Forbidden to lector or cantor

[JReducation]

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?

The bold is mine.

The answer to that is no. Not if you belong to my order. All of our guys are lectors and acolytes and they are all trained to be priests. But they cannot desire to be priests. The men that we ordain are ordained because it is the will of God. God speaks through the major superior, not the individual. You may ask for permission to be ordained. Whether you get it or not depends on Christ. But if the permission is denied, you’re still a religious until death. Because you’re not allowed to ask for Holy Orders until after you have made final vows. That’s a six to eight year process.

We have to be careful how we use canon law, because canon law has 10 exceptions for each law. I don’t mean 10 literally.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Phemie]

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?

Not necessarily, some dioceses institute permanent Lectors and Acolytes, men who have no intention of going on to be deacons or priests. That’s permitted by Canon 230 §1Lay men who possess the age and qualifications established by decree of the conference of bishops can be admitted on a stable basis through the prescribed liturgical rite to the ministries of lector and acolyte.

The USCCB does allow for permanent lectors and acolytes and has set a minimum age of 21.

In Canada, the CCCB has decreed that only those seeking ordination may be instituted as lectors and acolytes meaning that it’s a rare parish that ever sees one.

 

[JReducation]

Not necessarily, some dioceses institute permanent Lectors and Acolytes, men who have no intention of going on to be deacons or priests. That’s permitted by Canon 230 §1Lay men who possess the age and qualifications established by decree of the conference of bishops can be admitted on a stable basis through the prescribed liturgical rite to the ministries of lector and acolyte.

The USCCB does allow for permanent lectors and acolytes and has set a minimum age of 21.

In Canada, the CCCB has decreed that only those seeking ordination may be instituted as lectors and acolytes meaning that it’s a rare parish that ever sees one.

The bold is mine. It’s important to tell your readers that this does not apply to religious men. The CCCB and the USCCB do not have jurisdiction over religious men. The major superiors of brothers decides this for his community and many major superiors of brothers have allowed their brothers to be installed as permanent lectors and acolytes, because many of these brothers work in parishes.

The conferences of bishops only have jurisdiction over secular men and women, not consecrated men or women. They have to enter into agreements with the major superiors of consecrated men or consecrated women. If there is no agreement, then the major superior decides.

That being said, a bishop has the right to say that you cannot use this person in any of his churches. But you can use them in your chapels and oratories. The only part of a religious chapel or oratory that falls under the bishop is the tabernacle. That is alwasy under the bishop’s jurisdiction, regardless of whether it’s a diocesan church or a religious house.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[EasterJoy]

That’s what I said.

That’s what I said.

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.

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

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

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.

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

Not that this process does that.

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

We’ll have to agree to disagree. Since I’m not the one you need to convince, I certainly don’t feel a need to try to prove anything to you. Your bishop will be the one with his neck on the chopping block if someone publicly acting under his authority is also hiding an active criminal background that he failed to turn up. He’s the one you have to convince that what crimes a lector or cantor might be committing during her free time outside of Mass is no reflection on the Church and, in any event, no business of his. I’m thinking that your objection that you have no opportunities to offend during the Mass itself will be less convincing than you think. A great many abusive priests never offended in the actual building of the church. They did use their position of trust in the Church to convince children that they were adults of sterling character.

As for your imagined rights, considering that one has to waive the right to marry in order to recieve Holy Orders and that women are barred from receiving it at all. May Heaven forbid that any court ever find sympathy for the complaint that you are being kept from anything you have a right to have in this case. That will be a sad day in the history of jurisprudence, and a mighty blow against the free exercise of religion.

 

[JReducation]

The faithful have the right to be taught the faith, to receive the sacraments if they are properly disposed to receive them, to be led down the path to holiness and to petition the Church to be heard if they encounter an abuse.

No one has the right to minister. That is a privilege that is given by the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops as one body. Serving one’s parish is a duty, not a right. The duty stems from our baptism. We become part of the Church and we have a duty to participate in the life of the Church and to cooperate in her saving work.

However, we exercise those duties on the Church’s terms, not our own. We do not have any rights to make policies in the Church. We may be consulted, but the bishop has no obligation to do so. He doesn’t even have an obligation to consult his auxiliary bishops, his priests or his deacons. Bishops are autonomous heads of Churches. Today, thanks to Vatican II, they have greater connection with the Holy See than they did in the past. After Vatican II the Code of Canon Law was revised and certain autonomies that the bishops had were taken away.

But when it comes to the faithful in their particular Churches, which is the term that Canon Law uses to refer to dioceses, the Bishop is the highest ranking authority. The Vatican will no intervene in anything that a bishop does that does not violate Canon Law, faith or morals.

I gave the example before, but I’ll share it again. Bishops have no authority over religious (male or female). They only have authority over secular clergy and over the laity. However, the bishop does have supreme authority over his diocese. When the local bishop said that anyone who works in his diocese in any diocesan facility had to be finger-printed, attend VIRTUS and sign the release, we (religious) were told that we did not have to do this. But we could not serve the people of the diocese. We could remain living in the diocese, but have no contact with the people. The bishop could not run us out of town, because he has no authority over us. He could not close down our schools, because they are ours, not diocesan. But he could limit us to our space.

When some brothers questioned this, our religional superior (major superior) wrote a letter to every local superior (superior of the house). The letter had three simple sentences.

“Every brother is ordered under holy obedience to comply with the bishop’s request. A failure to do so is a breach of the rule and of canon law. Such brothers that choose not to follow the bishop’s request may not present themselves to receive the Eucharist and the local superior is to begin the process for a canonical trial where said brother will present his defense for disobeying our Holy Father Francis and his successor.”

I’m the superior of my house. I read the letter to the brothers. Someone wanted to ask a question and I simply said, “I’m sorry, but St. Francis has spoken… There are no questions. Either sign it or let me know so I can begin my paper work.”

Everyone signed it and everyone has even forgotten that this ever took place. It was over a year ago. It’s not something that comes back to haunt you, unless you’re wanted by the police.

Could the brothers have argued 6th ammendment rights? I guess so. What lawyer would take it on? None, because no one is being denied a right. Ministry is a duty, not a right, unless you’re a bishop.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[MarkThompson]

Could the brothers have argued 6th ammendment rights?

For what it’s worth, no, they really couldn’t have. Depending on the state and city, there might be statutes or ordinances that would apply (though I highly doubt it in the case of a religious house), but the Sixth Amendment definitely is not applicable.

 

[joandarc2008]

Let’s see for a minute - the Constitution is a National Document judged by the Supreme Court - Canon Law is Universal Religious Law judged by God. Personally I think one sounds a whole lot more powerful than the other. I doubt the Vatican worries about offending the Supreme Court.

 

[Lazarette]

Wow, a thread started nearly 3 years ago is still going.

If the original poster is still around, what rationale was given for not allowing one to know what was said?

 

[Phemie]

Wow, a thread started nearly 3 years ago is still going.

If the original poster is still around, what rationale was given for not allowing one to know what was said?

If you suspected someone of child abuse but had no proof, would you mention it to the ‘authorities’ so that they could at least be on the lookout if you knew your name would be given to them?

 

[jc-servant]

That’s what I said.

That’s what I said.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Not that this process does that.

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

I am purely amazed by this thread. You are going on and on about your “rights” in relation to the volunteer positions of lector and cantor and about the church in general which I find shocking. JR is correct. Volunteer positions at church are supposed to be a “privilege” that allows us to offer our God-given talents back to Him in worship. None of us has any “rights” with regard to offering service, and service to God through His church is what being a cantor or lector entails. My parish warns us about trying to do these more highly visible works for the wrong reasons. I seriously doubt that I would be reading this type of anger and ranting over the volunteer weed-pulling or floor scrubbing. I can’t see someone trying to circumvent the Archdiocese to keep on scrubbing those floors when no one is there to see it or comment on the service. Lector and cantor should be no different. No one needs to “prove” anything to you about what a lector or cantor does or does not do as a part of their duties because no one has a “right” to serve in those positions. If the bishop simply didn’t care for your voice or your “style” of singing, he has the power to say you are not chosen to cantor and no “right” is involved on your end of the deal. There is no 6th amendment right triggered by the church requesting that people who desire to provide service in certain volunteer positions comply with their policies. I have many years in legal practice and law enforcement to back up that statement, so please don’t make the church waste money responding to a frivolous lawsuit or even a complaint that will ultimately make no one happy.

I am a cantor and I love to sing, especially in praise to Our Lord in the liturgy. However, at my parish I am only one of multiple people who can serve as cantor. We also have an incredible musician and vocalist on staff, so none of the volunteers has any expectations with regard to being asked to cantor. After reading this thread I am even more thankful about our situation keeping us humble. I cannot imagine having such an attitude of entitlement to being a cantor that I would be trying to circumvent the requests of the very church in which I want to sing in worship and praise of my God. I feel very blessed when I am asked to fill in and cantor at one or more masses even if it is with only 1-2 days notice or when I am tired from my job, etc.

There are plenty of venues for a talented singer or performer to use their talents by auditioning for community shows or professional gigs. Cantoring in mass is not a gig or a “job” and it should not be treated as such. If a person feels an imperative to sing or read aloud there are plenty of ways to exercise those skills in paid or volunteer positions outside of mass.

I pray that you will go into discernment and get spiritual direction to determine if you are in fact still being called to serve God as cantor or lector. Perhaps God is trying to tell you something by this situation arising where you don’t want to comply with the new policy. Whatever the outcome of your prayerful discernment, I hope you can find a way to serve the Lord through His church with the humble heart of a servant.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

As a cantor I have not had to face such forms. My husband, however, has. I am also familiar with such trainings as a pre-service school teacher. I have gone through literal hours of trainings.

While these programs are often intended to train adults about sexual harassment, their purpose reaches much further than that. It is so adults can recognize sexual harassment when they see it. Cantors and lectors spend lots of time around priests as well. I think it’s a great idea that they are trained to recognize the signs. It just creates a much safer environment.

Take my husband, again, for example. He wouldn’t know sexual abuse signs if they came up and bit him in the armpit. He wouldn’t even believe accusations unless he walked in on certain acts of perversion. This is how he operates; he is just a very trusting man. I still remember the day he came home from his 2 hour training. He was very quiet all night. We ate, watched a movie, and went to bed in near silence (rare for us). It wasn’t until we were lying in bed together that he said, looking up at the ceiling “I just can’t believe anyone would do such a thing.”

I had been waiting for him to speak up for a while. I just put my arms around him and assured him that because he knows just how awful these crimes really are, and how they are committed, he can stop them. He knew he doesn’t have to work with kids, he just needs to be in regular contact with others who do. I was personally horrified that he never went through the training since he works for a school district.

Some of the rules seem a little extreme. However, I can see the reason for them. There was a sex abuse case in a church I used to belong to where a church musician had been found abusing a girl in the youth group.

These are all sad situations, and I personally think that every adult should learn about how abuse happens, so we can watch out for it. It’s done so secretive, and private, that we would never know. It’s not just rouge priests either. If we can recognize it in parents, volunteers, community members, and so on. It’s becoming a dangerous world to grow up in. We need to watch out for those who cannot watch out for themselves.

 

[JReducation]

For what it’s worth, no, they really couldn’t have. Depending on the state and city, there might be statutes or ordinances that would apply (though I highly doubt it in the case of a religious house), but the Sixth Amendment definitely is not applicable.

You’re probably right and as JoanDarc has said above, the Church is not too concerned with the Constitution of the USA and the Supreme Court. If the Church were concerned with that, she’d be in serious toruble. Just think of how many countries the Church is foiund in.

No one forces you to be Catholic or to volunteer for a ministry. It is your moral duty, but the bishop won’t come knocking at your door to demand that you fufill your duty and contribute to your parish by volunteering. These are things that we know.

I don’t ask the brothers to go to mass or prayer. They know that they have to do this. So if I jump all over their case because they are making it a habit of missing one or the other, there is nothing that they can say, because I don’t want to hear it. Your duties are your duties, end of story. If you find those duties to be insurmountable, there’s the door.

This reminds me of a funny anecdote. I was superior of one of our houses in the missions. I had told a brother that the superior general wanted us to make some changes in procedures. He was the head of the clinic. He became very upset. I tried to calm him down and he just kept shoutiing. I sat quietly and let him rant for about five minutes. When he looked at me he asked me if I was just going to sit there, to which I responded, “I’m your superior, not your child, not your servant, and not your punching bag. As far as I’m concerned this conversation is over and your are confined to the friary and to eat your meals on the floor for a week. You are not to set foot out of this house.” He asked me, “What if I refuse.” I said, “There’s the door.” Suddenly he broke into a peel of laughter. I was stunned. Then I realized that we were sitting on a patio. There was no door. For those interested, he did apologize and did his penance.

The moral of the story is that people can get so upset about their rights, that they forget their duties and they forget who’s in charge.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[EasterJoy]

Wow, a thread started nearly 3 years ago is still going.

The original poster restarted the thread with an update on April 18 of this year:
As of today, I am now a lector for a parish in the Diocese of Reno, which does not have the requirements of the Archdiocese of Baltimore. I’m only on the altar to do the readings, announcements, or the PotF. As such, I did not have to go through the diocese’s “Protecting God’s Children” program or sign away my 6th Amendment rights.

Having been through the child protection training, my only wish was that every adult, both inside and outside the Church, would have to go through it. Had that happened, I think perhaps the parents of some unfortunate young women in our area who were sexually molested by their private coaches would have known what kind of patience sexual molesters can have. They might have saved their daughters from being victimized. Instead, we still have too many people who think that keeping their kids away from priests–and, I guess, strange people driving around neighborhoods looking for lost puppies–is all that is needed to keep kids safe.

Meanwhile, the child molesters are able to get online and educate each other about how to improve their chances of success…training that few of them are trying to get out of. There have always been people who do this, but molesters have never had more resources for learning how to victimize kids without getting caught than they have now, nor anything like as many opportunities to gain social approval for their crimes from other molesters.

I can’t criticize the Diocese of Reno for making the decision they did, but I really wish more people would realize how important their own education could be in the life of a child or young person. This isn’t training anybody should be trying to get out of.

 

[KateD]

I think the OP’s objection was that they must waive any right to see information gathered about them in the event an accusation was made. And I can certainly understand OP’s concern there. I have gone through Virtus training in the Chicago Archdiocese, as have all volunteers in my parish. For the most part, I understand going through the training, however, as a parent and long-time school volunteer, I didn’t really learn anything new except for one thing to which I hadn’t given much thought: to be alert to those who consistently don’t follow the rules or procedures set up in a ministry. I thought this was a valuable piece of information.

I do know many folks who feel that while we certainly see value in background checks, training, etc. for volunteers, the problem has been with clergy and more specifically, bishops who just shifted the problem from one parish to another. That fact is almost as difficult to comprehend as the original crime.

 

[Lazarette]

Phemie, I’ve worked with victims of physical andsexual abuse and to a lesser extent, some perpetratiors of same, with victimes who weren’t believed and much, murch rarer, a false accusation. I’ve also seen, with a frequency that makes me ill, people say false things about others.

Yes, a person should know what is said about him. To not do so is not protecting children and is basically an unhealthy way to do things.

 

[EasterJoy]

Phemie, I’ve worked with victims of physical andsexual abuse and to a lesser extent, some perpetratiors of same, with victimes who weren’t believed and much, murch rarer, a false accusation. I’ve also seen, with a frequency that makes me ill, people say false things about others.

Yes, a person should know what is said about him. To not do so is not protecting children and is basically an unhealthy way to do things.

It is better when complaints are made openly, but there needs to be a channel to open the question without making oneself into a target for counter-attack by the accused or those sympathetic to the accused. Nevertheless, the information could really only be used to open the question. You could theoretically withhold priveleges based on anonymous hearsay, but unless the charges are grave, no one wants to do that. OTOH, keeping particular watch on whether some person is careless about keeping the rules would be something that would be appropriate with light cause, such as an anonymous tip. If the charges are grave, there has to be error on the side of safety, to give time to look into whether the charges have any substance.

 

[joandarc2008]

Phemie, I’ve worked with victims of physical andsexual abuse and to a lesser extent, some perpetratiors of same, with victimes who weren’t believed and much, murch rarer, a false accusation. I’ve also seen, with a frequency that makes me ill, people say false things about others.

Yes, a person should know what is said about him. To not do so is not protecting children and is basically an unhealthy way to do things.

In this case I do not believe it is necessary to share the accusation. After all, the people doing the backgroud checks can follow up and investigate te allegations -they are trained to do this. It is not a check for something that Church requires - it is a check for something you are volunteering to do. The worst that happens is someone needlessly gets turned down. The truth will come out in the wahs.

What the OP has done is caused scandal. By refusing to sign the application I wonder how many parents are wondering if a lector - even one who has been vetted with clearance- has been found guilty or charged with something or even suspected of something between the time of the clearance being awarded and now. That can be ten years depending on the clearance. By nature of being able to stand on teh altar and read the words there is a position of trust of given and now by not acting like there is something to hide there has been scandal created. IMO

 

[EasterJoy]

In this case I do not believe it is necessary to share the accusation. After all, the people doing the backgroud checks can follow up and investigate te allegations -they are trained to do this. It is not a check for something that Church requires - it is a check for something you are volunteering to do. The worst that happens is someone needlessly gets turned down. The truth will come out in the wahs.

What the OP has done is caused scandal. By refusing to sign the application I wonder how many parents are wondering if a lector - even one who has been vetted with clearance- has been found guilty or charged with something or even suspected of something between the time of the clearance being awarded and now. That can be ten years depending on the clearance. By nature of being able to stand on teh altar and read the words there is a position of trust of given and now by not acting like there is something to hide there has been scandal created. IMO

I would not be so hard on the OP, as it is entirely possible that there was no venting except here and other places where it was in-family or anonymous. That is one of the good functions of a forum like this, after all. I wouldn’t assume any scandal was caused on the ground, either in Reno or back in Baltimore. The requirements of the Archdiocese of Baltimore and the Diocese of Reno are a matter of public record, so there was no harm done by publicizing those. As far as I know, the OP’s protests to the authorities in Baltimore were vehement, but discrete.

OP may honestly not have anything whatsoever to hide, but only feels it is not right to have to choose between serving at the altar and either privacy or the expectation to be told when someone is talking behind one’s back. There are many very good people who like their privacy. The bishops in many places know that safety of children trumps both of those personal concerns, even though the concerns are not unethical in themselves, but differ on the conditions necessary to ensure the safety of the children.

The OP thought the privacy and ability to defend ones self was being infringed upon without anything being gained by the children. I don’t agree with that opinion, but some bishops share it, and they are the ones who count. The only place I can find OP clearly in the wrong is when there was an incorrect attitude that a right to serve at the altar exists in America in his/her case, by virtue of the protections given in the Constitution, or that a bishop does not have the ultimate authority to decide who shall and shall not be called to serve there. I also wish the OP wasn’t quite so pleased about having evaded child-protection training in the Reno diocese, but perhaps the OP has had this training and only means that it was good to not have to go back over what is already known for the sake of form. I hope so.

In the end, I think the OP just wants to sing at Mass without having to agree to have people nose around in his/her background or otherwise jump through pointless hoops. I think there exists a good reason to overrule that desire, but the desire itself is not wrong at all. It just isn’t as important as what the bishop thinks is necessary to keep children and young people safe.

 

[Angel_Bradford]

I have to be honest with all of you, I did not read all the posts, but as someone who conducts the background investigations for four parishes in my diocese, I felt compelled to respond.

The waiver that we use informs the applicant/volunteer that a criminal background check will be performed and that their permission (the waiver) is required to allow me to accompolish this.

All I check for are arrests involving crimes against children. I don’t look for immigration status or any other convictions. I only report to the pastor, no one else and I only tell him about any crimes against children, nothing else. The files are kept in a secured, locked location as required by law.

If someone makes an allegation of child abuse against you that is a police matter as churches are among those considered mandated reporters. In the event that this happens, you have not waived any of your constistutional rights.

 

[EasterJoy]

I have to be honest with all of you, I did not read all the posts, but as someone who conducts the background investigations for four parishes in my diocese, I felt compelled to respond.

The waiver that we use informs the applicant/volunteer that a criminal background check will be performed and that their permission (the waiver) is required to allow me to accomplish this.

All I check for are arrests involving crimes against children. I don’t look for immigration status or any other convictions. I only report to the pastor, no one else and I only tell him about any crimes against children, nothing else. The files are kept in a secured, locked location as required by law.

If someone makes an allegation of child abuse against you that is a police matter as churches are among those considered mandated reporters. In the event that this happens, you have not waived any of your constistutional rights.

Thank you!

We have the same thing for Little League. Every volunteer and every parent with a child in the program has to agree to submit the background check in order to have anything to do with the program. This is not just a criminal background screening. There have to be references provided, with phone numbers. Otherwise, even a parent of one of the players is not allowed to do anything that a strange adult off of the street would not be allowed to do.