those civil rights, which you waived for the purposes of internal church administration, are yours again for the purposes of legal proceedings.

 

[jmcrae]

This is all possible, and in many cases you’re out of luck even if you do protest and know the accuser. The diocese doesn’t want to take any chances.

However, you are not losing any rights with regard to your police file - the police are not bound by this document, they are bound by public law, which may require that they provide you with certain information, depending on the circumstances.

In which case, what is the point of this document? It is going to be turned in to the police to be added to your file, but they aren’t actually going to use it? This makes no sense at all to me.

The clauses are not illegal. Similar situation:
Imagine that a new employer requires you to sign a promise not to badmouth another employee, due to your history with her as a former girlfriend, or boss, or some other run-in. Does that violate your freedom of speech? No.

It’s not similar at all, since that’s a private agreement with your employer; it’s not part of an official police check and you are privvy to all of the contents of the document, not to mention the fact that it is only going to be used internally, as a disciplinary tool within the company itself, and only with regard to yourself and this other person. You know at the time that you sign it what it contains, and what it means to you. If you quit the company and go to work someplace else, that document is also not going to follow you around for the rest of your life.

 

[childofmary1143]

Give me a break! You’re making it sound like the people doing the investigation are a bunch of idiots who will be fooled by the first prankster who calls in with an outrageous claim! They’ll obviously conduct a thorough investigation and weed out the false testimonies.

And besides, even if the applicant knew that a prankster had called in, what good would knowing about it do you? Once tha accusation has been made, it’s been made, so unless you plan on beating up the person who made it to make them retract their statement, all you can do in either case is let your good record speak for itself. And if you have a good track record, the person investigating will obviously see that and seriously doubt any outrageous allegations made against you. I just don’t see what the big deal is about knowing what’s being said - all it does is compromise the integrity of the investigation by making the investigator wonder if the person is saying what they’re saying because it’s true, or because they’re afraid of the consequences of not singing the applicant’s praises.

Then pray tell me why there are so many innocent people on death row and can you also explain me how innocent people can be convicted in a court of law? Or do you deny the existence of innocent people being convicted?

 

[Morning_Star15]

Okay. (deep breath here)
Let’s start with what I bolded and underlined.
The only people who have the right and the training and the objectivity to do any “investigation” is law enforcement. Anyone who is being investigated has the right to contact a lawyer for representation. In fact, in my state the law clearly states that if there is ANY concern about possible abuse - it MUST be called into the police for an investigation. It doesn’t matter if you think it’s bogus or not. You have to call it in when someone makes a claim. You can’t just say, "I looked into it and I don’t believe it."

---

Then there is the section I put in red ink. Here’s the big, huge problem that everyone does not want to admit. A sex offender is often someone people trust and get along with and would never imagine has a monster that preys on innocent children. That person making the “outragous claim” may be the only one who had the guts to make it. Because they know how crazy and terrible it sounds that someone others respect would do such a horrid thing. Those who don’t ever say anything is usually because they don’t think anyone will believe them.

And who’s saying that the investigator won’t call the police and allow them to do a full police examination if a serious allegation is made, in which case all the civil rights of the applicant will be upheld? The waver that the OP cited doesn’t say “I hereby agree that I will never see any accusations made against me, even if it’s for a capital crime and I get sentenced to death for it.” It just prevents nosy applicants from asking “what exactly did my boss say about me?”. If an accusation’s serious enough to get the police involved, then I believe the applicant will have every chance to defend himself/ herself in court.

I think the waver is for smaller matters, to allow people who, for example, know that the applicant is impatient with children and is quick tempered, resulting in him/ her snapping at children when they’re angry, to be able to provide this information without being afraid of this quick tempered applicant finding out that they revealed this about them. If it’s a more serious accusation, due process will be followed.

I don’t think signing a waver like that automatically means that you will never find out if a serious, criminal accusation was made against you, especially once the police become involved.

 

[puzzleannie]

I trust the Church with my soul.

But I don’t trust that Her employees are infallible.

We’re talking about administrative duties here, not matters of faith and morals and eternity.

Doing background checks has nothing to do with doctrine, so mistakes can be made. Hence, my distrust.

".

church employees do not perform the background checks. these are done by an outside agency, usually law enforcement, state police or a private security firm like Wackenhut, the same ones that do criminal background checks for any school system, state, federal or local government institution, or many private companies that require them for employement. The release you sign allows the agency to conduct the check and to report the results to the diocese, specifically the person charged with administering HRD, which is just that, a criminal background check that turns up your record of criminal arrests and convictions. The pastor receives the reports which are sealed and confidential. The report either states “no matching records” which means you have no record of arrests or convictions, or it states an offense by NUMBER, not by name, and date. The pastor has to call to find out what that number refers to, and he is supposed to keep these results locked in confidential files.

The references are 3, supplied by the applicant, who are usually interviewed by phone, by the pastor or whomever he delegates, or may be asked to supply written references. That these are confidential is standard practice in most corporate and academic settings. For instance, I provide several sealed, confidential letters of reference each year for our HS students seeking college admissions, scholarships or jobs, and these are sent to the agency, and never seen by the student.

 

[hopefull]

Do you think there is any chance that background checks will be required before our donations are accepted? That is also a gift we are giving to the church…

 

[Digitonomy]

In which case, what is the point of this document? It is going to be turned in to the police to be added to your file, but they aren’t actually going to use it? This makes no sense at all to me.

You’re assuming that this will find its way to the police. If the clerk at the corner store reports to the priest that you regularly drop in to pick up the latest Playboy magazine, the priest may decide you’re not the best candidate for this position. But the police aren’t going to care.

jmcrae:

It’s not similar at all, since that’s a private agreement with your employer; it’s not part of an official police check and you are privvy to all of the contents of the document, not to mention the fact that it is only going to be used internally, as a disciplinary tool within the company itself, and only with regard to yourself and this other person.

This too is a private agreement. Tell me again when the police got involved?

 

[jmcrae]

You’re assuming that this will find its way to the police. If the clerk at the corner store reports to the priest that you regularly drop in to pick up the latest Playboy magazine, the priest may decide you’re not the best candidate for this position.

He’s not going to report it to the priest; he’s going to report it to the nice policeman, who will then tell the priest about this (but not you).

But the police aren’t going to care.This too is a private agreement. Tell me again when the police got involved?

When you sign the thing to give the police the okay to do an investigation on you, and then keep the results of the police investigation secret from you.

 

[az_4_faith]

church employees do not perform the background checks. these are done by an outside agency, usually law enforcement, state police or a private security firm like Wackenhut, the same ones that do criminal background checks for any school system, state, federal or local government institution, or many private companies that require them for employement. The release you sign allows the agency to conduct the check and to report the results to the diocese, specifically the person charged with administering HRD, which is just that, a criminal background check that turns up your record of criminal arrests and convictions. The pastor receives the reports which are sealed and confidential. The report either states “no matching records” which means you have no record of arrests or convictions, or it states an offense by NUMBER, not by name, and date. The pastor has to call to find out what that number refers to, and he is supposed to keep these results locked in confidential files.

The references are 3, supplied by the applicant, who are usually interviewed by phone, by the pastor or whomever he delegates, or may be asked to supply written references. That these are confidential is standard practice in most corporate and academic settings. For instance, I provide several sealed, confidential letters of reference each year for our HS students seeking college admissions, scholarships or jobs, and these are sent to the agency, and never seen by the student.

All of this so that we can read scripture from the ambo or help distribute Holy Communion or usher at Mass? Yikes.

Total overkill.

 

[thechrismyster]

If the clerk at the corner store reports to the priest that you regularly drop in to pick up the latest Playboy magazine, the priest may decide you’re not the best candidate for this position.?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b1/MFS_01.jpg
We agree wholeheartedly!

 

[estesbob]

estesbob, I also went through the Virtus program. I have to wonder if you and I experienced the same program. If so, you have missed the entire point. It didn’t say anything about homosexuality or the priest scandal. It was about being aware of how perpetrators (child molesters) operate, and how to be aware of your environment, minimizing the risks to children. Everyone in my Virtus class appreciated the program. I’m sorry you didn’t find any value in it. The children in your parish are the poorer for that.

You either didnt watch the slides they presented or had a very different program than I did. Didnt you catch the slides about the “myth that homosexuals are more likely to abuse children than hetersoexuals”??? (patently false) Did you notice the emphasis was on pediophiles even though pediophilia was present only in a very very small number of the abuse cases? Do you know how many Lectors in Catholic Churches have used that position to facilitate molesting children? How about cantors? I dont , BTW, have any contact with the children in my parish-I lector at weekday mass. Why I was forced to sit through the politicaL correct nonsense they presented in order to lector is beyond me.

 

[rwoehmke]

It has cost the Church millions if not billions of dollars and when something gouges into your money and everyone is pointing fingers, you go for CYA. That is about it. No one can say you didn’t at least try to protect those kiddies. I have worked with kids since 1958 and in 1980 or thereabouts had to watch films and sign pledges etc. Was it any real skin off my nose? I don’t think so, but it made everyone happy without really solving the problem. If you think that the clergy are the only offenders think again. Watch one of those MSNBC programs “To Catch a Predator” and you understand fairly quickly that there is a pandemic and the offenders come from every walk of life including the kids own family. It’s been going on since Adam and Eve left the garden only it didn’t make the news very often.

 

[estesbob]

It has cost the Church millions if not billions of dollars and when something gouges into your money and everyone is pointing fingers, you go for CYA. That is about it. No one can say you didn’t at least try to protect those kiddies. I have worked with kids since 1958 and in 1980 or thereabouts had to watch films and sign pledges etc. Was it any real skin off my nose? I don’t think so, but it made everyone happy without really solving the problem. If you think that the clergy are the only offenders think again. Watch one of those MSNBC programs “To Catch a Predator” and you understand fairly quickly that there is a pandemic and the offenders come from every walk of life including the kids own family. It’s been going on since Adam and Eve left the garden only it didn’t make the news very often.

And it will cost them millions more iff they dont adress the real problem -which is not pediophilic Cantors and Lectors. .

 

[stbruno]

As a lector or cantor, frequently I am in contact with the altar servers in the sacristy before the priest or any staff member arrives. I can understand why this could cause a problem for the parish, if our lectors and cantors do not participate in the background check and Virtus training as prescribed by our diocese. If you have nothing to hide, why is this a big issue.

 

[hopefull]

Does this remind anyone else (old enough to remember) of the age of McCarthyism in the US during the 1950’s? The argument was basically “If you have nothing to hide, why not allow a background check, take a loyalty oath, and report anybody about whom you have any suspicions?” And if you happened to have somehow stumbled into a party at a friend’s home 20 years before and someone there had been a Communist, too bad for you…now you are blacklisted, unable to support your family, marked forever.

If there is one “gift” that Americans should not turn their backs on, isn’t it of “innocent until proven guilty” and not “guilty until proven innocent” or “guilty without a trial.?” There are all kinds of risks that people get exposed to every day, crossing streets, rabid animals, a smoker in the adjacent apartment who isn’t very careful, an intruder in the schools. How can we make ourselves safe from everything, especially our children? Parents who just want to drop off their children and not be part of what is going on are part of the problem. They lose the opportunity to view staff and teachers and volunteers on a “close up” basis. Let them stay, be around, fully participate. Let them lector on days their children are altar servers. It seems to me that the false sense of security created by background checks and invasion of privacy can lull the parents into thinking something or someone is safe, relaxing the vigilance they should naturally have all the time. That is my opinion.

 

[estesbob]

As a lector or cantor, frequently I am in contact with the altar servers in the sacristy before the priest or any staff member arrives. I can understand why this could cause a problem for the parish, if our lectors and cantors do not participate in the background check and Virtus training as prescribed by our diocese. If you have nothing to hide, why is this a big issue.

So if I dont want Parish employees checking out my private life it means I have something to hide? In all the abuse cases the Church has settled on do you know how many involved laity??? NONE.