Forbidden to lector or cantor

[Orogeny]

**And it did not keep them away from children! Were they kicked out of the parish? Are they forbidden to go into restrooms where a child might be alone? Do that sit at seperate tables so they can’t talk children into walking out to the parking lot? Was a bulletin prepared and posted notifying parents of this potential danger? No? then I prove my point. **At best, these programs give a very false sense of protection.

You are right, Rob’s Wife. Because we can’t control their every movement, let’s scrap all of these programs and just let anyone who wants to be around our kids. That is probably the best, safest approach. At least then they won’t have to sneak around to get the access they need and no one will have to go through with those awful background and reference checks, not to mention the horrible awareness training.

Peace

Tim

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

There certainly would be lawsuits if you were to see the results of a confidential background check. I wasn’t given their names and I labeled them as potential predators because that is what they are. I didn’t say they are predators.

:banghead: **You completely miss the point. And I question whether that is how the lawsuit would work. It’s just as likely someone could say, they did a background check on so-and-so and found they were a danger and didn’t tell anyone about it. For example, if I found out my kid was molested and someone in the church knew they were trying to get access to kids (such as volunteering), but didn’t tell anyone - I would be absolutely furious. **

By the way, I consider myself a good person and I passed the background check.
I’m a good person too and have passed many background checks myself. So has my hubby.

---

The point of the background check has to do with due diligence. If the Church doesn’t do them and a volunteer/employee with a traceable history molests a child that they gained access to through the Church, the Church would be liable.
hmm, so they do the check … then what? Once the church is aware of a “traceable history” does their obligation end there? What does the church do to prevent the person from having access to the kids?! Nothing. Like I said, is it in the bulletin? Are parents told that so-and-so has a “traceable history” so they can steer their child away? No.

I find this whole discussion a bit irritating. We rightly complain about priests who molest children and we turn a blind eye to non-clergy that do the same thing because it doesn’t get as much press.
Not one person is doing that, imo. In fact, the major problem with these entire programs is that they don’t stop the problem for anyone. It’s a lot of busy work with no results. It’s not priest vs laity at all to me.

Are we willing to protect our children or not?
YES! And this doesn’t do it!

---

If you find the idea of background and reference checks and awareness training abhorrent, don’t volunteer. When you convince enough people to follow your lead, don’t be surprised when there are no teachers for your children’s RE classes.
**Okay. That’s my plan and I’m okay with it. **
I don’t think for a minute it will result in no more RE classes. I think it will result in some common sense being used to give genuine safety to our children.

Peace

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

You are right, Rob’s Wife. Because we can’t control their every movement, let’s scrap all of these programs and just let anyone who wants to be around our kids. That is probably the best, safest approach. At least then they won’t have to sneak around to get the access they need and no one will have to go through with those awful background and reference checks, not to mention the horrible awareness training.

Peace

Tim

---

**

The ONLY thing we need do to protect kids is gasp stay WITH them at least 2 people or their own parent at all times.

/QUOTE]**

 

[beckers]

There are many reasons that people fail their background checks. Does the church give grounds for which things discount someone from service (ie. Drugs, assault, stealing or is it only bodily injury to a child that counts?) Some things stay on your record for 10 years (misdemeanor) and some stay for 20 years (felony). But will a name really do? Should we have a poster at the front of the church with everyone’s picture on it who has failed a background check so that everyone knows who they are so they don’t sit next to them at church? If you go into the mall or any public places you are going to find molesters. Should they all wear shirts that identify them at all times? I mean where is the line between protecting society and someone rights?

When taking the training from the church we were taught that the number one thing to stop these predators is to limit access. Molestation can happen in an random instant (kidnapping off the street) or long term (family member or friend who has gained trust of the child). That means parents or trusted adults should stay with children at all times, know who your children are with, TEACH them what is not okay for an adult to do to them and that they should come to you with questions anytime. It may be uncomfortable but it could be the talk that saves your child! Sadly enough many parents do not talk to their children about personal safety.

To the OP:
Looking into your state laws. Those forms are standard but may not be enforceable in your state. You can call the state or email them if you can’t find the answer. They might be faster then waiting for the church. If it isn’t enforceable then you can sign away but it seems weird that they would make you do this for cantor? There are good intentions but they have thrown the baby out with the bath water when it comes to common sense.

 

[az_4_faith]

IMO, this whole subject has much more to do with money and protection from lawsuits than anything else.

 

[Servulus]

…I refused to sign the application because I do not consent to such a waiver.

You were, of course, completely within your rights to decline to sign the waiver. The fact that the waiver was offered indicates a recognition of and respect for your right to determine how information about you can be used.

The refusal of the Archdiocese to abide by the Sixth Amendment is something I cannot accept.

The first four words of the Sixth Amendment are “In all criminal prosecutions”. This matter involves no prosecution, so the amendment would not seem to apply. In addition, your acceptance as a volunteer is not a criminal matter, but rather a civil one.

My then-pastor therefore dismissed me as a lector and cantor.

If there are eligibility or qualification requirements in place for a volunteer position and you declined to submit to those requirements, what choice did the pastor have? If the requirements need to be changed, that’s a different matter and should be pursued as such. While the requirements are in place, though, it shouldn’t surprise or disappoint anyone if they’re enforced.

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

Why should the innocent traveler suffer the sins of the 9/11 hijackers?
Why ask why?
The fact is that the wrongs done by the few often have consequences for the many. That’s just the way things work sometimes.

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

That’s not a right. It’s a privilege.

Volunteering is a privilege, especially when the Church is hard up for volunteers at most parishes. That’s rich.

The **INSTRUCTION ON CERTAIN QUESTIONS **REGARDING THE COLLABORATION OF THE NON-ORDAINED FAITHFUL IN THE SACRED MINISTRY OF THE PRIEST, published by the Holy Father in 1997 addresses this question clearly, quoting Canon Law (228, § 1):

"…the non-ordained faithful do not enjoy a right to such tasks and functions. Rather, they are ‘capable of being admitted by the sacred Pastors…to those functions which, in accordance with the provisions of law, they can discharge.’ "

Your disappointment is understandable, but be careful that it doesn’t cause you to lose your perspective.

Prayers,
Servulus

 

[otjm]

The problem is not in the background investigation; it is in the inability to shortstop incorrect and purposely wrong information. While reasonable people may disagree on the necessity of certain activities requiring a background check on every participant, the issue truly at hand is the inability to determine if false accusations have been made.

The Church is over-reacting at least in part by requiring a waiver, and various diocese may be over-reacting by requiring certain positions to be investigated.

There are any number of safeguards that can be put in place to provide protection for children without the over-reaction this case illustrates (and others in the thread as well). There are several difficult issues at hand; one is the size of the judgements that have come down (even one multi-million dollar judgement will get some attention; multiple awards set a precedent that almost begs for cases to be 'manufactured"); and the simple fact that the problem with common sense is that it is not common.

Also to be kept in mind (although it really has no bearing on the legitimacy, or otherwise, of not being able to confront any accuser) is the simple and all too common fact that after a good scare, people eventually start letting their guards down. We are all in a lather now about protecting children. The example of the men’s group who was allowing teenagers to come is a prime example of some people not getting the message that child abuse has occured and is always a background threat - and this might be said of either those who brought their children, and/or those who saw no issue if others brought children.

 

[rayne89]

Our parish requires anyone who volunteers in any capacity at all to submit to a background check, virtus classes, and the waiver.

I guess I will never be a volunteer in any capacity.

No I’ve never done anything and don’t plan to.

It’s wrong. It doesn’t stop diddly. It goes against basic common sense.

My latest complaint about this is that now they say I can’t stay with my own kid for things unless I’ve gone through all this. In other words, I can’t even sit next to my kid through their CCD class. I can drop off and pick up, but I can’t stay in the classroom. How stupid is that?

**Oh well, as mentioned elsewhere, the program is often barely recognisable as Catholic anyhow so it’s no huge loss for my kid not to be there anyhow. **

**The ONLY thing we need do to protect kids is gasp stay WITH them at least 2 people or their own parent at all times. Predators are looking to get your kid alone, even for just 1 minute, and they will have no problem smiling as they fill out paperwork and watch a video on what you are looking for to get access to do it either. **

**argh… I need more coffee. I’m getting cranky. **

At our previous parish we belonged to a group of 9 families that would meet once a month in the parish hall for a meal, scripture/bible story and crafts. We had been meeting together for several years. My family moved to a different parish because of a new priest and heterodox bologna that was going on but continued meeting with these families we had established friendships with. A couple years after leaving the parish it was becoming more and more difficult to make the meetings due to other commitments and really we had joined the group to get to know families at our parish (which we were now no longer attending.) What finally made us withdraw from the group was this virtus training/background check stuff.

Because we met on parish grounds we were required to go through it. Even though all the families were present with their children all the time. My husband works a lot of overtime. We were going to have to take one of the few Saturdays he gets off get up early (he works afternoon shift)and spend it at this all day useless training session.

I found it so ridiculous because the parents were always with their children during our once a month meetings. Every single person that voluteers at our previous parish or belongs to any church group has to go through this. Even if it is a group of elderly women that meet together or a mens prayer group. Every single person that is in anyway involved in the church has to go through this according to the new priest.

There is nothing my hubby and I have to hide, if they did a background check they would find nothing. It really was this all day training thing that I found ridiculous. I think this is just a cover to make it look like the church is doing something due to the priest scandal.

It also gives a false sense of security. My bestfriend’s BIL molested her as a child and it was never reported.Not in a million years would you guess by looking at this man that he was a child molester. Another good friend was molested by her brother and it was never reported. Another by her step father -never reported. These people would check out just fine yet they are child molesters. The best protection for children is their parents to be vigilant and not allow their children to be in positions where someone could take advantage of them.

 

[jpjd]

Our first obligation is to the children. All of you who object to your diocese’s measures, you think you’re offended??? How about those children who were abused??? Why don’t you go talk to one sometime.

You, as lector and cantor, become an authority figure to the children, whether you realize it or not. I am lector and EMHC and I’ve had children I don’t even know come up and talk to me because they think they know me because they see me so often up front. Any leadership figure who children might come into contact with must be screened. Not just you approaching them, but them approaching you. That includes lectors and cantors. Signing a form is a small price to pay to protect the innocence of a child. You should sign that form with gladness and know that you are doing your part to protect the youth of your parish.

Instead of being indignant, you should be leaping for joy that your diocese is taking, not just measures, but strict measures, to do what they can to screen out the vermin who prey on our children.

 

[Cygnus_X1]

Our first obligation is to the children. All of you who object to your diocese’s measures, you think you’re offended??? How about those children who were abused??? Why don’t you go talk to one sometime.

You, as lector and cantor, become an authority figure to the children, whether you realize it or not. I am lector and EMHC and I’ve had children I don’t even know come up and talk to me because they think they know me because they see me so often up front. Any leadership figure who children might come into contact with must be screened. Not just you approaching them, but them approaching you. That includes lectors and cantors. Signing a form is a small price to pay to protect the innocence of a child. You should sign that form with gladness and know that you are doing your part to protect the youth of your parish.

Instead of being indignant, you should be leaping for joy that your diocese is taking, not just measures, but strict measures, to do what they can to screen out the vermin who prey on our children.

I’ve had no such experiences with children.

My signing an illegal form does NOTHING to protect any child from a perp who wants to inflict harm on him or her. Nothing. Sorry, but “First the sentence, then the evidence” doesn’t cut it with me.

BTW, the vast majority of those who were abused? Were teens.

 

[Cygnus_X1]

If your intent is to really find out why these policies are in place instead of just gearing up for a fight, I might suggest a different path and some perspective.

First, I would suggest you contact the Archdiocese office, the Office of Child and Youth Protection, and comparable departments at the USCCB, in a Christian way find out the background on these two points (including lectors and cantors, and waiving rights). Honey will get you a lot further than vinegar, like any other situation you won’t get far attacking the people who as PuzzleAnnie said are just trying to do their jobs and could help you if you let them.

Second, while I am not a lawyer, from my business, community and diocesan experience (plus I went through the volunteer-with-children training offered in many dioceses), there are two points to consider:

1. ANYONE who has the ***potential ***of being with a child without parents present must be investigated. Consider the liability if your son or daughter was inadvertently alone with someone not investigated who had committed a sex crime, whether or not they did commit another act. Given that there are children’s liturgies, children’s ceremonies where lectors and cantors will be, separate readings of gospel and homilies where children are absent from their parents (our church does this a few masses a weekend), and more, then as an archdiocese they can’t take a chance. You can argue “That won’t happen”, but it COULD, and it DOES at some parishes. If you put yourself in the parents’ shoes, you would not want the chance taken either - and that is the stance the Archdiocese has taken. So pretty much ANY volunteer gets investigated. Also, once a volunteer is “in the community”, people ask them to do other stuff all the time. That would be impossible to track, so it’s easier to investigate all volunteers as any of them could end up with children.
2. It does not say you WON’T get access to what was said, it says you WAIVE YOUR RIGHT to it, so they MAY withhold it from you and if so you can’t force them to give it to you. Why? Because testimony in these cases could in fact come from a victim, a minor, a child, a person who risks a lot by disclosing this crime publicly, and they must be in a place to ensure their protection. The identity of minors in crimes are many times protected in civil situations. This is a legal maneuver to protect minors who could be victims. These laws bend to protect minors. What you haven’t asked and only the lawyers could tell you is what are your rights in this type of scenario. You certainly have rights, but the victims do too, and this has been worked out many times before.

Again, you may find out more about these by channeling your fury productively. You are right to not sign it if you really don’t agree, as the person that said this is not enforceable doesn’t know what they are talking about. But there are people who are experts in the diocese that will help you if you let them, and you could learn how this would all work if you really are concerned.

Good luck with this, I’ll pray for you…

I’ve already talked to /argued with the Archdiocese. They’re unwilling to budge; hence, so am I. I’d post their reply to me, but that would violate board guidelines.

My next step would necessarily be to Rome, or to a court.

 

[Cygnus_X1]

How very sad. I’ve been through the protection training many times as a Cub/Boy Scout leader. But I’ve never been asked to do it as a cantor.

It’s my understanding it was needed IF you were the leader, scoutmaster, trainer, or coach, etc. in charge of minors (other than your own) and going to be away from their parents - out of their sight. Makes sense as a scout leader or coach.

As a cantor or lector - I just don’t see it. I’ve never been in the presence of kids unless they are at mass on Sunday.

Our litigious society is consuming our common sense. I will shake my head and pray.

Thank you and Rob’s Wife both for making my point. This is putting out a campfire with a 1 1/2" firehose. Hyper-reaction.

 

[Cygnus_X1]

**And it did not keep them away from children! Were they kicked out of the parish? Are they forbidden to go into restrooms where a child might be alone? Do that sit at seperate tables so they can’t talk children into walking out to the parking lot? Was a bulletin prepared and posted notifying parents of this potential danger? No? then I prove my point. **At best, these programs give a very false sense of protection.

That’s what I’ve been saying! Don’t you think that if I had nefarious designs toward children, I would 1) apply (ugh) not for cantor or lector, but for children’s ministry or somesuch, and 2) have no guilty conscience about signing any form?

The tail is wagging the dog here big-time.

 

[Cygnus_X1]

I find this whole discussion a bit irritating. We rightly complain about priests who molest children and we turn a blind eye to non-clergy that do the same thing because it doesn’t get as much press. Are we willing to protect our children or not? If you find the idea of background and reference checks and awareness training abhorrent, don’t volunteer. When you convince enough people to follow your lead, don’t be surprised when there are no teachers for your children’s RE classes.

Sorry, Tim, but I’m not the one giving myself a stupid form. The Archdiocese has only itself to blame for turning away perfectly good volunteers who have a righteous objection to a process run amok.

 

[Cygnus_X1]

To the OP:
Looking into your state laws. Those forms are standard but may not be enforceable in your state. You can call the state or email them if you can’t find the answer. They might be faster then waiting for the church. If it isn’t enforceable then you can sign away but it seems weird that they would make you do this for cantor? There are good intentions but they have thrown the baby out with the bath water when it comes to common sense.

That’s the best suggestion I’ve heard in this thread. I’ll do that; thanks, Beckers!

 

[jpjd]

If you have nothing to hide, then you wouldn’t care what people said about you.

 

[Cygnus_X1]

Why should the innocent traveler suffer the sins of the 9/11 hijackers?
Why ask why?
The fact is that the wrongs done by the few often have consequences for the many. That’s just the way things work sometimes.

So, the end justifies the means?

The **INSTRUCTION ON CERTAIN QUESTIONS **REGARDING THE COLLABORATION OF THE NON-ORDAINED FAITHFUL IN THE SACRED MINISTRY OF THE PRIEST, published by the Holy Father in 1997 addresses this question clearly, quoting Canon Law (228, § 1):

"…the non-ordained faithful do not enjoy a right to such tasks and functions. Rather, they are ‘capable of being admitted by the sacred Pastors…to those functions which, in accordance with the provisions of law, they can discharge.’ "

Your disappointment is understandable, but be careful that it doesn’t cause you to lose your perspective.

You omitted a couple important lines:

The Code, having referred to the rights and duties of all the faithful,(46) in the subsequent title devoted to the rights and duties of the lay faithful, treats not only of those which are theirs in virtue of their secular condition,(47) but also of those tasks and functions which are not exclusively theirs. Some of these latter refer to any member of the faithful, whether ordained or not,(48) while others are considered along the lines of collaboration with the sacred ministry of cleric.(49) With regard to these last mentioned areas or functions, the non-ordained faithful do not enjoy a right to such tasks and functions. Rather, they are “capable of being admitted by the sacred Pastors… to those functions which, in accordance with the provisions of law, they can discharge” (50) or where “ministers are not available… they can supply certain of their functions… in accordance with the provisions of law”.(51)

The document does not elaborate on where the ministries of the cantor and lector fall within this hierarchy.

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

If you have nothing to hide, then you wouldn’t care what people said about you.

Such were the dying words of freedom…
right before the axe came down on the innocent man…
but that’s okay …
because it could never happen to me or mine…
what’s that noise I hear in the background?
**sounds like a knife sharpening??? **

That whole wormy issue aside…
The question is not one of innocence.
The question is:
Does it work?
And if not, which is the claim being made here by myself, then is it right to participate in the delusion that it is?

 

[hopefull]

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.

 

[Cygnus_X1]

If you have nothing to hide, then you wouldn’t care what people said about you.

A tired and weak argument. It doesn’t validate the process.

BTW, my wife also refused to sign for the same reason.