Forbidden to lector or cantor

[Cygnus_X1]

If you have nothing to hide, why is this a big issue.

I am soooooo tired of this non-argument that doesn’t address the flawed process.

What about if a police officer enters your house for a search without a warrant? If you have nothing to hide . . . ?

 

[DavidinStLouis]

…They’ll obviously conduct a thorough investigation and weed out the false testimonies…

…And if you have a good track record, the person investigating will obviously see that and seriously doubt any outrageous allegations made against you.

Morning_Start15, I respect your opinion and your position; and I thank you for joining the religious! But I will say that it might be asking more than we can be guaranteed to hope that whomever the ‘investigators’ are in any given case would see the ‘obvious’. It’s fair and just for someone to be careful in their suppostions and to try keep from putting themselves in an unecessarily easy-to-compromise situation. Just some thoughts.

 

[DavidinStLouis]

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.

Some good points!

 

[Aramis]

With the amount of identity theft going on, there is NO WAY I am ever giving my diocese my social security number either – for a background check.

AND–think about this: Every sexual abuser has had some point in his or her life when they could have passed a background check. IT isn’t really to protect children, it is to protect the diocese from a lawsuit. With such intrusive policies, what we are increasingly moving toward is parishioners setting up their own not-for-profit groups for religious education, bible studies, catechesis and contributions where and how they see fit, outside of the control of the parish and diocese and then just visiting the church for the sacraments. Watch it evolve, if people aren’t respected more inside the church. The next thing we will find out is that only non-sinners are welcome in the church! I don’t know too many of those.

For the OP, please consider contacting St. Joseph’s Foundation in San Antonio, TX for advice. They are wonderful in supporting the rights of the laity.

In Alaska, the state has mandated such investigation and training. I didn’t need it as a Lector nor EMHC, but I did as a catechist; all paid staff of churches, schools, medical providers, and care providers must be so investigated.

Also, any report of abuse is required, by state law, to be reported. The only exception is the confessional.

Fill out the form or don’t volunteer. the Church is not a democracy, legal system or society governed by a constitution. Respect it, trust it or don’t be in it. I can’t believe people will trust the Church with thier souls but not thier privacy. Protect our kids. Is it overkill, maybe but if your Child ever gets mosested by a cantor or lector and the person had a history, then shame on the Church AGAIN!

Sorry, but you ARE wrong. The Church has its own legal system… one which runs in parallel to Civil law.

And while it has no constitution per se, it does have the Code of Canon Law, and this shapes a great deal of matters in the church, even though many of the faithful have never heard of it.

 

[drafdog]

There are too many errors in this thread to mention. I’ll highlight a few.

“The Church is a monarchy.” Go back to the encyclopedia and look it up. The Church is a hierarchy: ruled by the priestly class.

“The Church is not subject to civil law since it has its own legal system.” The Church is a corporation (or set of corporations) in the US. Each diocese is a separate legal person incorporated under the civil laws of the state in which the see is situated. As a legal person it is subject to the civil and criminal laws of the republic.

“OP is engaged in an exercise in pride.” It is not prideful to maintain one’s personal integrity. In fact this is precisely the quality for which we revere our Saints, particularly the Martyrs.

Cygnus X1 is right in being concerned about the loss of protection from slander and libel which may ensue from the secrecy of the files whose contents may prohibit him from serving the Church.

I want to repeat what I said in an earlier posting. The waiver which the Church insists he sign is not enforcible under the laws of the US. Signing it will not in fact deny him his rights to inspect the information. What is repugnant is the thought that the priestly class can believe that they have the authority to demand the signing of such a waiver. It is another example of their inability to perceive correctly the realities of the world in which they live. They seem to be living in a world of their own creation.

Matthew

 

[Digitonomy]

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).

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.

You’re making a lot of assumptions here that either reflect more in-depth knowledge of the subject than I have, or the fact that things are done differently in Canada.

My understanding is that background checks are generally done by private companies. The police usually have better things to do than initiate a de novo investigation on a church cantor applicant. Past criminal records, on the other hand, are available to qualified groups - and I assume to the individual with the criminal record.

Here’s what appears to be available in Florida:fdle.state.fl.us/BackgroundChecks/

        If an organization becomes qualified and provides the required information for criminal history record requests, FDLE, with the assistance of the FBI, will provide the organization with the following:[list=1]

*]An indication that the person has no criminal history, i.e., no serious arrests in state or national databases, if there are none;
*]The criminal history record (RAP sheet) that shows arrests/and or convictions for Florida and other states, if any;
*]Notification of any warrants or domestic violence injunctions that the person may have.

 

[Cygnus_X1]

I got a response from the St. Joseph Foundation. Here are some highlights:

Catholics do not have a right to exercise ecclesiastical offices of or functions so it is difficult to establish any injury. Still the policies are rather extreme but with all the litigation a diocese has little choice to protect itself in the civil forum if something goes wrong.

The right to see what is said about him is a right of natural law. Anyone can choose not to exercise that right at a particular moment in time, but can also revoke that intent and exercise the right. It is not something that can be taken away definitively in such fashion as proposed by the Archdiocese of Baltimore. The nature and application of natural law is what is at stake here. This is what the Vatican focused on in recent cases involving fingerprinting and background checks as well–privacy being a natural right. In short, I don’t believe the Archdiocese can legitimately demand this.

The positions of lector/acolyte/extraordinary minister, etc. are voluntary positions that a pastor can allow at his discretion. We have seen these cases before the sex scandal broke, but refusals to admit someone were based on other issues. What it boiled down too is whether the pastor wants to admit the guy or not. Will the pastor buck the system? Probably not, but some have around the country. And if he won’t, I doubt the client will win, simply because it is the pastor’s discretion.

I appreciate how the Foundation got back to me so quickly.

However, I may be being called to serve in a different way; my wife and I are considering working with Engaged Encounter. So maybe there is a reason for all things.

I’m still not happy over what happened, but I’m willing to move on if God has something different in store for us.

I appreciate all the views presented in this thread, even if I didn’t agree with them.

 

[Digitonomy]

Thanks for getting back to us with that info. From the St Joseph letter:

The right to see what is said about him is a right of natural law. Anyone can choose not to exercise that right at a particular moment in time, but can also revoke that intent and exercise the right. It is not something that can be taken away definitively in such fashion as proposed by the Archdiocese of Baltimore. The nature and application of natural law is what is at stake here. This is what the Vatican focused on in recent cases involving fingerprinting and background checks as well–privacy being a natural right. In short, I don’t believe the Archdiocese can legitimately demand this.

I think it’s worth noting that for purposes of an internal church investigation or background check, making the case that the Archdiocese can’t do this due to Natural Law would take place in the appropriate tribunal of Canon Law. The civil courts on the other hand would allow the archdiocese to conduct its business as it sees fit, even if that be in secret. If a civil or criminal judge determines that the evidence affects another case, however, they probably wouldn’t hesitate long in forcing the information to be revealed.

 

[puzzleannie]

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.

parish employees or diocesan employes DO NOT run the background checks. These are contracted out to law enforcement or private security agencies. Only the pastor or his delegate in the parish, or the diocesan official delegated, usually the vicar general, sees these reports, and only they can take any action based on their contents. Even they have to contact the reporting agency to find out what the violation consists of.

Of all the many liability cases settled in the 4 dioceses in which I have been employed, by far the greater number involved lay persons: religious sisters, religious brothers, youth ministers, coaches and school teachers. Cases involving priests were in the minority, and cases involving sexual misconduct were a minor part of the whole. By far the greatest number of liability cases involve negligence leading to bodily injury, most large monetary settlements from accidents involving transportation.

 

[Cygnus_X1]

As of today, I am now a lector for a parish in the Diocese of Reno, which does not have the requirements of the Archdiocese of Baltimore. I’m only on the altar to do the readings, announcements, or the PotF. As such, I did not have to go through the diocese’s “Protecting God’s Children” program or sign away my 6th Amendment rights.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

As of today, I am now a lector for a parish in the Diocese of Reno, which does not have the requirements of the Archdiocese of Baltimore. I’m only on the altar to do the readings, announcements, or the PotF. As such, I did not have to go through the diocese’s “Protecting God’s Children” program or sign away my 6th Amendment rights.

Don’t tell me you moved from Maryland to Nevada just to be a lay Reader.

 

[kage_ar]

You are not a lector, you are a lay reader.

I am shocked your Parish and Diocese do not require background checks for volunteers. I pray they change that.

 

[MarkThompson]

. . . or sign away my 6th Amendment rights.

And do you get the freedom to choose what you will read, or has the Church squelched your First Amendment rights too and forced you to be the mouthpiece for its own inflexible texts and ideas?

 

[joandarc2008]

I think part of the issue is this what explained to you properly - the Virtus program is not just about children. It is also about adults that could be placed in danger due to incapacity or emotional issues. As a lay reader or lay minister you would have contact with these people. Also the Virtus program is not just about screening for potential abusers it is also about teaching people to recognize the signs of abuse so that if you were to witness the signs which since you would be in an out of the office and places where counseling would be going on you would be in a position to you may be in a position to recognize and report it. It also makes you responsible for reporting it. Also it teaches you about enclosed spaces that would need to be secured etc so that abusers that may or may not be connected with the Parish could not lure children there. All of these are important it has nothing to do with you right as the program is strictly voluntary - if you want to serve in a,b, or c capacity then you will do a, b,and c training and checks. If not go to mass like everyone else. Now quit whining. I served in order to give people like you the right to flap their gums about their rights being taken away due to sense of entitlement - no one has a right to the altar or the lecturn. God gives some the honor and whatever He asks we should give in return.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

You are not a lector, you are a lay reader.

I am shocked your Parish and Diocese do not require background checks for volunteers. I pray they change that.

Lets ask this question. If a person is a convicted felon, should that disqualify them from being a EMHC or Reader at Mass?

 

[kage_ar]

Lets ask this question. If a person is a convicted felon, should that disqualify them from being a EMHC or Reader at Mass?

If they do not pass the requirements of the USCCB for background checks, then, out of obedience they should abide by those requirements.

EMHCs are overused, they should go back to being “extroridnary”. Readers, we have Priests and Deacons to read.

 

[jmcrae]

Lets ask this question. If a person is a convicted felon, should that disqualify them from being a EMHC or Reader at Mass?

Wouldn’t you want to know about it, if they were, so as to be able to provide appropriate support?

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

If they do not pass the requirements of the USCCB for background checks, then, out of obedience they should abide by those requirements.

EMHCs are overused, they should go back to being “extroridnary”. Readers, we have Priests and Deacons to read.

Over use of EMHC is not the question here. I don’t actually know exactly what the USCCB background check requirements are. The question is should a convicted criminal (NOT convicted of a sexual crime) be excluded from Lay Liturgical Ministry? From Lay Social Ministries? From youth Ministry? Keeping in mind that since they are not in jail they have done their time.

 

[kage_ar]

Over use of EMHC is not the question here. I don’t actually know exactly what the USCCB background check requirements are. The question is should a convicted criminal (NOT convicted of a sexual crime) be excluded from Lay Liturgical Ministry? From Lay Social Ministries? From youth Ministry? Keeping in mind that since they are not in jail they have done their time.

Again, I defer to the guidelines of the USCCB and the local Bishop

usccb.org/ocyp/safe_environment.shtml

I am not aware that convicted felons are excluded under the current guidelines. If the Bishops permit, I obey the shepherd.

 

[Aramis]

Over use of EMHC is not the question here. I don’t actually know exactly what the USCCB background check requirements are. The question is should a convicted criminal (NOT convicted of a sexual crime) be excluded from Lay Liturgical Ministry? From Lay Social Ministries? From youth Ministry? Keeping in mind that since they are not in jail they have done their time.

It should be based upon the nature of the ministry and the crime.

I don’t want convicted thieves ushering, since in most places, ushers also perform the collection.

The principle is one of not putting them in a position where they are tempted to reoffend.

And release does not mean they completed their sentence. In many cases, it means they are still serving under parole…