Forbidden to lector or cantor

[Rob_s_Wife]

if there was no molestation, there wouldn’t have been lawsuits.
it’s not the CULTURE that caused the lawsuits… it’s men with no self control.

keep blame focused like a laser.

/of course, cue moderator warning to stay on topic.
//this would be fodder for a new thread
//back to the OP now!

I disagree.
**I think it’s a culture of lawsuits that caused the majority of the lawsuits, but agree THAT is a whole other wormy thread entirely. **

---

**Aside from that, although none of us have a “right” to volunteer in any capacity. We all are required to serve God in SOME capacity. Again those corporal and spiritual works of mercy can be a real pain at times. **

---

It is one thing to say, “well just don’t bother to volunteer” and another to ignore a problem situation. Esp if it comes to the point that children still are not protected and the Church is not serving the needs of society or even it’s own members. (such as previously mentioned - no RE, no cantor, etc…)

 

[Trelow]

I must have missed the part where we went through due process with the Archdiocese about the issue.

I don’t care if he has something to hide or not. I don’t care if the regulations of the archdiocese are overreaching or not. I care that the proper channels are followed for dispute.

I apologize for my harshness. If anyone is familiar with D&D, I’m about as far to the left (lawful) on the law/chaos axis as you can get. I have no tolerance for disobedience/dissent. As my favorite Maddox shirt states: Civil disobedience is still disobedience.

---

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

Civil disobedience is still disobedience.

Is he disobeying anyone?
It doesn’t appear so.
He was volunteering as lector.
They wanted lectors to do this.
He didn’t want to do it.
They removed him as lector.
He is no longer lector.
I don’t see any disobedience there.

---

Now, if the archbishop were to tell him, “You must be lector” and he refused or refused to do what was neccessary for that position, such as the procedures mentioned here, THAT would be disobedience.

---

Or if after being fired he just kept trying to be lector (boy that sounds like a rather difficult thing!) THAT would be disobedience.

---

Choosing to not do soemthing you do not have to do to begin with is not disobedience.

 

[Trelow]

Is he disobeying anyone?
It doesn’t appear so.
He was volunteering as lector.
They wanted lectors to do this.
He didn’t want to do it.
They removed him as lector.
He is no longer lector.
I don’t see any disobedience there.

Now, if the archbishop were to tell him, “You must be lector” and he refused or refused to do what was neccessary for that position, such as the procedures mentioned here, THAT would be disobedience.

Or if after being fired he just kept trying to be lector (boy that sounds like a rather difficult thing!) THAT would be disobedience.

Choosing to not do soemthing you do not have to do to begin with is not disobedience.

It’s a reference to the extent of the law/chaos axis of my thought process, not his behavior.

 

[jmcrae]

How does it “protect the children” that anybody who wants to can anonymously make an accusation of child molestation against anyone in the Church they want, and never be asked to present any actual evidence, or never be arrested for perjury?

Don’t happen to like the Lector’s voice - too soft, or too strident? Reads too fast, or too slow? If he has signed one of these documents, it’s very easy to get rid of him - all you have to do is anonymously accuse him of child molestation, and off he goes to jail for the rest of his life, never to be seen again - no trial, and no recourse.

If they were to just require that volunteers and staff do a safety course, that would be fine. (Puzzleannie has told us that these don’t work, anyway.) But I would never, ever waive my right to a fair trial.

If I am accused of something, I want to know what it is that I am being accused of, and I want to see the face of my accuser, and hear his story with my own ears.

I don’t think anybody should just sign away their civil rights. I think that’s completely crazy.

 

[Orogeny]

How does it “protect the children” that anybody who wants to can anonymously make an accusation of child molestation against anyone in the Church they want, and never be asked to present any actual evidence, or never be arrested for perjury?

Don’t happen to like the Lector’s voice - too soft, or too strident? Reads too fast, or too slow? If he has signed one of these documents, it’s very easy to get rid of him - all you have to do is anonymously accuse him of child molestation, and off he goes to jail for the rest of his life, never to be seen again - no trial, and no recourse.

What are you talking about??? Does Canada not have trials? Do you go to jail for life without a trial? Doesn’t work that way in the U.S.

The Virtus program or any other program won’t keep someone from making a false accusation, but it won’t induce someone to do so, either.

If they were to just require that volunteers and staff do a safety course, that would be fine. (Puzzleannie has told us that these don’t work, anyway.) But I would never, ever waive my right to a fair trial.

If I am accused of something, I want to know what it is that I am being accused of, and I want to see the face of my accuser, and hear his story with my own ears.

You don’t waive your rights for facing your accuser in a trial by signing that form. That form has NOTHING to do with a trial.

Peace

Tim

 

[az_4_faith]

How does it “protect the children” that anybody who wants to can anonymously make an accusation of child molestation against anyone in the Church they want, and never be asked to present any actual evidence, or never be arrested for perjury?

Don’t happen to like the Lector’s voice - too soft, or too strident? Reads too fast, or too slow? If he has signed one of these documents, it’s very easy to get rid of him - all you have to do is anonymously accuse him of child molestation, and off he goes to jail for the rest of his life, never to be seen again - no trial, and no recourse.

If they were to just require that volunteers and staff do a safety course, that would be fine. (Puzzleannie has told us that these don’t work, anyway.) But I would never, ever waive my right to a fair trial.

If I am accused of something, I want to know what it is that I am being accused of, and I want to see the face of my accuser, and hear his story with my own ears.

I don’t think anybody should just sign away their civil rights. I think that’s completely crazy.

BINGO!

I have no problem with protecting children. At one time recently, I was a paid employee of the Church and I submitted my fingerprints, background information and attended each and every one of those classes in order to serve as an employee. It never occured to me to object, because it was a condition of my employment, and I knew the parish human resources dept. would be the only ones privvy to that information.

But nowhere, anywhere, was I asked to sign a waiver such as the one the OP has stated. At that point, I would have refused, even if it had meant losing my job. Their request would have been entirely unreasonable. Who gives them the right to know information about me that they would not share with me? How do I know it’s accurate and how could I possibly defend myself if it wasn’t? I can’t believe the diocese would even have the nerve to even suggest people sign something as ridiculous as that. And shame on those who sheepishly submit. Not to the classes, or even the background checks mind you – but those who sign the waiver with the mindset that “if you have nothing to hide, why wouldn’t you sign it?” Communism and facism are designed in the same way.

 

[jmcrae]

What are you talking about??? Does Canada not have trials? Do you go to jail for life without a trial? Doesn’t work that way in the U.S.

The Virtus program or any other program won’t keep someone from making a false accusation, but it won’t induce someone to do so, either.You don’t waive your rights for facing your accuser in a trial by signing that form. That form has NOTHING to do with a trial.

Did you read it? Yes it does. It says that if someone makes an accusation against you, you waive your right to know who that person is and what the accusation is.

These are the foundations of the trial system. If you are not allowed to know who your accuser is, or of what you are being accused, then how do you get a fair trial? (Have you ever read Kafka? This reminds me of Kafka.)

 

[Orogeny]

Did you read it? Yes it does. It says that if someone makes an accusation against you, you waive your right to know who that person is and what the accusation is.

These are the foundations of the trial system. If you are not allowed to know who your accuser is, or of what you are being accused, then how do you get a fair trial? (Have you ever read Kafka? This reminds me of Kafka.)

Your acceptance of that in a volunteer application has no bearing on a criminal trial. The constitution trumps any such language in an application.

How does not agreeing to those terms or participating in the training keep someone from making a false accusation against you?

Peace

Tim

 

[Cygnus_X1]

Here is someone who:

1. dismisses every opposing comment without addressing it.
2. who is not concerned about the best interests of the children or the Church.

Therefore, this person must have an ax to grind with the Church.

You can’t show me how this is “concerned with the best interests of the children or the Church.” I’m not amused by how you take my stance to mean that.

And I do have an ax to grind. With my Cardinal and my Archdiocese.

 

[Cygnus_X1]

…“It doesn’t matter what does or doesn’t give glory to God.”…

Well then, what are your reasons for wanting to serve?

Pax Tecum,
Penitant

Because God gave me my gift of voice to be used for His purposes. And some bureaucrat/lawyer in my Archdiocese has seen fit to deprive me of it. Are you trying to say they know better than God?

 

[childofmary1143]

Cygnus X1 situation is more serious than what people here realize in my opinion and I think people don’t realize the big picture.

Ask yourself this, why does the Archdiocese have the no-waive clause in it? Yes I am sure it has to do with protecting itself from a lawsuit but if a child were to make an allegation of improper behaviour then do you think that the Diocese would not do something to remove the accused from his/her ministry/job? Following that there could very well be some sort of criminal investigation.

While lectoring isn’t a right, nevertheless as Catholics, we are obligated to USE our talents less we become that man who buries his talent. We also have the GOD GIVEN RIGHT to a good reputation. If anybody here thinks that this procedure is going to ensure that then they are sorely wrong.

 

[Cygnus_X1]

I agree with you.
**I didn’t care for his previous comment a bit and it does not reflect MY opinion. **

Wait a minute.

I separate out the fight I’m having with the Archdiocese from the ministry. That is why I can safely say it has nothing to do with glorifying God.

The fact is that I’m not being allowed to glorify God with the talents He gave me.

 

[Cygnus_X1]

If you want to play at someone else’s house, you have to play by their rules. If not you can take your ball and go home.

Your objection is nothing more than an exercise in pride.

So is your response.

If you feel you have a legitimate complaint you should have taken it up with the Archdiocese in the proper form. But instead you came here waving your apparent chains of oppression, trying only to stir up emotion and rally support for your cause.

I did. Did you miss that?

Legally?

You have no case. It’s not required for you to volunteer. Therefor nearly any stipulation can be placed on volunteers.

Is this just to protect the Archdiocese from lawsuits?

Probably. But that’s what you have to do thanks to our indigent and self serving culture. If not lawsuits are filed, parishes are closed, and the faithful are without a shepherd.

You sir, have done nothing to help your situation with this thread.

It saddens me to see that you are content with the status quo. I am not. And if a little hell-raising is called for, I’ll do it.

 

[BlestOne]

I had to go through the traning to do my mandatory volunteer work at the school (yes I know it is an oximoron). Seriously, I had no problem with how it was done at my parish. I think some folks in you dicese are just taking it too far! I thought it was interesting that some objected to the program then didn’t like the consequences… Even if you think the diocese is going too far, do you really think this is an issue as long as you don’t do anything improper?

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

Wait a minute.

I separate out the fight I’m having with the Archdiocese from the ministry. That is why I can safely say it has nothing to do with glorifying God.

The fact is that I’m not being allowed to glorify God with the talents He gave me.

hmm. Maybe.
Or maybe there are other ways you can use your talents for His glory. Do not assume their limits are limiting God.

---

I would say “not being allowed” is a bit, just a bit, too strong a wording. It’s not like they duct taped your mouth shut and you will never be permitted to sing in public.

---

Now if they slander you or try to give the impression you must have something to hide because you wouldn’t do what they wanted… THAT is different.

---

So far they’ve just told you “no”.
Unjustly and irritatingly as it is - that does not deprive you of your talent or ability to give glory to God, neither of which are restricted to being cantor/lector.

 

[jmcrae]

Your acceptance of that in a volunteer application has no bearing on a criminal trial. The constitution trumps any such language in an application.

If you waive your constitutional rights, the court can take that into account and say that you have no rights. Again, I say that it is crazy and stupid to sign away your civil rights. There is no guarantee whatsoever that you will get them back if things go bad.

How does not agreeing to those terms or participating in the training keep someone from making a false accusation against you?

Participating in the training has nothing to do with it. A person can participate in training without waiving their civil rights.

How does not agreeing to those terms …] keep someone from making a false accusation against you?

Because I have not waived my right to know who they are, I can go to their house and demand an explanation. It’s even possible that the situation could be resolved in person.

I can also meet them in court and I can hear the accusation in their own words, face to face. Because they would then be required to accuse me to my face, I can figure out where the accusation is coming from, and I can tell the judge what really happened. I can then call my own witnesses to testify against the accuser, if he is being malicious.

But if I don’t know who is accusing me, or of what I am being accused, then how do I defend myself, even if I am not presumed guilty by signing the waiver?

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

I thought it was interesting that some objected to the program then didn’t like the consequences… Even if you think the diocese is going too far, do you really think this is an issue as long as you don’t do anything improper?

Yes. I have zero desire to live in a police state and even less to worship in one. Innocent people shouldn’t be treated like criminals unless they prove themselves innocent.

---

I must say it really bothers me that so many people don’t get that.

---

**That metalic sharpening noise just keeps getting louder and louder and yet no one seems to hear it… apparently it’s become white background noise. **

 

[Cygnus_X1]

I have contacted the St. Joseph Foundation with regard to my situation. I’ll let you know what reply I get.

 

[jmcrae]

Even if you think the diocese is going too far, do you really think this is an issue as long as you don’t do anything improper?

The issue is that you can be accused anonymously, and they don’t have to tell you what you are being accused of.

The Trial by Franz Kafka should be required reading for everyone in this thread, IMHO.