Forbidden to lector or cantor

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cygnus_X1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I believe that the last few posts have explained this very well. This is why I said in one of my posts that I told the brothers under my jurisdiction that they had not choice but to sing the waiver or I would put them on trial in an ecclesial tribunal for disobedience. Because in the end, if the diocese does not tell you that there is an allegation of improprierty against you, you will find out soon enough if the District Attorney believes that it’s worthy investigating. If that happens, you will have a chance to face your accussors in a court of law.

On the other hand, if the DA has not come after you, the allegation did not pass mustard. In some states, these allegations have to be kept in public files for a period up to one year, even if there is no arrest or even questioning by the police. Therefore, they would surfface on one of these background checks, but you’re not in trouble.

I remember working in a school where a fight broke out between two kids. A teacher intervened and pushed one of the kids. There was a bloody nose involved. So the teacher had to do something. The kid who was pushed reported it. A police officer and a social worker came to the school to interview the teacher. They interviewed several students who saw the fight. It was clear that the teacher was not trying to hurt the kid, but he was trying to protect both kids and the one kid was so angry that he was not hearing the teacher. This is pretty normal when a kid is angry.

To make a long story short. Nothing happened. The police and Child Protective Services agreed that the teacher had not assaulted the student. But they said that the paperwork, as well as their interview would be kept on file for one year.

I am not a lawyer or a law enforcement person. But I would imagine that such reports are public information, which can surfface in a background check. I don’t know how much information would be included in the background report. It may just say that there was an allegation or it may explain that the matter was resolved. I really don’t know about this part.

But my point is that if it does come up and you have never been arrested and charged, there is no accusser for you to face. Just like this teacher. He was never allowed to face the kid and the parents. He was only allowed to tell his story to the investigating officer and social worker and to present proof of his story.

This person may well be a cantor or youth minister or lector in a parish or a scout leader, who knows. But he has nothing to fear, because it’s over. In a year it will disappear, at least in the Commonwealth of Virginia where this happened. I don’t know about other states.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
I think its interesting that recently in New England a man was arrested for a financial crime in the secular world and the opening paragraph of the article mentioned that he was a lector at his local Catholic parish. So apparently the Church does have an interest in knowing who its giving positions to.

And secondly, in my parish the lector and cantor both come into the sacristy for a period of time prior to Mass to check in and go over any last minute issues. There’s altar servers and children around. Could be problematic depending on someone’s history.
 
In the 1930’s Padre Pio was ordered not to hear confessions for three years.

He was obedient.

I do not put the constitution before God. Anything can become an idol. Perhaps this is a cross He is asking you to bear? Perhaps it’s a way He wants you to prove your faith to Him.

Sometimes we are asked to give up what we cherish. It makes for a very strong proof.
 
Cygnus_X1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
What the Archdiocese did was not illegal. They asked you to sign the form. There is nothing illegal about asking. You chose not to of your own free will, fine.

1 Corinthians 9:12 “But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ.”

Again, perhaps a test for you…
 
Cygnus_X1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is not illegal. Let me give you several proofs.
  1. If it were illegal, we would not have the legal authority to threaten a religious or a priest with disciplinary action. They could sue us.
  2. The Church is not subsidized by the Federal Government. Therefore, she can set her own standards as long as she does not breakt the law. The Cosntitution says that you have the righ to face your accuser (in a court of law). The Church is not denying you this. If it goes to trial, then you will be granted that opportunity in court. The Church does not have to enforce the this. The courts take care of this.
  3. The law says that you have a right to face your accusers. It does not say that a non government organization does not have the right to ask you to waive the right to see this information in their office or in their files. These are their files. They have a right to do with them as they wish. Unless they get a court order, they do not have to provide them to anyone.
  4. Finally, none of us has the right to ministry. Ministry is a call that comes from Jesus Christ and is confirmed by Church authority. The Church is the only legitimate authority when it comes to deciding whether you or I are called to serve. You and I have no authority to decide that. I’ll give you an example. When we ask to be admitted to Holy Orders or to religiuos vows, we ask because we believe that Christ as called us. The Church has the right to say, “No he has not.” Christ speaks through the legitimate authority in the Church.
Does everyone see how this works?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
I have read this numerous times and can no longer resist the urge to comment. Shall we?

Christ gave his life for all of us. Can you only give your pride? The chances of your crucifixion are very doubtful. Society has rules. I do not agree with all of them but, I am bound to follow them. Put Gog first, others second and, yourself third. Using this logic if you choose to lector as it seems your calling. You must sign the document.
Leave the Church? That will show em. Man makes a rule so I will show God and turn my back from him. Who made the man or woman that made the rule. Forgive them for offending you then pray for them to see the error you feel they have made.

Now, that would be living what you believe.
 
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.
Click to expand...
The OP himself stated several pages back very quickly that people were speaking ill of him. This lead me to believe his protests were not so discreet. Considering he has given us enough information to be able to figure out which diocese it is - if you were a member of that Parish and had a child and were reading this thread I am pretty sure you would know who you were posting to. Especially if one of your lectors had stopped and moved to Nevada and there was talk of someone refusing to sign the waiver.
 
JerrySeibert said:
I have read this numerous times and can no longer resist the urge to comment. Shall we?

Christ gave his life for all of us. Can you only give your pride? The chances of your crucifixion are very doubtful. Society has rules. I do not agree with all of them but, I am bound to follow them. Put Gog first,
Click to expand...
and Magog second?
others second and, yourself third. Using this logic if you choose to lector as it seems your calling. You must sign the document.
Leave the Church? That will show em. Man makes a rule so I will show God and turn my back from him. Who made the man or woman that made the rule. Forgive them for offending you then pray for them to see the error you feel they have made.
Click to expand...
Now, that would be living what you believe.
Click to expand...
 
The issue is not as complicated as it sounds. A bishop is the ultimate authority in his diocese. Every diocese constitutes a local Church. The bishop governs the local Church in communion with the pope. That communion means that he cannot violate Canon Law, teach new dogmas and new moral laws. Outside of that, he can demand whatever he wants and whatever he feels is appropriate for his local Church. The rest of us have no voice in the matter. The Church is not a democracy and never will be. Our voice goes only as far as Church law allows it to go.

The answer to the question, if there is really a question here, is what Mary told the waiters at the wedding at Cana. “Do whatever he tells you.” Whether we are laity, religious or clergy, when we enter a diocese we are entering a local Church with its own head. We are not required to agree. We are required to comply. St. Paul makes that very clear to his Churches in his letters. He demands compliance with his orders and his teachings. Only when the salvation of souls is at risk, may we not comply. Other than that, we have two choices, either comply or move on to another place.

And no, we’re not Americans first and Catholics second. It’s the other way around. If it’s a choice between the Constitution and the Vatican, the Vatican should win hands down with any Catholic. No one has said this better than the Bishop of Rhode Island when he responded to Patrick Kennedy.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
The issue is not as complicated as it sounds. A bishop is the ultimate authority in his diocese. Every diocese constitutes a local Church. The bishop governs the local Church in communion with the pope. That communion means that he cannot violate Canon Law, teach new dogmas and new moral laws. Outside of that, he can demand whatever he wants and whatever he feels is appropriate for his local Church. The rest of us have no voice in the matter. The Church is not a democracy and never will be. Our voice goes only as far as Church law allows it to go.

The answer to the question, if there is really a question here, is what Mary told the waiters at the wedding at Cana. “Do whatever he tells you.” Whether we are laity, religious or clergy, when we enter a diocese we are entering a local Church with its own head. We are not required to agree. We are required to comply. St. Paul makes that very clear to his Churches in his letters. He demands compliance with his orders and his teachings. Only when the salvation of souls is at risk, may we not comply. Other than that, we have two choices, either comply or move on to another place.

And no, we’re not Americans first and Catholics second. It’s the other way around. If it’s a choice between the Constitution and the Vatican, the Vatican should win hands down with any Catholic. No one has said this better than the Bishop of Rhode Island when he responded to Patrick Kennedy.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
That was well said Brother, I wonder if the road to Hell is not paved with our worrying over our “rights” instead of our “Rites.”
 
Cygnus_X1 said:
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 :rolleyes: ), 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?
Click to expand...
I had to sign a Paper to be on the Pastoral Council. I never understood the big deal. I gladly signed it. I understand that the Church must do everything it can to protect Children no matter what. That does not bother me.

Father said anyone who has anything to do with the Church must be cleared to be around Children. I guess because Children seeing us in Church every Sunday look up to us, and may come to us for help. They feel they can trust us.

I am for anything that can help Protect a Child. I am sure God would agree with that too!!😃
 
rinnie said:
I had to sign a Paper to be on the Pastoral Council. I never understood the big deal. I gladly signed it. I understand that the Church must do everything it can to protect Children no matter what. That does not bother me.

Father said anyone who has anything to do with the Church must be cleared to be around Children. I guess because Children seeing us in Church every Sunday look up to us, and may come to us for help. They feel they can trust us.

I am for anything that can help Protect a Child. I am sure God would agree with that too!!😃
Click to expand...
It’s the same way for us. At the moment we cannot accept any more volunteers until the diocese has formulated and promulgated its new policies on safety. I suspect that when those are in place, although I’ve been employed for 12 years, I’ll have submit to a police check. I have absolutely no problem with that.
 
Phemie said:
It’s the same way for us. At the moment we cannot accept any more volunteers until the diocese has formulated and promulgated its new policies on safety. I suspect that when those are in place, although I’ve been employed for 12 years, I’ll have submit to a police check. I have absolutely no problem with that.
Click to expand...
You probably will have to do so. They made every priest, brother, sister and lay person in ministry go through that down here, regardless of the years in service or what time of service. Even our volunteers who work in Respect Life had to do it. They hardly ever come in contact with kids. The logic behind it was that it could not come back that the Church was harboring people with suspicious backgrounds. Since the media is bent on saying that we habor child abusers, because it happened 20 or 30 years ago and is only being discovered now. The media is talking about this as if this happened last week.

The truth is that there has not been much of a problem in the USA for almost 10 or more years. But if our detractors want to give the impression that we are still in the same place as we were 20 years ago, we don’t want to give them fodder for talk. It’s not skin off my back to take the VIRTUS course and get my finger prints done every few years. I don’t have to pay for it. The Archdiocese pays for it. So what the heck, here’s my thumb. 😛

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Cygnus_X1 said:
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 :rolleyes: ), 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?
Click to expand...
You say you are from near Reno, but the link you provided is for Baltimore?
 
DV56 said:
You say you are from near Reno, but the link you provided is for Baltimore?
Click to expand...
It’s an old thread - the OP has moved to Reno and is serving without being asked to submit to the background check.
 
[SIGN][/SIGN]
JReducation said:
You probably will have to do so. They made every priest, brother, sister and lay person in ministry go through that down here, regardless of the years in service or what time of service. Even our volunteers who work in Respect Life had to do it. They hardly ever come in contact with kids. The logic behind it was that it could not come back that the Church was harboring people with suspicious backgrounds. Since the media is bent on saying that we habor child abusers, because it happened 20 or 30 years ago and is only being discovered now. The media is talking about this as if this happened last week.

The truth is that there has not been much of a problem in the USA for almost 10 or more years. But if our detractors want to give the impression that we are still in the same place as we were 20 years ago, we don’t want to give them fodder for talk. It’s not skin off my back to take the VIRTUS course and get my finger prints done every few years. I don’t have to pay for it. The Archdiocese pays for it. [SIGN]So what the heck, here’s my thumb. :p[/SIGN]
Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
Thats it! We did have to pay like ten dollars for ours but who cares. If its to protect Gods Children I am for it!

But it is an extensive background check, prints etc. It is sad in todays society that we have to go to that but it is what it is I guess!🤷 Better safe then sorry!
 
baltobetsy said:
It’s an old thread - the OP has moved to Reno and is serving without being asked to submit to the background check.
Click to expand...
Uh yeah - like three years old!! :rolleyes: Why do folks seem to feel the need to dig up ancient threads like this instead of starting a new one? I’ll never understand that.

~Liza
 
lizaanne said:
Uh yeah - like three years old!! :rolleyes: Why do folks seem to feel the need to dig up ancient threads like this instead of starting a new one? I’ll never understand that.

~Liza
Click to expand...
In this case it made perfect sense because it was the OP who resurrected it to update us on what had transpired since.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top