Forbidden to lector or cantor

[JReducation]

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

No. The policies vary from diocese to diocese and religious community to religious community. Generally, if the person is not a danger to the community there is no reason to exclude him.

We have a very famous case in the Franciscan family, which is not a secret. There is a Capuchin-Franciscan Friar who murdered his wife and unborn child. He spent many years in jail and experienced a very profound conversion. I was with him in novitiate. I’m not revealing any secrets here. There are books written by him and about him. Anyway, he entered religious life in 1971 and has been a very holy and effective religious ever since. I’m not even sure if he’s still alive, because I moved on to another branch of the order. If he is, he should be in his early 90s.

The Capuchin-Franciscans also admitted Alessandro Serenelli, the young man who murdered Maria Goretti. Fra. Alessandro died in 1970 a very holy friar and his life is being studied for canonization.

At least in our Franciscan family, we do not exclude felons who are not dangerous to the community.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[joandarc2008]

No. The policies vary from diocese to diocese and religious community to religious community. Generally, if the person is not a danger to the community there is no reason to exclude him.

We have a very famous case in the Franciscan family, which is not a secret. There is a Capuchin-Franciscan Friar who murdered his wife and unborn child. He spent many years in jail and experienced a very profound conversion. I was with him in novitiate. I’m not revealing any secrets here. There are books written by him and about him. Anyway, he entered religious life in 1971 and has been a very holy and effective religious ever since. I’m not even sure if he’s still alive, because I moved on to another branch of the order. If he is, he should be in his early 90s.

The Capuchin-Franciscans also admitted Alessandro Serenelli, the young man who murdered Maria Goretti. Fra. Alessandro died in 1970 a very holy friar and his life is being studied for canonization.

At least in our Franciscan family, we do not exclude felons who are not dangerous to the community.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

The difference being in the case you mention the Brother is being forthcoming. If someone who is in position of trust who is going to be voluneering as an EMC and be going into homes of people who is some cases are bedridden and they do not disclose but yet need to have it found on the background check how can the diocese trust them at their word. And since they are representing their diocese if they hurt the adult they are visiting, a child in the home, or even steal would not the diocese be responsible if the diocese had not done the proper checks? Overall there is a big difference between a repentant sinner and a sinner that hides his sin. The Prodigal Son did not ask for a party - he asked for a job.

 

[JReducation]

The difference being in the case you mention the Brother is being forthcoming. If someone who is in position of trust who is going to be voluneering as an EMC and be going into homes of people who is some cases are bedridden and they do not disclose but yet need to have it found on the background check how can the diocese trust them at their word. And since they are representing their diocese if they hurt the adult they are visiting, a child in the home, or even steal would not the diocese be responsible if the diocese had not done the proper checks? Overall there is a big difference between a repentant sinner and a sinner that hides his sin. The Prodigal Son did not ask for a party - he asked for a job.

I do agree with you that a truly repentant person should communicate his/her situation to the person in charge. He need not make it a public announcement. But he should not wait to have it surfface on some police report. If a person is in my ministry and tells me in advance that they had these particular circumstances in their past, I am much more comfortable accepting his/her assistance and participation than if I find it out when the chancery calls me to tell me that something came up in the police report. If I know in advance that this is going to come up, when the chancery calls me I can say that I knew about it and explain the details and why I believe that the person can be trusted. If it catches me by surprise, it’s not only embarrasing, but it will not make me feel very confident about the individual. In other words, I do get your point.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

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…

Yes. There has to be a careful balance. We are all sinners, serving one another. Everyone has the ability to do some type of ministry in the Church. A background check is fine as long as we do not use it to exclude people altogether, saying go away we don’t need you around here. The Church was given the task of forgiveness, Christ told us how many times.

 

[Aramis]

Old saying goes, “The church is a Hospital for Sinners, not a haven for saints!”

 

[EasterJoy]

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?

You cannot really tell me that you are going to leave the Church because she has finally decided that it ought to take more than a pulse before one is accepted as a volunteer? Please. You might read the story of St. Catherine Laboure of the Miraculous Medal some time. You cannot give give glory to God and yet bad-mouth the servants whom God has given authority over you. God will not require you to be disobedient in order to achieve His purposes.

Forget the lawsuit. You have no case. The Archdiocese has not deprived you of anything that belongs to you. You have no right to volunteer to dust the pews, let alone read Holy Scriptures or lead the music of the Mass. If you did, some woman would have sued to receive the priesthood by now, be certain of that. As it is, no one is stopping you from singing at Mass. You are only being denied center stage. Someone has been given the authority and responsibility to decide who will and will not serve at Mass. That person now has to pass his background check every three years, too, I might add. He is asking no conditions of you that he has not accepted for himself.

In a child’s eyes, someone who regularly reads at Mass or leads the singing at the child’s church becomes a person worthy of trust, a person to look up to. If that child were violated by a person who had been given such a position, and then found later that nobody had ever troubled themselves to find out that the same person had done the same thing to another child, the child would rightly feel the Church had failed. Knowing that the Church would never allow anyone to handle the money without making sure they were trustworthy–a good reason in itself to do background checks on the ushers, I might add–that child will know just about how important her innocence was by comparison. I don’t know where anyone got the idea that only priests have violated children’s innocence. There have been others, too. Besides, as someone else pointed out, it is not only children who are “little ones”. There are older ones whose innocence of evil will also leave them vulnerable whenever we allow a wolf to wear sheep’s clothing.

Predators offend without being caught by taking advantage of opportunities open to everybody else. Where there is an opportunity open to us that a predator might use, we need to reject having that opportunity for ourselves. That robs predators of their most common cloak: looking like everyone else and doing nothing to stand out. If we aren’t willing to do that much, what defense will we have, when the Lord asks by whose neglect or stubbornness was such-and-so child open to the predation that slaughters innocence and robs faith? “Why should the laity suffer the sins of the clergy?” will feel no different on the tongue than “Am I my brother’s keeper?”

 

[JReducation]

It would be contrary to our faith in God’s mercy and in absolution to deny someone participation, if they are no longer a threat.

There are two criteria that have to be examined.

1. Is the person repentent?
2. Is the person a threat?

The answer to the first needs to be a yes and the answer to the second must be a no. If you have the right answers, you may not exclude. As I pointed above, in the Franciscan family we have at least two known murderers. There may be others whom I don’t know about. We also have a very famous former prostitute who is now a saint, Margaret of Cortona. By our standards today, Friar Alessandro was a child sexual abuser and a murderer. Even though he was a teenager himself at the time that he killed Maria. I’m not sure if that counts as a sexual abuser, but certainly a rapist. But he passed the above test.

Decisions are made on a one-on-one basis. You can have policies, but they must allow for flexibility, otherwise we lose our sense of God’s forgiveness and mercy.

Now that I think about it, we Franciscans have certainly attracted some very interesting people, with very interesting backgrounds. Hmmmm

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[EasterJoy]

It would be contrary to our faith in God’s mercy and in absolution to deny someone participation, if they are no longer a threat.

There are two criteria that have to be examined.

1. Is the person repentent?
2. Is the person a threat?

The answer to the first needs to be a yes and the answer to the second must be a no. If you have the right answers, you may not exclude. As I pointed above, in the Franciscan family we have at least two known murderers. There may be others whom I don’t know about. We also have a very famous former prostitute who is now a saint, Margaret of Cortona. By our standards today, Friar Alessandro was a child sexual abuser and a murderer. Even though he was a teenager himself at the time that he killed Maria. I’m not sure if that counts as a sexual abuser, but certainly a rapist. But he passed the above test.

Decisions are made on a one-on-one basis. You can have policies, but they must allow for flexibility, otherwise we lose our sense of God’s forgiveness and mercy.

Now that I think about it, we Franciscans have certainly attracted some very interesting people, with very interesting backgrounds. Hmmmm

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I think the Francisicans might see themselves clear to let a former bank robber have the checkbook, too, so you are at least consistent. If you take the time to know people, such discernment is not so crazy as it sounds. Still, I would think that even the Franciscans would expect there to be a period of time in which to win back trust. If a person is not willing to be open about their past, even the Franciscans would see a red flag waving.

 

[EasterJoy]

Oh, and by the way, a victim of one of the priests moved around in years past in our archdiocese had the terrible experience of seeing the man who had victimized her presiding at Mass. It was devastating to her. What is in a predator’s past is emblazoned in someone else’s past, too. They must not be made to relive that at Mass. That has to be taken into account when it is decided that the time has come “to forgive and forget”. That can’t be allowed to happen before the primary victim is ready for that to happen.

 

[JReducation]

I think the Francisicans might see themselves clear to let a former bank robber have the checkbook, too, so you are at least consistent. If you take the time to know people, such discernment is not so crazy as it sounds. Still, I would think that even the Franciscans would expect there to be a period of time in which to win back trust. If a person is not willing to be open about their past, even the Franciscans would see a red flag waving.

The answer to this post is in post 163.

Would we let a former bank robber have the checkbook? Probably, if he is contrite and honest about his past. That goes back to post 163, how we do this. Yes, we do try to be very consistent. Maybe that’s why we have had people with such interesting backgrounds.

Here is something that is unexplainable. We have had many people with interesting backgrounds. The number of failures in our 800 year history is lest than 1%. By failures I mean people who regress to their old ways. We can count on one hand the number of those people. We’re a family that is 800 years old and today has 1.7 million, which is the smallest that we have ever been. But we have no logical explanation why the rate of regression is so small.

This has nothing to do with lector and cantors, but with other ministries. We have a very unique and autonomous Commisereate of the Holy Land. This is a special jurisdiction Franciscans that answer directly to the Holy Father. They went to Palestine when Francis struck up a deal with the Sultan to allow the friars to enter Palestine through the East. The friars who tried to go through the west were killed by other Muslims. But the friars have always been allowed to enter Palestine and to do ministry in Palestine as long as they do not try to convert the Muslims or the Jews. This was the agreement that Francis made. It is binding to this day.

The interesting thing is that the friars have welcomed Muslims and Jews to minister alongside with them… Together they run many ministries, especially to children and families. Those people who are involved in these ministries or served by them do not live in fear of each other or attack each other. In other words, they don’t regress to their old hostilities. No one knows why not. A Muslim scholar tried to explain it once, but concluded that he could not.

There is something msyterious that happens when we place ourselves in God’s merciful hands.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[EasterJoy]

The answer to this post is in post 163.

Would we let a former bank robber have the checkbook? Probably, if he is contrite and honest about his past. That goes back to post 163, how we do this. Yes, we do try to be very consistent. Maybe that’s why we have had people with such interesting backgrounds.

Here is something that is unexplainable. We have had many people with interesting backgrounds. The number of failures in our 800 year history is lest than 1%. By failures I mean people who regress to their old ways. We can count on one hand the number of those people. We’re a family that is 800 years old and today has 1.7 million, which is the smallest that we have ever been. But we have no logical explanation why the rate of regression is so small.

This has nothing to do with lector and cantors, but with other ministries. We have a very unique and autonomous Commisereate of the Holy Land. This is a special jurisdiction Franciscans that answer directly to the Holy Father. They went to Palestine when Francis struck up a deal with the Sultan to allow the friars to enter Palestine through the East. The friars who tried to go through the west were killed by other Muslims. But the friars have always been allowed to enter Palestine and to do ministry in Palestine as long as they do not try to convert the Muslims or the Jews. This was the agreement that Francis made. It is binding to this day.

The interesting thing is that the friars have welcomed Muslims and Jews to minister alongside with them… Together they run many ministries, especially to children and families. Those people who are involved in these ministries or served by them do not live in fear of each other or attack each other. In other words, they don’t regress to their old hostilities. No one knows why not. A Muslim scholar tried to explain it once, but concluded that he could not.

There is something msyterious that happens when we place ourselves in God’s merciful hands.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Exactly. If he were contrite AND open about his past, the community could make that decision. With a diocese, however, the laypeople aren’t in a position to decide that. It isn’t prudent to give them that information and have them make that determination, for many reasons. That decision is on the shoulders of the bishop. He certainly has a right to ask for a full background check and to allow people to raise their concerns anonymously, without fear of reprisal from the would-be volunteer.

OTOH, there are Franciscan communities who have made some mistakes with regards to children, too. It is one thing to leave the community bank account vulnerable. It is another to leave a child vulnerable. In the latter case, the child pays in profound ways that the community does not. The community has to err on the side of caution, on behalf of the child.

 

[JReducation]

Exactly. If he were contrite AND open about his past, the community could make that decision. With a diocese, however, the laypeople aren’t in a position to decide that. It isn’t prudent to give them that information and have them make that determination, for many reasons. That decision is on the shoulders of the bishop. He certainly has a right to ask for a full background check and to allow people to raise their concerns anonymously, without fear of reprisal from the would-be volunteer.

OTOH, there are Franciscan communities who have made some mistakes with regards to children, too. It is one thing to leave the community bank account vulnerable. It is another to leave a child vulnerable. In the latter case, the child pays in profound ways that the community does not. The community has to err on the side of caution, on behalf of the child.

Mistakes in regards to the child have been made all over the place, including our order. But we can’t throw that up everytime there is a question about judgment. We have to approach things from a balanced approach. We look at the number of mistakes and the number of success stories and we find that the success stories outnumber the mistakes. Then we look at why were these successful. In that examination, we often find something that we missed in the other situation, which allows for corrective action to take place.

As far as the child abuse situation is concerned, we have had the smallest number of cases since this mess began in the 1950s. I believe that it is due to two things. First, God’s mercy for which we must always be thankful. Second, because of a very tight community life. Every single case of abuse among Franciscans, without exception, involved a friar who was left to his own devices without the supervision and control of his brothers. When we look at these cases, we ask why have there been no cases among the other brothers and we find some interesting facts; allow me to share.

1. In a friary no one enters or leaves without permission. The friars cannot step out of the house without letting the superior know.
2. Every friar is accountable. Every friar has to be present for the Liturgy of the Hours, community meals, community recreation, manual work, periods of silence and in by a certain hour. When you’re out too often, it gets reported to the superior.
3. Our vow of obedience includes obedience not only to the superior, but also to each other. Any friar can question another friar’s actions, esepcially if he’s missing without an explanation.
4. Friars are not allowed to have close friends outside of the friary, not even with their biological families.
5. Clericalism is highly discouraged in the Franciscan family. All friars are equal. Therefore no friar can use the excuse that he has to be away because he has priestly duties. That won’t fly, because the duties to the order trump your priestly duties. This gives you less of a chance to be in dangerous situation.
6. The Franciscan family never abandoned the habit. Beleive it or not, when I put on my habit it reminds me of who I am and what I am called to be to others. It is a very powerful symbol.

So what have we learned? We have learned that everytime we have had a case of a friar involved in some sexual scandal: children or adult, that friar has been allowed too many exceptions It is much easier to notice someone who is dysfunctional if you are always together. A person who spends a great deal of time on his own can easily fly under the radar.

It’s not that these rules make friars more normal, though they probabl help. It’s that if you’re not a healthy person, you will standout. The mistake that many Franciscan superiors made between 1900 and 1990 was to do two things:

1. To allow too many friars to become priests. This gave some of them opportunities to spend a great deal of time away from the community.
2. To become involved in parish ministry, which is not our mission. Everytime a bishop needed someone to care for a parish he called on the religiuos orders and our superiors wanted to be helpful and they allowed friars to go to parishes. As the number of parishes grew, the friars were spread thin. Some were living alone without anyone to notice what was going on or his inappropriate behavior.

The order has held the superiors’ fee to the fire and demanded that the number of ordinations decrease and the number of parishes also decreese.; If you can’t have at least three friars in a parish, you must close it or let the bishop find someone else to staff it. Also the demand by the friars has been that the superiors commit us to ministries where we can work in teams of brothers as was the case in the 13th century and when possible, no ministry at all, but let us live as a community of brothers in a neighborhood as witnesses to the Gospel by our presence.

This is compliant witht the wishes of St. Francis and also seems to work in identifying dysfunctional people. No system is perfect, but this has worked for 800 years and I’m not sure what these superiors were thinking when they decided to fix something that was not broken. Now we have to back-peddle. That’s what the Franciscan renewal is about.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[choy]

as a PREP teacher, i went thought this

i have no problems with it. i have no records. i’d even gladly post my police report on the church bulletin board. nothing is in there anyway.

lets understand the purpose of this. we can’t just say that its the clergy who are sinning here, the sinner can come from anywhere. do we have to wait for a substantial amount of Catechists, Lectors, Cantors, etc. to be involved in sex scandals before we start accepting this? the Church for one is being proactive on the issue. while this will not weed out all bad seeds, it at least makes the organization of the Church aware of any potential threats to its integrity.

 

[JReducation]

as a PREP teacher, i went thought this

i have no problems with it. i have no records. i’d even gladly post my police report on the church bulletin board. nothing is in there anyway.

lets understand the purpose of this. we can’t just say that its the clergy who are sinning here, the sinner can come from anywhere. do we have to wait for a substantial amount of Catechists, Lectors, Cantors, etc. to be involved in sex scandals before we start accepting this? the Church for one is being proactive on the issue. while this will not weed out all bad seeds, it at least makes the organization of the Church aware of any potential threats to its integrity.

This is absolutely true. I have been a friar for a very long time. Two years ago all of us in the USA had to be finger-printed and go through the VIRTUS program. Now it’s an annual requirement for our order. I believe that the local diocese has a five year renewal. But the order demands an annual police check. It acutally makes sense, because we are transferred every three years. Before we go to another house, you want to make sure that you’re not dumping your problems on someone else.

I found VIRTUS very interesting. I have never spoken to an abuser. The videos were astonishing. I also find the information on what to look for and what to do very useful. I thought I knew what to looks for and what to do. But VIRTUS brings up some things that I had never considered and at the same time it helps you not become hypervigilant and see malice everywhere.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[cecilia97]

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?

I help my parish with the VIRTUS program, which is education on how to watch out for signs of sexual abuse in children. The parishes in our diocese require volunteers with regular contact with children to attend. There is no way for the parish to negotiate this…it is a directive from our Cardinal.

I can tell you that we have, at times, asked all of our lectors to attend VIRTUS. The reason is that they may be in the sacristy near the altar boys before and after Mass.

 

[Cygnus_X1]

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

No, I am a lector.

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

No, my diocese has something called “common sense.”

 

[Cygnus_X1]

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.

I have no more “contact” with these people than I do sitting in the pew. A sense of proportion, please.

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.

I don’t work in a Church office. I sit in the pew, come up on the altar to the ambo, read, and that’s it. I don’t spend time in enclosed places. Or don’t you think the Diocese and the parish gave it enough forethought for that to be a protection?

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.

That’s my point. As a lector in this particular Diocese, I do not have to be part of this “training.” If you have a problem with that, too bad.

If you consider pointing out the draconian practices of some Archdioceses that would never hold up in a court of law as “whining,” I feel sorry for you. Why punish ALL the laity for the sins of a comparatively few clergy? Is that an incentive to serve? And do clergy have to fill out a similar form, sign away their rights, and get anywhere near the background checks that we laity do? Apparently not.

Finally, thank you for your military service, but it’s a red herring and completely irrelevant to this thread.

 

[Cygnus_X1]

You cannot really tell me that you are going to leave the Church because she has finally decided that it ought to take more than a pulse before one is accepted as a volunteer? Please.

I came thisclose to doing so, yes.

You might read the story of St. Catherine Laboure of the Miraculous Medal some time. You cannot give give glory to God and yet bad-mouth the servants whom God has given authority over you. God will not require you to be disobedient in order to achieve His purposes.

So why did the Archdiocese find it necessary to bad-mouth me when I had done nothing wrong?

Forget the lawsuit. You have no case. The Archdiocese has not deprived you of anything that belongs to you. You have no right to volunteer to dust the pews, let alone read Holy Scriptures or lead the music of the Mass. If you did, some woman would have sued to receive the priesthood by now, be certain of that. As it is, no one is stopping you from singing at Mass. You are only being denied center stage. Someone has been given the authority and responsibility to decide who will and will not serve at Mass. That person now has to pass his background check every three years, too, I might add. He is asking no conditions of you that he has not accepted for himself.

You’re completely missing my point. Yes, the Church has a right to decide whom it will and will not have serve. But the Archdiocese does not have the right to violate the 6th Amendment of the Constitution by denying anyone the right to face his accuser. I will never yield that right to anyone, and you shouldn’t either. It is only for that illegal reason that I was denied the right to use the talent God Himself gave me to proclaim His Word.

In a child’s eyes, someone who regularly reads at Mass or leads the singing at the child’s church becomes a person worthy of trust, a person to look up to. If that child were violated by a person who had been given such a position, and then found later that nobody had ever troubled themselves to find out that the same person had done the same thing to another child, the child would rightly feel the Church had failed. Knowing that the Church would never allow anyone to handle the money without making sure they were trustworthy–a good reason in itself to do background checks on the ushers, I might add–that child will know just about how important her innocence was by comparison. I don’t know where anyone got the idea that only priests have violated children’s innocence. There have been others, too. Besides, as someone else pointed out, it is not only children who are “little ones”. There are older ones whose innocence of evil will also leave them vulnerable whenever we allow a wolf to wear sheep’s clothing.

Please cite the news articles about all the lectors, cantors, ushers, etc. who have abused children. I’ll wait.

Again, what defines “contact” with children? I have more “contact” sitting in my pew than I do on the altar. Are you suggesting giving background checks to everyone who wants to join a parish? My whole point is this broad brush being painted over all who serve, whether they’re in “contact” with children or not, makes no sense.

Predators offend without being caught by taking advantage of opportunities open to everybody else. Where there is an opportunity open to us that a predator might use, we need to reject having that opportunity for ourselves. That robs predators of their most common cloak: looking like everyone else and doing nothing to stand out. If we aren’t willing to do that much, what defense will we have, when the Lord asks by whose neglect or stubbornness was such-and-so child open to the predation that slaughters innocence and robs faith? “Why should the laity suffer the sins of the clergy?” will feel no different on the tongue than “Am I my brother’s keeper?”

Predators also would sign a “volunteer application” and not give it a second thought. Are you therefore suggesting no one volunteer for service so that only the predators do so?

 

[EasterJoy]

I have no more “contact” with these people than I do sitting in the pew. A sense of proportion, please.

I don’t work in a Church office. I sit in the pew, come up on the altar to the ambo, read, and that’s it. I don’t spend time in enclosed places. Or don’t you think the Diocese and the parish gave it enough forethought for that to be a protection?

That’s my point. As a lector in this particular Diocese, I do not have to be part of this “training.” If you have a problem with that, too bad.

If you consider pointing out the draconian practices of some Archdioceses that would never hold up in a court of law as “whining,” I feel sorry for you. Why punish ALL the laity for the sins of a comparatively few clergy? Is that an incentive to serve? And do clergy have to fill out a similar form, sign away their rights, and get anywhere near the background checks that we laity do? Apparently not.

Draconian? Incentive to serve? Where are the priorities here? You don’t think that a child seeing you reading from the Holy Scriptures at Mass sees you differently than anyone else in the pews? You must be kidding. You don’t think it will make a bit of different to a child’s faith to be molested by the very same person who is given that privelege, that she will make no connection between the two? You cannot possibly know what you’re saying.

If I had my way, there would not be an adult in the church who did not understand what predators need in order to abuse children, and how to be preyed upon by a person who claims to speak the word of God strikes at the heart of a child’s faith. What child do you want to look in the eye and say, “I’m sorry you were abused, and that the abuse is something you will always connect with the Holy Mass, but I had to look out for my rights, you know”? Will you tell Christ you could not consent to have your background checked for the sake of his least ones? It is not as if someone is going to prosecute you without allowing you to face your accusers. You are only being asked to waive your rights to read feedback received on you by those contacted when checking into your background, just as you have to do when you have people write you letters of reference for college or for a job interview. I’ve signed away that right for much lesser reasons than letting people who know me be completely honest about whether I seem safe as a model for children without being sued for slander.

…

I cannot deal with “well, mistakes are made sometimes” and “just use common sense” arguments. That was OK, when we didn’t know better, but now we know what went on, and how it happened. Is that what you would want to hear from the FAA…“oh, we don’t get too hypervigilant about safety. Our pilots have common sense, they do their best. A plane is going to crash once in awhile, that is how life is.”

**The sexual abuse of a child, particularly by anyone even remotely connected with handing on the faith, should be as acceptable as a plane crash. **It is going to happen, but not a single preventable instance should be allowed…or, as the Lord put it : “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of things that cause sin! Such things must come, but woe to the one through whom they come!”

If there was something we could do to prevent a wolf from gaining access to the fold, and we failed to do it, we should not count ourselves innocent. We did not used to know better. Now we do. We should expect that Heaven will hold us to a higher standard than in the past.

If I could only do one or the other, check your background or teach you how to spot a predator, I’d make you go through the training. You are far more likely to be preventive eyes than you are to be an abuser, I’ll grant that point. Unlike some, though, I don’t think that using church funds to find out if those in the most promininent places have a history of abuse or a likelihood to offend is a bad use of funding. Not since I know how a former victim reacted when she saw her abuser at the altar. It’s about as over the top as the FAA.

 

[MarkThompson]

You’re completely missing my point. Yes, the Church has a right to decide whom it will and will not have serve. But the Archdiocese does not have the right to violate the 6th Amendment of the Constitution by denying anyone the right to face his accuser. I will never yield that right to anyone, and you shouldn’t either. It is only for that illegal reason that I was denied the right to use the talent God Himself gave me to proclaim His Word.

For what it’s worth, it’s perfectly reasonable to feel that a sense of fairness should compel the Archdiocese to allow you to face an accuser, but the Sixth Amendment only applies to the government, and even then, as it says, it only applies “*n criminal prosecutions.” Did your neighbor stop letting his kids come over to your house to play with your kids, because someone told him you were a bad influence? You don’t have a constitutional right to force him to say who he heard this from (not a government actor). Did the police get a tip that you were involved in criminal activity and come to your house to interview you? Likewise, no constitutional right to face the informant (not a criminal prosecution yet, just a criminal investigation).

Just letting you know, in case your belief that the Archdiocese’s policy was unconstitutional and illegal was a factor in your discontent.*