Forbidden to lector or cantor

[Aramis]

No, I am a lector.

Only if invested by the bishop into the order on Instituted Lectors are you a lector. Otherwise, you’re properly a lay reader. See canon 230 of the CIC.

 

[joandarc2008]

Personally I think part of the “application process” is almost an exercise in obedience. One who does not worry about obedience is not going to worry about boundaries when it comes to parenting and children either. Not necessarily sexuality but even in teaching or gifts - which both can give the wrong impressions of the Church and are taught about in the training. And yes, if you are a trained lector I believe they are needed also at special masses such as First Holy Communion(usually all children), First Reconciliation(oh all children), Confirmation (all children), you get my drift unless you are saying you only serve where you want to serve and not where you are asked to go.

 

[Phemie]

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.

The problem with those reports is that they give people a false sense of security. I personally know an abuser who would have had a perfect police report for twenty years before his name popped up when the police were investigating a case involving someone else. I’m sure he’s not the only one. A clean police report could just mean one has not yet been detected or, as in the case of the aforementioned abuser, detected but not reported.

 

[cctabb]

The problem with those reports is that they give people a false sense of security. I personally know an abuser who would have had a perfect police report for twenty years before his name popped up when the police were investigating a case involving someone else. I’m sure he’s not the only one. A clean police report could just mean one has not yet been detected or, as in the case of the aforementioned abuser, detected but not reported.

My hope is that everyone realizes this. While the bishops have to be doing something proactive, everyone concerned about the well being of the children need to be aware that a clean report may simply mean that an offender hasn’t been caught.

Unless one has something to hide or really cares what others think of one, why not sign the paperwork. To my way of thinking the individual dioceses do not have the money to send out investigators to do a full-blown investigation of each applicant.

It would be interesting to know to what extent an investigation is done.

 

[Phemie]

My hope is that everyone realizes this. While the bishops have to be doing something proactive, everyone concerned about the well being of the children need to be aware that a clean report may simply mean that an offender hasn’t been caught.

Unless one has something to hide or really cares what others think of one, why not sign the paperwork. To my way of thinking the individual dioceses do not have the money to send out investigators to do a full-blown investigation of each applicant.

It would be interesting to know to what extent an investigation is done.

I do understand the OP’s point that if someone accuses you of something you should be able to know who it is and confront them, unfortunately that would preclude many people from coming forward with concerns about specific persons. If I see something that causes me concern I should be able to go to my pastor with what I saw without fearing that I will be confronted by the person. If it ends up going to trial, that’s a horse of a different colour and that’s where & when the sixth amendment would kick in.

 

[EasterJoy]

My hope is that everyone realizes this. While the bishops have to be doing something proactive, everyone concerned about the well being of the children need to be aware that a clean report may simply mean that an offender hasn’t been caught.

Unless one has something to hide or really cares what others think of one, why not sign the paperwork. To my way of thinking the individual dioceses do not have the money to send out investigators to do a full-blown investigation of each applicant.

It would be interesting to know to what extent an investigation is done.

This is why it is so important to educate people about how predators operate, the methods they use to identify potential victims, and what kind of opportunities they look for. And yes, if a conscientious effort at looking into references is not done, it is better not to make the pretense of having done the screening. We are responsible to do the screening that we tell people we are doing in a meaningful way, both morally and legally. If we simply don’t have the resources to do it, we need to be open about that.

The background check serves two purposes, I think. One is a gross screening for known offenders. While it may not catch many, it will at least spare a child from being abused by someone that the other adults could have known was dangerous, had they bothered to check. To say that situation adds insult to injury is an understatement.

The other thing it does, though, is lets offenders know that the radar is up and running. They don’t like that kind of situation. They do not want a situation where people are watching and asking questions, regardless of outer appearance. They want a situation where there is an outward appearance that will allow someone to escape notice. Their goal is to find a place like that, don that outward appearance, and to use it to operate out of suspicion’s way. We should not fool ourselves, though. If the screenings are only a front, word will get out, but only to the people we least want to know it. We will have made the problem worse by giving predators a false front of respectiblity and safety to hide behind. We need to be very open about the limitations of the screenings.

My ideal would be that when these predators get on the internet and compare notes about how to snare children and young people–and it makes the hair on my neck stand up to think about, but they do it now–that they will say, “I don’t know if its the lawsuits or what, but the Catholics are giving away nothing. The parents know what to look for, the parishioners know what to look for, you can touch the kids with a high five or a side hug, yeah, but you can’t get away with anything that’s going to lead anywhere. It’s like watching the Food Channel and never getting to go near the restaurant.”

We are an attractive target, full of innocent children and full of adults who want to believe the best of everyone. We want the wolves to get the word out that our place is a very frustrating place to try to operate, in spite of all that.

Think of it this way, as well: if the whole world were like that, far more people who would have become sex offenders will not succeed. We will have saved someone’s soul from hell. That’s a plane crash that is worth preventing, too. If we succeed, if we are not a near occasion of sin for a potential sex offender, we will have done that. Even predators are human beings for whom Christ died, after all. He would have done it for them alone. We need to also be willing to suffer in order to keep them out of hell.

Yes, sometimes it will become clear that the screenings don’t accomplish anything, and it would be OK to drop them. If the people who bear the responsibility to make sure the Church protects children think we need them, though, I think we ought to go along.

 

[choy]

The problem with those reports is that they give people a false sense of security. I personally know an abuser who would have had a perfect police report for twenty years before his name popped up when the police were investigating a case involving someone else. I’m sure he’s not the only one. A clean police report could just mean one has not yet been detected or, as in the case of the aforementioned abuser, detected but not reported.

its the easiest way at the moment. would you rather run all Church employees and volunteers to psychological tests to see if they have tendencies for violence or sexual abuse against children?

i agree, its not a bulletproof way to detect possible predators. but at least theres due diligence in weeding out those who have commited crimes in the past. there is no one way to catch them all, but at least there is something being done.

 

[JReducation]

I just want to go back to one point, the 6th ammendment. It was mentioned that people are asked to sign over their 6th ammendment rights and the question was raised as to whether priests have to do the same thing.

Every diocese and religious order that participates in this program requires that deacons, priests, bishops, religious brothers, and religious sisters sign this document. We are not given an option. At least the lay person is given the option, sign or don’t serve in X capacity. The option that we are given is sign or be put on trial for disobedience. The command to sign is given under holy obedience.

Do we worry about it? Absolutely not. Obedience to the Church overrules the Constitution of the United States. This is a matter of morals, not constitutional rights. I understand how someone may feel very sinsitive about this. If you have a choice between signing the document and not serving I stronly suggest that you act according to your conscience.

Do not leave the fullness of truth which subsists only in the Catholic Church, just because there is a conflict between Church requirements and your constitutional rights. Your constitutional rights will mean nothing when you come face to face with the fulness of truth. I guess that’s why for us religious this is a non issue. The fullness of truth is something to which we have vowed our lives. For that we have given up much. Those religious who argue about their civil rights when they are confronted with Church requirements or orders are confusing their priorities and setting a very bad example for the laity. Our obligations to the Church always come before our civil rights.

Again, if you have a choice, then follow your conscience. But do not ask the Church to accommodate to constitutional rights. These don’t apply in this case. Even the Constitution recognizes this. Just an afterthought that came to me, there are organizations that have you sing away the right to strike in order to employ you. People do it all the time.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[jmcrae]

No, I am a lector.

Congratulations! Which Seminary are you attending, and what is the expected year of your Ordination to the priesthood?

 

[Cygnus_X1]

The problem with those reports is that they give people a false sense of security. I personally know an abuser who would have had a perfect police report for twenty years before his name popped up when the police were investigating a case involving someone else. I’m sure he’s not the only one. A clean police report could just mean one has not yet been detected or, as in the case of the aforementioned abuser, detected but not reported.

Thank you for making my point. This application process, aside from being illegal and draconian, won’t stop someone who really wants to harm children. It just makes the Archdiocesan lawyers feel as if they’ve Done Something.

 

[Cygnus_X1]

Congratulations! Which Seminary are you attending, and what is the expected year of your Ordination to the priesthood?

As long as my parish says I serve in the Ministry of the Lector, that is what I call myself.

 

[Cygnus_X1]

I just want to go back to one point, the 6th ammendment. It was mentioned that people are asked to sign over their 6th ammendment rights and the question was raised as to whether priests have to do the same thing.

Every diocese and religious order that participates in this program requires that deacons, priests, bishops, religious brothers, and religious sisters sign this document. We are not given an option. At least the lay person is given the option, sign or don’t serve in X capacity. The option that we are given is sign or be put on trial for disobedience. The command to sign is given under holy obedience.

Do we worry about it? Absolutely not. Obedience to the Church overrules the Constitution of the United States. This is a matter of morals, not constitutional rights. I understand how someone may feel very sinsitive about this. If you have a choice between signing the document and not serving I stronly suggest that you act according to your conscience.

Do not leave the fullness of truth which subsists only in the Catholic Church, just because there is a conflict between Church requirements and your constitutional rights. Your constitutional rights will mean nothing when you come face to face with the fulness of truth. I guess that’s why for us religious this is a non issue. The fullness of truth is something to which we have vowed our lives. For that we have given up much. Those religious who argue about their civil rights when they are confronted with Church requirements or orders are confusing their priorities and setting a very bad example for the laity. Our obligations to the Church always come before our civil rights.

Again, if you have a choice, then follow your conscience. But do not ask the Church to accommodate to constitutional rights. These don’t apply in this case. Even the Constitution recognizes this. Just an afterthought that came to me, there are organizations that have you sing away the right to strike in order to employ you. People

I disagree. In case you missed the beginning of the thread, the Defense Department interviewed many people about me when I was in line for a security clearance. They gave me the right to review what others had said about me. Why does the Archdiocese feel it is above that?

And can you please provide a link to a similar document you had to sign? Thanks.

 

[JReducation]

Congratulations! Which Seminary are you attending, and what is the expected year of your Ordination to the priesthood?

Wait a minute, that’s cheating. LOL.

Not all lectors become deacons or priests. All of our brothers are acolytes and lectors. All must have a college degree with a minor in philosophy and a four-year M.Div from an accredited theologate or seminary. A few have STDs (no they are not sick). But only 3% have been allowed to be ordained. Now that I think of it, only one of the ordained has a doctorate. I never realized that. Oh well

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Cygnus_X1]

Personally I think part of the “application process” is almost an exercise in obedience. One who does not worry about obedience is not going to worry about boundaries when it comes to parenting and children either. Not necessarily sexuality but even in teaching or gifts - which both can give the wrong impressions of the Church and are taught about in the training. And yes, if you are a trained lector I believe they are needed also at special masses such as First Holy Communion(usually all children), First Reconciliation(oh all children), Confirmation (all children), you get my drift unless you are saying you only serve where you want to serve and not where you are asked to go.

Well, the way in which I was obedient is that I did not attempt to defy what the Archdiocese told me.

Again, please tell me how lectoring at ANY mass constitutes ANY more “contact” with children than sitting in a pew next to them. You can’t.

 

[Cygnus_X1]

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.*

Which I still do.

 

[jmcrae]

Wait a minute, that’s cheating. LOL.

Not all lectors become deacons or priests. All of our brothers are acolytes and lectors. All must have a college degree with a minor in philosophy and a four-year M.Div from an accredited theologate or seminary. A few have STDs (no they are not sick). But only 3% have been allowed to be ordained. Now that I think of it, only one of the ordained has a doctorate. I never realized that. Oh well

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thanks, yes I did know that not everyone who comes to the Minor Orders makes it through to the priesthood - but at some point they were discerning it, no?

 

[MarkThompson]

Which I still do.

Sorry to hear that. I hope my explanation at least made sense concerning why the Sixth Amendment does not apply in your situation.

 

[Cygnus_X1]

Draconian?

That’s what I said.

Incentive to serve?

That’s what I said.

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.

Not at all. Prove to me that a lector who stays in his pew (which, chances are, has CHILDREN in it!), walks to the ambo, proclaims the Word, and then sits back down in the pew (which, chances are, has CHILDREN in it!) maintains “contact” with anyone, much less children, on the altar. Overkill.

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.

I fail to see how the act that I just described above threatens any child in any way.

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 have never signed away that right in anything but volunteering for the Church. Remind me not to work for your employers, ok?

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.”

I won’t go off into a rant about the Nanny State, but suffice it to say personal rights are constantly trampled under the rubric of It’s For Our Children. And I find it repugnant.

**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!”

I’m not saying children should be abused, and I never have! All I’m saying is using draconian tactics to keep good people from serving won’t stop one teenager from being abused. That? Is common sense.

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.

Not that this process does that.

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.

As someone who had a high school teacher who went on to become an abusive priest, I think I know what it looks like.

 

[Cygnus_X1]

Sorry to hear that. I hope my explanation at least made sense concerning why the Sixth Amendment does not apply in your situation.

It would never hold up in court.

 

[JReducation]

I disagree. In case you missed the beginning of the thread, the Defense Department interviewed many people about me when I was in line for a security clearance. They gave me the right to review what others had said about me. Why does the Archdiocese feel it is above that?

And can you please provide a link to a similar document you had to sign? Thanks.

First of all, I can’t give you a link, because the document was simply handed to me and I was ordered to sign it. I was not printed from the internet. The key word here is ORDERED. I had not choice. When you’re in vows, you either follow an order or you can be suspended or even put on trial, depending on whether you’re a diocesan or a religious. Religious men are put on trial. These can last years. You’re not likely to wini if you claim that you did not sign it because of your 6th ammendment rights, because the rule of the order trumps all national constitutions and all civil laws. Otherwise, you could never govern an international community. Our is divided into 114 regions on every continent, except Antartica. That defense for disobedience would not fly in an eclesial tribunal.

It would not fly in a civil tribunal for a lay person, because the person does not have to be in ministry. It is optional. If the diocese or the order makes this a requisite to serve you can opt out. I can’t because I’m a religious, but you can, because you’re a lay person. Neither you nor I would have a case in a civil court. You see what I’m saying?

Why does a diocese or a religious order feel they are above that? Because they are. These laws do not apply to these cases. You are not being mandated to be a lector, catechist, youth minister or EMHC. So it really places the diocese outside of the reach of that law. They do not have to follow it. In fact, no private organization has to follow it. Any private organization can require that you sign such a document as a condition of employment or in this case, volunteering. The government does not interfere in these internal affairs of private organisms.

It sounds as if you’re angry because the diocese has a requirement that you consider violates your constitutional rights. But it does not violate them. The diocese is not forcing you.

Even in the case of priests and religious who are ordered under obedience to sign this cannot claim a violation, because no one forced us to make a vow of obedience. When we made that vow, we sealed our fate. Do you see what I’m saying?

For what it’s worth, I signed it and never thought about it again. The worse anyone could say about me is that I’m hyperactive.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF