Forbidden to lector or cantor

[Cygnus_X1]

This has been a tough subject for me, and one that has made me come thisclose to leaving the Catholic Church.

In the wake of the clergy sex scandals, my Archdiocese came up with much stricter regulations for all laity who volunteer for the liturgy and elsewhere. You can see the details here.

Somehow, it was determined that being a lector or cantor means having “substantial contact with children.” I find that difficult to believe.

In the application for volunteering (it’s come to this, that we must apply to volunteer ), there’s a line just before the signature:

I waive any right that I may have to inspect any information provided about me in connection with this application.

I refused to sign the application because I do not consent to such a waiver. Even when I applied for a Top Secret security clearance, I had the right to review what others said about me when interviewed by investigators. The refusal of the Archdiocese to abide by the Sixth Amendment is something I cannot accept. My then-pastor therefore dismissed me as a lector and cantor. I have occasionally lectored since at a shrine that is not under the Archdiocese’s authority.

If my position were involving “substantial contact with children”, maybe I could see the point, although I’d still disagree in principle. But since when does a cantor or lector have such contact?

I went to the National Catholic Register about this a few years ago, and have written letters to His Eminence to no avail. I wonder if I’m going to have to appeal to the Vatican. I really don’t want to take the Archdiocese to court, although I’m willing to do so if that’s what it takes. The Archdiocese told the NCR that they haven’t had any complaints from other lay volunteers, but that’s not true; I’ve talked to others who are just as disheartened. Why should the Archdiocese acknowledge them?

Does anyone else feel as I do? Why is the Archdiocese happy to deprive me of my gifts to the liturgy? Or am I being obtuse?

And why should the laity suffer the sins of the clergy?

 

[GregoryPalamas]

We had a similar situation in the BC Church. It is a red herring. The problems have not been with volunteers but with a handful of rogue priests and very bad, invcompetant and sometimes evil bishops. Not being able to confront ones accuser, should there be one, is unjust. If we could be as confident that clergy were under even more severe scrutiny it might be different. As of now, such an overbearing screening of lay volunteers seems over the top.

Let there be screening, to be sure, but let the accused be able to face the accuser.

CDL

 

[baltobetsy]

As a cantor in my parish church, I have managed to escape the volunteer application so far.

I also sing in the choir in an Episcopal church, and we, as church employees, were all required to take a class about sexual abuse of children, because we supposedly have contact with kids and some kind of fiduciary responsibility for them. Maybe once a month the Youth Choir sings at the same service with us. That’s the extent of our contact with them - we’re all in the same room for an hour. It was a ridiculous waste of time, but it was required in order to stay employed.

Betsy

 

[puzzleannie]

And why should the laity suffer the sins of the clergy?

there are many legitimate objections to the efficacy and necessity of Virtus and other similar “child protection” programs mandated in US dioceses, and we have several threads for this discussions. I am only going to add that in many of not most dioceses there are actually more pending or reported cases of child sexual abuse involving lay persons, teachers, youth ministers, catechists, DREs, religious sisters and brothers, coaches etc. than there are against priests. the next biggest lawsuit headaches faced by dioceses are negligence and liability issues, which a good child safety program should also address. this is not really a secret but I never see it discussed, the fact that there is an equally large volume of past cases involving laity as with priests.

OPs gripe, and it is legitimate, is who defines which ministries and functions have “substantial contact with children”. We had a mens service club start up in this parish, they do physical projects, building, repairs, painting, delivering food etc., nothing liturgical, religious, or with CCD or the school. some of the members started bringing their teenage children to various service projects, which was agains the rules, but they did it anyhow. As administrator of Protecting God’s Children I had to tell them now that teens are involved in their work all members have to take the orientation and submit to a background check. Half the members objected so a very worthwhile organization now no longer exists.

In this parish and in most parishes I know of the lectors and ushers and servers train and function alongside youth who are also being trained (we don’t allow EMHCs under 18) so eveyone is supposed to go through PGC and background check. So far it has not been a problem since almost everyone involved is also in some activity that is youth-oriented and have already had PGC training. But it could very well be a problem in the future.

Our adult RCIA program used to be exempt, but since some candidates sometimes bring their children since they are coming after Mass, we have had to put everyone through PGC, including the sponsors. We have lost sponsors for that reason.

please don’t blame the employees like me who in obedience to the bishops administer these programs. Blame those really at fault, the abusers themselves. Recognize that like airport security checks they are a fact of life in our troubled society. As far as your very legit constitutional concerns, there is a debate on this topic, yet to be resolved, and it will probably take a few court cases. Cardinal Mahoney, who is certainly not a favorite on these forums, has been aggressively pursuing the exact constitutional issues you raise in his legal approach to the problem in his diocese, and has received unceasing criticism on all fronts for that stance.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

I have to agree with you that I can’t see how a lector or cantor has contact with children. It seems the archdiocese (or your parish) has carried things a bit far.

Your Sixth Amendment argument doesn’t work since it applies to the government, not to private entities like the church. However, it still strikes me as ethically wrong not to allow you to know what comments have been made about you.

Since I work with adults in RCIA, I don’t have to worry about being checked out or required to take classes regarding abuse of children. If I were required to do these things, I would have to pray very, very hard about it. My first reaction is that it’s not lay volunteers who caused the problems we’ve been hearing about for the past five years. We’re not the ones who have led to multimillion dollar lawsuits. And I don’t think it’s right to treat us as if we’re under a cloud of suspicion unless we can prove otherwise.

At the same time, there’s a sort of discernment that goes on about people in various ministries. Is this particular ministry a good fit for this particular person? Perhaps a negative reaction on our part to a requirement for the position is a sign that it’s not a good fit for us and we should look for something else, hard as that may be. For me, at least, there’s an element of pride involved – how dare you consider something bad about me? – and pride is a hard thing to deal with.

 

[Marauder]

Our adult RCIA program used to be exempt, but since some candidates sometimes bring their children since they are coming after Mass, we have had to put everyone through PGC, including the sponsors. We have lost sponsors for that reason.

This is a perfect example of taking the situation to far. It is one thing to require volunteers that deal with kids even in peripheral manners to go through the training and get the clearance but just because someone may bring their kids with them to an event is going WAY to far. If the parents are there they are responsable for their kids the entire time. Forcing the sponsers (unless they are sponsering kids) to go through the clearance process just because someone may bring a kid to the meetings is way overboard.

You know I go to Mass and there are kids there, do I now need to get cleared?

 

[Cygnus_X1]

I have to agree with you that I can’t see how a lector or cantor has contact with children. It seems the archdiocese (or your parish) has carried things a bit far.

Your Sixth Amendment argument doesn’t work since it applies to the government, not to private entities like the church. However, it still strikes me as ethically wrong not to allow you to know what comments have been made about you.

Point to you that it doesn’t apply, but that doesn’t mean it’s a bad principle.

At the same time, there’s a sort of discernment that goes on about people in various ministries. Is this particular ministry a good fit for this particular person? Perhaps a negative reaction on our part to a requirement for the position is a sign that it’s not a good fit for us and we should look for something else, hard as that may be. For me, at least, there’s an element of pride involved – how dare you consider something bad about me? – and pride is a hard thing to deal with.

I hear you, but the fact is that if I wanted to volunteer for the Archdiocese in just about ANY fashion, I’d have to sign this document, which I cannot do in good conscience. So I don’t think it’s the nature of the volunteer work in and of itself that’s the problem.

 

[Cygnus_X1]

This is a perfect example of taking the situation to far. It is one thing to require volunteers that deal with kids even in peripheral manners to go through the training and get the clearance but just because someone may bring their kids with them to an event is going WAY to far. If the parents are there they are responsable for their kids the entire time. Forcing the sponsers (unless they are sponsering kids) to go through the clearance process just because someone may bring a kid to the meetings is way overboard.

You know I go to Mass and there are kids there, do I now need to get cleared?

Exactly. And think about this: What child abuser would think twice about signing such a document with no guilty conscience at all?

 

[Cygnus_X1]

As a cantor in my parish church, I have managed to escape the volunteer application so far.

I also sing in the choir in an Episcopal church, and we, as church employees, were all required to take a class about sexual abuse of children, because we supposedly have contact with kids and some kind of fiduciary responsibility for them. Maybe once a month the Youth Choir sings at the same service with us. That’s the extent of our contact with them - we’re all in the same room for an hour. It was a ridiculous waste of time, but it was required in order to stay employed.

Betsy, I’ve heard that this regulation hasn’t been uniformly applied parish by parish, but the Archdiocese is “getting to them all.” My former parish must have been one of the first to be so audited.

 

[puzzleannie]

Exactly. And think about this: What child abuser would think twice about signing such a document with no guilty conscience at all?

this is my biggest gripe with the program other than the fact that the paperwork nightmare it creates dwarfs most of my other administrative responsibilities. The program has not been proven to identify and remove offenders from contact with children, its stated goal. We have had in this diocese in the past 2-3 years a DRE, a paid coach in a youth program sponsored by the diocese, 3 lay volunteers, and a scoutmaster arrested for various offenses agains children under their care. they all went through the training and background checks, which did nothing to keep them from hurting anyone. This is not gossip it is all a matter, sadly, of public record.

 

[thechrismyster]

if it were me, i’d just cross out the provisions you don’t agree with, inital the changes and send it in with your signature.
if they accept it, they accept your revision.

it’ll go through and be filed without anyone looking at it, most likely.

i find with most legal matters, if you take the quiet route, most things like this will fall under everyones radar.

The Catholic church IS a private entity and can word things as they see fit. you, on the other hand, can also take liberties with what you agree with…

 

[Cygnus_X1]

there are many legitimate objections to the efficacy and necessity of Virtus and other similar “child protection” programs mandated in US dioceses, and we have several threads for this discussions. I am only going to add that in many of not most dioceses there are actually more pending or reported cases of child sexual abuse involving lay persons, teachers, youth ministers, catechists, DREs, religious sisters and brothers, coaches etc. than there are against priests. the next biggest lawsuit headaches faced by dioceses are negligence and liability issues, which a good child safety program should also address. this is not really a secret but I never see it discussed, the fact that there is an equally large volume of past cases involving laity as with priests.

Annie, I’m not doubting your word, but until more of this appears in the media, I have to take it as hearsay. (ETA: Although it hasn’t been seen in MY media; guess such stuff doesn’t make national news.)

Could it happen with the laity? Absolutely. And it could have to do with anti-clergy biases on the media’s part.

And as I said, an actual abuser wouldn’t think twice about signing any document.

 

[Cygnus_X1]

if it were me, i’d just cross out the provisions you don’t agree with, inital the changes and send it in with your signature.
if they accept it, they accept your revision.

it’ll go through and be filed without anyone looking at it, most likely.

I was informed that would not be acceptable. But it’s a good suggestion.

 

[puzzleannie]

Annie, I’m not doubting your word, but until more of this appears in the media, I have to take it as hearsay.

Could it happen with the laity? Absolutely. And it could have to do with anti-clergy biases on the media’s part.

And as I said, an actual abuser wouldn’t think twice about signing any document.

all the cases I mentioned were covered in local media. The statistics are there to examine, every diocese publishes financial reports that show how much has been paid out on such lawsuits, and whether the offenders are priests or laity. You just don’t see dramatic coverage in the Boston Globe because little old lady offender is not as newsworthy as priest offender. As with the cases involving priests, by far the greatest number of offenses are with teens who may or may not have been “willing” (whatever that means) participants in the activity. Many more are sexual misconduct with other adults which may or may not result in lawsuits but of course did result in dismissal when discovered. I have not seen the same type of analysis applied to cases involving laity as Jenkins did with priestly cases, although he did touch on the problem in his report, but historically male:male contact of a homosexual nature is the most common offense.

All that being said, there are still the constitutional issues, and constitutional protection usually ceases once you enter the private sector, and the issue of efficacy and the brutal one of cost effectiveness.

 

[Cygnus_X1]

all the cases I mentioned were covered in local media. The statistics are there to examine, every diocese publishes financial reports that show how much has been paid out on such lawsuits, and whether the offenders are priests or laity. You just don’t see dramatic coverage in the Boston Globe because little old lady offender is not as newsworthy as priest offender.

Good point. Thanks.

 

[thechrismyster]

I was informed that would not be acceptable. But it’s a good suggestion.

you can’t ASK if they’ll accept it. you just have to do it and let them miss it.
of course they’ll tell you its not acceptable. that doesn’t mean anything, though.

 

[Cygnus_X1]

you can’t ASK if they’ll accept it. you just have to do it and let them miss it!

Look at it this way; if they could have “missed it,” they wouldn’t have noticed my lack of an application either (see baltobetsy’s post above).

 

[Trelow]

I have to say I agree with the steps taken by your Archdiocese. It in no ways infringes on anyones right. I’m sorry you feel offended.

 

[thechrismyster]

I have to say I agree with the steps taken by your Archdiocese. It in no ways infringes on anyones right. I’m sorry you feel offended.

for the government, for the church… for NO man do you waive your constitutional rights to face your accuser.

the Church has taken the stand of “NO SECRETS”…ITS ALL IN THE OPEN…

no secrets! (except the church in this case, they can keep secrets from you!)

which removes credibility when they say they keep “no secrets” and yet tell you in a contract they’re willing to keep secrets from you… i smell irony.

 

[Cygnus_X1]

I have to say I agree with the steps taken by your Archdiocese. It in no ways infringes on anyones right. I’m sorry you feel offended.

Yes it does. It infringes on my right to serve using my God-given talents.

I don’t recall Jesus saying, “Let the little children come to me . . .once their parents have signed a waiver.” :banghead: