Interdict scenerio, member in limbo,help

[puzzleannie]

He received no response at all.

Thanks for the help.

AndyF

no response to what? a phone call to the priest? an email to the diocese?

there is no way anyone in the parish should know anything at all about the fact that a volunteer for any position was declined due to the results of the background check. The only person who sees that is the pastor, and he is the only person who should have met with the individual to tell him the situation and why he was declined. He may have to tell the person in charge of the volunteers such as the DRE, that the person has been declined, but no way is that made public. That in itself is a serious breach of confidentiality which should be brought to the bishop’s attention directly.

my reading, however, suggests this individual is complaining to everyone he can in the most mysterious terms about his alleged mistreatment, and in the process passing on false information about the priest and his actions.

for the record, background checks do not show arrests or charges, only convictions, and only those which stay on the permanent record such as criminal convictions, dui and the like, minor traffic offenses or misdeameanors drop off after a period of time and don’t show up.

wake up and smell the coffee. The lawsuits bishops and dioceses are facing today have to do with events and people 30 years ago or more, who did their thing before these bishops were even in office, yet they are the ones being publicly smeared, and the diocese today has to pay the price. You betcha there is zero tolerance, there is no wiggle room where child safety is involved.

You state plainly you do not know how this information has become public (if it has) and until you prove otherwise my guess is the individual himself is spreading this around.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Has the priest told anything to anyone? If so, what exactly has he said?

 

[Spirithound]

Don’t know. Probably sent around to the parishes.

No, that is not how police checks work. Each parish would ask for the document, independent of the other parishes, and the individual in question is the only one who can submit it.

 

[AndyF]

Betsy:

Even this finality is expected. We are allowed no liberty here. Paul desires total reinstatement of this individual into society.

“The punishment(consequence) inflicted on him by the majority is sufficient(finality) for him.”

This is what sets Catholics apart from other religions. There is even hope for a genocidic Paul and habitual sexist Augustine who can be fully re-trusted into society. Their success story and reinstatement after crime proves this difficult step can be achieved. Paul’s plea for trust also speaks of his own case.

What differs from their’s and this subject’s case of today who deserves the same.? Is it for Augustine the lack of vice squads in the third century sweeping the lustful rabble into prisons, thus cutting short a ministry we all benefit from?. Is it for Paul the lack of an electronic filing system and criminal record system able to instantly record the numbers of Christian families,children included, passed to the Romans and lined up for forum entertainment?.

Surely there must be more than this for the offenders of today. Christ saw some use for Paul on the road to Emmaus, and Augustine’s anguish and remorse for his sins warranted sainthood.

This friend admits everything. He parallels Paul and Augustine in that he didn’t regress to a life of crime, he turned it into a success story, did everything civil authority demanded to make amends, and some. Offered his children instruction in keeping society’s laws, not in vengeance introducing them to a life of crime.

No more is there a reflection on them, it now reflects on those who truly can’t forgive by reinstatement.

Andy

“The po-leese jest came com’n with the sirens walin 'enever I gotta new job. Id lose the job cause theyd have no more doin with me, so I jest gave up and went back to robbin banks.” Clide Barrow

 

[AndyF]

1ke:

The diocese has a policy “criminal record = further investigation”

Parishes are to “criminal record = further investigation”.

The parish priest has a policy “criminal record = complete unacceptable”

Diocese screening doesn’t recommend, but states the parish priest will further investigate. He told this guy flat out without knowing the details that he wasn’t accepted. But, the priest already knew he had a minor conviction.

Not that simple. Contradiction in policy rules.

But a side issue rears it’s head. He is a member of the parish, and was told he was a danger to children. That has broad implications in his current state no matter how we want to down play it. If the situation were a bar room it wouldn’t take much more for a brawl to ensue since this is question of honor and degradation of character. Personally, I wouldn’t let it lay either. Like I said, I would take an apology.

The priest if he’s sincere in his declaration has to take action. If not for the parish children, for the children in this guy’s family since that is a immediate concern.

If it were me, I would take my grandchildren to mass and after everyone has left ask the priest if he wants to say anything to my grandchildren alone. I would do this after every mass until I got an apology.

Andy

 

[AndyF]

puzzleannie:

Ok, Let’s focus on the statement the priest makes to him that he is a danger to children, even has a hypothetical.

What action should a priest do with information gleaned out of a confessional context that causes him concern about the threat an individual imposes?

Should he ignore the safety of the grandchildren of this man? What should he do? If the overall screening policy sets the general tone of concern for children, I think we all agree he should do something.?

Perhaps you feel he should take another step and have him arrested once again so that’s he’s no longer a threat.?

If he investigated further, is there at least a remote possibility the sentencing type that recommends no incarceration says something.?

Any other question or answer you feel is pertinent please feel free.

Just asking.

BTW: I don’t express it enough, but everyone, thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Andy

 

[LilyM]

1ke:

The diocese has a policy “criminal record = further investigation”

Parishes are to “criminal record = further investigation”.

The parish priest has a policy “criminal record = complete unacceptable”

Diocese screening doesn’t recommend, but states the parish priest will further investigate. He told this guy flat out without knowing the details that he wasn’t accepted. But, the priest already knew he had a minor conviction.

Not that simple. Contradiction in policy rules.

But a side issue rears it’s head. He is a member of the parish, and was told he was a danger to children. That has broad implications in his current state no matter how we want to down play it. If the situation were a bar room it wouldn’t take much more for a brawl to ensue since this is question of honor and degradation of character. Personally, I wouldn’t let it lay either. Like I said, I would take an apology.

The priest if he’s sincere in his declaration has to take action. If not for the parish children, for the children in this guy’s family since that is a immediate concern.

If it were me, I would take my grandchildren to mass and after everyone has left ask the priest if he wants to say anything to my grandchildren alone. I would do this after every mass until I got an apology.

Andy

Andy, two things:

1. OK. So policy says further investigation required. How much? What type? How do you or your friend know that the further investigation WASN’T done?
2. What is the purpose of the further investigation? To disclose information that could have a bearing on your friend’s fitness for the role.

You mention things like the nature of the sentencing - no incarceration. Yes that may have an impact. However, the nature of the crime AND the length of sentence (if any) served or other punishment (if any) imposed would all, if memory is correct, be on the criminal record.

So if your friend wasn’t sentenced to jail, but something else, that would be apparent from the record and already taken into consideration.

What other information would be required? If the person was convicted of, say, a violent assault (and assaults are described differently depending on the seriousness) or inappropriate conduct with children (again, described differently depending on the seriousness and nature of the conduct), but wasn’t sentenced to jail, how would having more information be useful in any way?

Especially in regard crimes against children, the mere fact that they were convicted of that particular crime would be more than enough to disqualify them. No further information is required, and none would be helpful.

Put it this way - a requirement of being President of the US is that you be 35 years old. Let’s assume somewhere there’s a policy that ‘further investigation’ is required if someone potentially doesn’t meet this criteria.

Investigation makes sense in cases of doubt - where a person’s age is uncertain, for example.

But what about cases where there is NO doubt? Where the candidate themselves have already produced the ‘smoking gun’ - the original birth certificate, for example, undisputedly the genuine article and no forgery, no mistaken identity, no room for doubt or error. Proof positive that the person is 30 years old and therefore automatically ineligible?

WHAT ‘further investigation’ would be needed? None. What further investigation could even be done? None that would be of any use given that the actual birth certificate has been produced - and by the candidate themselves, who has no reason to be dishonest in a way that disadvantaged him.

See, a policy of further investigation means that investigation only needs to be done to the point where eligibility or ineligibility is proven, and need not be done beyond. In fact it shouldn’t, for it would be a tremendous waste of time and resources and would add no useful information to what the birth certificate itself reveals.

The same, I suspect, could be said of certain crimes revealed by a criminal record. Some of them regardless of sentence. Sure, the convicted criminal may feel hard done by, but something that makes you ineligible makes you ineligible. And if the mere fact that you’ve ever had a conviction of certain types of crime makes you, like the mere fact of being under 35, disqualifies you from certain jobs. If that’s the criteria then, the fact of the conviction being demonstrated by the criminal record, what more need be added?

That 30-year-old candidate for President may feel hard done by, and perhaps had even been totally innocently thinking they were 35 when they weren’t. Doesn’t change the fact that they are ineligible. No appeal, no possibility whatsoever of being allowed to run for or hold the office. Tough luck.

 

[texasnan]

Don’t know. Probably sent around to the parishes.

"Probably?" Pure speculation.

That is his right has a member in communion.

***No one has a “right” to a volunteer position. Neither of you seem to be able to grasp that concept. ***

 

[AndyF]

Andy, two things:

1. OK. How do you or your friend know that the further investigation WASN’T done?

Exactly. If someone sends you a letter asking for clarification because of a policy you adopted, then the oness is on you to clarify him has a matter of form and respect, he being a member. You may decide not to, but then it becomes a matter of your personal conscience for you, and it has nothing to do with him.

1. What is the purpose of the further investigation?

I assume you mean a further analysis of his criminal record by the diocese or parish. It allows for possible suitability in spite of his record. It determines if his case is pertinent to the risk. For instance: If a case shows he was charged with white collar theft of falsifying a cheque, then it is obvious that doesn’t involve children or even violence of any kind.

So if your friend wasn’t sentenced to jail, but something else, that would be apparent from the record and already taken into consideration.

Exactly. This is what I find puzzling with arguments here so far. The obvious question shouts out at us. “If he’s a danger to society, what is he doing on the street.?” We can safely surmise that the magistrate found him not to be at risk to anyone. Of course he has a record, but that instrument was meant for informational purposes of law enforcement to gauge the conduct of a person who has paid his debt to society, not a sentence of it’s own has God sees it and instructed us in Mathew. Has catholics we are not allowed to approve of perpetual sentencing outside of what the court found appropriate.

The magistrate represents the people, the Church, priests,Popes,everyone. The magistrate deems him safe, so he fines him rather than jails him. The issue is no longer with the offender, that has already been satisfied in due process by your reps. If anyone takes offence with this guy being out, they need to take it up with the judicial system.

Restrictions are sentences, because he would not have a restriction if there were no crime. We can clearly verify the cause and the effect. All restrictions need to be across the table and decreed in a trial at sentencing.

People have the democratic system to make changes they disagree with and to implement the desire to lock every offender forever.

Especially in regard crimes against children, the mere fact that they were convicted of that particular crime would be more than enough to disqualify them. No further information is required, and none would be helpful.

The parish is not interested to determine if that is the case by having a sit down with him to discuss it.

Put it this way - a requirement of being President of the US is that you be 35 years old. Let’s assume somewhere

How about this one. Assume that the presidency permitted no more than one minor crime. A document is required to record this information. It comes into existance only when there is a crime. Now we can see that psychologically the document itself is an identifier, a stigma of sorts. It becomes the red/green light at a traffic stop.

Perhaps congress adopts a policy where anyone with a document is not accepted. Then we cannot determine this candidates potential for presidency based on the seriousness and number of crimes. The candidate would probably want to know why the conflicting legislation.

In the subject’s case here, none can get over he has a document(record), and his light will always be red. At least in the priest’s opinion, the result is that it negates the detailed screening policy of the diocese. For him all cases have a red light.

If no doubt, that is, further scrutiny of his case determines he has child issues, sure, drop him. But at the initial level where we find something is there, this is not justified.

See, a policy of further investigation means that investigation only needs to be done to the point where eligibility or ineligibility is proven, and need not be done beyond.

Not in this case, the priest is to have a meeting with the candidate to clarify details of the conviction.

Thoughtful post, thanks.! Sorry if it takes me forever to say something.

Andy

 

[Corki]

Exactly. If someone sends you a letter asking for clarification because of a policy you adopted, then the oness is on you to clarify him has a matter of form and respect, he being a member. You may decide not to, but then it becomes a matter of your personal conscience for you, and it has nothing to do with him.

I assume you mean a further analysis of his criminal record by the diocese or parish. It allows for possible suitability in spite of his record. It determines if his case is pertinent to the risk. For instance: If a case shows he was charged with white collar theft of falsifying a cheque, then it is obvious that doesn’t involve children or even violence of any kind.

Andy

In most background checks that involve reviewing a criminal record, the purpose of further investigation isn’t to see if an exception can be made. The purpose of further investigation is to make sure that the information obtained is accurate. The person being investigated may or may not be involved in further review. In my experience, usually not.

You are a fourth party in this situation. It is highly likely that the further investigation was already done prior to your friend being notified that he did not pass the background screening.

Something that has troubled me as I have been following this thread: when a person submits his/her information for background checks in a diocese, he/she is informed that a criminal background check will be conducted. If a person has a record and the record is uncovered, it should not be a big shock or surprise. Why has this turned into such a big deal?

I am not sure why you keep saying your friend is a danger to society or has been told he is. Who told him that? Saying that he is not appropriate for a certain volunteer position does not mean that anyone thinks he is a danger to others.

 

[AndyF]

NewEnglandPries:

I see, it is hard to keep on track with all this I agree, sorry.

To make things simple how would you feel about creating your own hypothetical and I will relate it to the points I will make.? This way we will start with your own foundational perspective.

We begin at the point where out of the confessional environment you have answered the candidate’s question that yes, he is a threat to children. You base your answer on data from a criminal record check which does not divulge the details, just the charge and conviction dated 35 years ago. You see there is no societal restriction sentencing and the offense is not sex or violence related.

You are aware he has under aged grandchildren in close proximity to him and you see them all at mass.

Has a conscientious priest concerned with the safety of children, what would you do if anything.?

Andy

 

[Corki]

NewEnglandPries:

I see, it is hard to keep on track with all this I agree, sorry.

To make things simple how would you feel about creating your own hypothetical and I will relate it to the points I will make.? This way we will start with your own foundational perspective.

We begin at the point where out of the confessional environment you have answered the candidate’s question that yes, he is a threat to children. You base your answer on data from a criminal record check which does not divulge the details, just the charge and conviction dated 35 years ago. You see there is no societal restriction sentencing and the offense is not sex or violence related.

You are aware he has under aged grandchildren in close proximity to him and you see them all at mass.

Has a conscientious priest concerned with the safety of children, what would you do if anything.?

Andy

In such a case, if the information was obtained outside of the Confessional, the priest would report it to the authorities to investigate. But again, if the offense is not sex or violence related, why would the person believe he is a threat to children?

 

[catharina]

1ke:

The diocese has a policy “criminal record = further investigation”

Parishes are to “criminal record = further investigation”.

The parish priest has a policy “criminal record = complete unacceptable”

Diocese screening doesn’t recommend, but states the parish priest will further investigate. He told this guy flat out without knowing the details that he wasn’t accepted. But, the priest already knew he had a minor conviction.

Not that simple. Contradiction in policy rules.

But a side issue rears it’s head. He is a member of the parish, and was told he was a danger to children. That has broad implications in his current state no matter how we want to down play it. If the situation were a bar room it wouldn’t take much more for a brawl to ensue since this is question of honor and degradation of character. Personally, I wouldn’t let it lay either. Like I said, I would take an apology.

The priest if he’s sincere in his declaration has to take action. If not for the parish children, for the children in this guy’s family since that is a immediate concern.

If it were me, I would take my grandchildren to mass and after everyone has left ask the priest if he wants to say anything to my grandchildren alone. I would do this after every mass until I got an apology.

Andy

So both you and your friend have speculated that the priest should be confronted by innocent grandchildren who are there to hear that “grandpa is a criminal.” This very example of ‘overkill in defense of self’ is outrageously out of proportion. Not that either of you men would do such a thing - simply that you imagine doing such a thing.

Very off-kilter.
Very out-of-proportion.
Very disturbing and distressing image.

Very related to non-protection of the innocence of children.
Get it?

 

[catharina]

NewEnglandPries:

I see, it is hard to keep on track with all this I agree, sorry.

To make things simple how would you feel about creating your own hypothetical and I will relate it to the points I will make.? This way we will start with your own foundational perspective.

We begin at the point where out of the confessional environment you have answered the candidate’s question that yes, he is a threat to children. You base your answer on data from a criminal record check which does not divulge the details, just the charge and conviction dated 35 years ago. You see there is no societal restriction sentencing and the offense is not sex or violence related.

**You are aware he has under aged grandchildren in close proximity to him and you see them all at mass.

Has a conscientious priest concerned with the safety of children, what would you do if anything.?**

Andy

Again, as one who has worked with vulnerable children in social services, from babies to
teens, I know that every time I am fact-checked by local authorites or even by federal
authorities when required, ANY crime of record would deny me a position. This is the
standard for protection of minors and I have worked in the field for more than forty years.

That the Church supports the standard is admirable, IMO. If your friend seeks an
explanation or is looking for the status of exemption, he is free to appeal to the diocese.
Yet if he finds there is no exemption available, perhaps he (and you) can thank God that
the Church is exercising all prudence to protect children.

A man’s freedom to socialize with his young relatives
has nothing to do with the Church’s sanction of him as ‘volunteer.’

 

[Phemie]

NewEnglandPries:

I see, it is hard to keep on track with all this I agree, sorry.

To make things simple how would you feel about creating your own hypothetical and I will relate it to the points I will make.? This way we will start with your own foundational perspective.

We begin at the point where out of the confessional environment you have answered the candidate’s question that yes, he is a threat to children. You base your answer on data from a criminal record check which does not divulge the details, just the charge and conviction dated 35 years ago. You see there is no societal restriction sentencing and the offense is not sex or violence related.

You are aware he has under aged grandchildren in close proximity to him and you see them all at mass.

Has a conscientious priest concerned with the safety of children, what would you do if anything.?

Andy

There is nothing you can do. Let me explain it thus with a real-life situation,not a hypothetical.

There is a man living 3 doors up from me. He has a criminal record a mile long, including a 35 year old conviction for assault on a child, a 20 year old conviction for rape, a 13 year old conviction for assault against his 92 year old grandmother where he nearly beat her to death, a 7 year old accusation of sexual assault that was downgraded to assault and for which he served 4 complete years, a 2 year old conviction for sexual assault (groping a woman over her clothes) for which he was sentenced to time served and 3 years of probation.

There is absolutely nothing we can do about this man associating with children in his family if he wants to since the courts have imposed no conditions on him to that effect. We may feel he’s a threat but there’s absolutely nothing we can do about it unless the court decides to impose conditions on him.

 

[AndyF]

In most background checks that involve reviewing a criminal record, the purpose of further investigation isn’t to see if an exception can be made. The purpose of further investigation is to make sure that the information obtained is accurate. The person being investigated may or may not be involved in further review. In my experience, usually not.

So to what advantage is a further investigation to him, if not the hope that an exception can be made?. Also, you are implying he is the deciding factor in determining if information is accurate, which seems unlikely. He’s not doing this out of general interest, or to ensure the books are straight, but because there is something to gain from it.

This process seems ambiguous and clearly defined purposes are lacking.

You are a fourth party in this situation.

true

It is highly likely that the further investigation was already done prior to your friend being notified that he did not pass the background screening.

Why did he need to solicit for any response? He needed to ask to find out. Couldn’t the parish take the initiative and inform him of any proceedings.?

I am not sure why you keep saying your friend is a danger to society or has been told he is. Who told him that?

The priest when he had just told him that he was rejected because there was simply a criminal record existing, and when no determination was made that he really was a risk.

Andy

 

[AndyF]

I think it’s time for this thread to terminate.

Many good ideas were contributed, and I thank you all for your submissions.

Thanks again.

Andy

 

[LilyM]

Exactly. If someone sends you a letter asking for clarification because of a policy you adopted, then the oness is on you to clarify him has a matter of form and respect, he being a member. You may decide not to, but then it becomes a matter of your personal conscience for you, and it has nothing to do with him.

But what further clarification is needed? Again, if the requirement to be President is that you’re 35 or older and you’re NOT 35 or older, then what ‘clarification’ is needed once those two facts are known?

I’m guessing there might have been more applicants than vacancies in regard this job - is that the case? If so, as with any job, the boss is obliged to pick the most suitable candidate, but doesn’t have to clarify or justify their decision as to who is most suitable to the candidates who miss out. If the candidate feels they were discrimated against, it is for them to argue the toss and PROVE that they were discriminated against.

I assume you mean a further analysis of his criminal record by the diocese or parish. It allows for possible suitability in spite of his record. It determines if his case is pertinent to the risk. For instance: If a case shows he was charged with white collar theft of falsifying a cheque, then it is obvious that doesn’t involve children or even violence of any kind.

Further analysis of his criminal record? To what end? The necessary information to adequately understand his criminal record is probably already on that record that he provided, and so the parish will already be aware of it. The record will SAY whether he was charged with falsifying a cheque, failing to pay a parking fine, violent asault of a minor, possession of child porn or whatever the case may be. And will reveal that the offence is 30 years old. So I fail to see that any further information of the kind needs to be provided.

If, as phemie says, ANY crime of record excludes one from working with children, that is almost certainly a matter of state or federal law that the diocese can’t negotiate around and can’t do anything about. In which case you should be arguing with state or federal legislators about it.

Exactly. This is what I find puzzling with arguments here so far. The obvious question shouts out at us. “If he’s a danger to society, what is he doing on the street.?” We can safely surmise that the magistrate found him not to be at risk to anyone.

We can make no such surmise. I’ve worked in criminal law, and I can tell you due to overcrowding and underresourcing, many people who should be jailed, and many who are in jail who shouldn’t be released, are nonetheless let out on the streets, and sadly the vast majority of them commit further crimes, often worse (more violent) than the initial ones. There’s an escalation happens time and time again, which might be the reason for the restriction on people with ANY criminal record.

Of course he has a record, but that instrument was meant for informational purposes of law enforcement to gauge the conduct of a person who has paid his debt to society, not a sentence of it’s own has God sees it and instructed us in Mathew. Has catholics we are not allowed to approve of perpetual sentencing outside of what the court found appropriate.

As Catholics we are to be ‘cunning as serpents’ as well as innocent as doves. In other words we are to be good stewards and take good care of our families and children. This includes miniminsing risk of harm to them by minimising their exposure to people with a criminal history. And we have not only the right but the duty to do so. Particularly where state or federal law says we must. Again, if you don’t like it, argue with the legislators rather than the diocese.

How about this one. Assume that the presidency permitted no more than one minor crime. A document is required to record this information. It comes into existance only when there is a crime. Now we can see that psychologically the document itself is an identifier, a stigma of sorts. It becomes the red/green light at a traffic stop.

Perhaps congress adopts a policy where anyone with a document is not accepted. Then we cannot determine this candidates potential for presidency based on the seriousness and number of crimes. The candidate would probably want to know why the conflicting legislation.

In the subject’s case here, none can get over he has a document(record), and his light will always be red. At least in the priest’s opinion, the result is that it negates the detailed screening policy of the diocese. For him all cases have a red light.

If no doubt, that is, further scrutiny of his case determines he has child issues, sure, drop him. But at the initial level where we find something is there, this is not justified.

Not in this case, the priest is to have a meeting with the candidate to clarify details of the conviction.

Thoughtful post, thanks.! Sorry if it takes me forever to say something.

Andy

You’re missing the point. If it’s a matter of state or federal law, the archdiocese CANNOT cut him some sort of deal, cannot employ him, and would indeed be wasting time to do further investigation. Yet again, not their problem. Talk to the people who can change the law. If they won’t change it, the diocese must obey it, simple as that.

 

[catharina]

But what further clarification is needed? Again, if the requirement to be President is that you’re 35 or older and you’re NOT 35 or older, then what ‘clarification’ is needed once those two facts are known?

I’m guessing there might have been more applicants than vacancies in regard this job - is that the case? If so, as with any job, the boss is obliged to pick the most suitable candidate, but doesn’t have to clarify or justify their decision as to who is most suitable to the candidates who miss out. If the candidate feels they were discrimated against, it is for them to argue the toss and PROVE that they were discriminated against.

Further analysis of his criminal record? To what end? The necessary information to adequately understand his criminal record is probably already on that record that he provided, and so the parish will already be aware of it. The record will SAY whether he was charged with falsifying a cheque, failing to pay a parking fine, violent asault of a minor, possession of child porn or whatever the case may be. And will reveal that the offence is 30 years old. So I fail to see that any further information of the kind needs to be provided.

If, as phemie says, ANY crime of record excludes one from working with children, that is almost certainly a matter of state or federal law that the diocese can’t negotiate around and can’t do anything about. In which case you should be arguing with state or federal legislators about it.

We can make no such surmise. I’ve worked in criminal law, and I can tell you due to overcrowding and underresourcing, many people who should be jailed, and many who are in jail who shouldn’t be released, are nonetheless let out on the streets, and sadly the vast majority of them commit further crimes, often worse (more violent) than the initial ones. There’s an escalation happens time and time again, which might be the reason for the restriction on people with ANY criminal record.

As Catholics we are to be ‘cunning as serpents’ as well as innocent as doves. In other words we are to be good stewards and take good care of our families and children. This includes miniminsing risk of harm to them by minimising their exposure to people with a criminal history. And we have not only the right but the duty to do so. Particularly where state or federal law says we must. Again, if you don’t like it, argue with the legislators rather than the diocese.

You’re missing the point. If it’s a matter of state or federal law, the archdiocese CANNOT cut him some sort of deal, cannot employ him, and would indeed be wasting time to do further investigation. Yet again, not their problem. Talk to the people who can change the law. If they won’t change it, the diocese must obey it, simple as that.

You’ve said it aall. Thanks.

:clapping:

 

[AndyF]

catharina:

Well, I assumed this thread was going to phase out, guess it isn’t. That’s Ok.

Thanks for the post. From a practical standpoint I may be relieved that we have the child molestation thing under wraps for certain, but I wonder how much we had to sacrifice in our precepts to do so. I wouldn’t feel good about it either, because in that excluded group we now have in that sealed bag of rejects the remorseful who have listened to the demands that society has demanded to make restitution, and some have given double that was required. So now this bundle of rejected cases also includes remnants of our promises and hopes we gave to them.

If all that we can say is that it is just time that separates us from the sexual crimes of Augustine, then you would need to include him in your list regardless, since you find that this era’s cases of single offense 40 year old minor crime is time irrelevant. For the same reason we consider Paul of Tarsus’s application. Imagine the hogwash he writes about some God who spoke to him on the road to Emmaus, no, we can’t believe a criminal. This enemy of the unital family, which by the way included children, has the audacity to want back into our society and apply for prophet.

In order for you to convince me you will need to describe how it is possible for people in this era to emulate from these two a change of life for the better and prosper from it while they are destined always to be rejected.

More seriously, any psychiatrist will tell you that they strive for betterment only because there is hope. A man who considers himself dead, and now confirmed to be God’s reject simply has nothing to lose, and that is absolutely true, and even scarier. You’ll need a 20 fold increase in police security to fend off the throng. Fort Apache the Bronx becomes a reality.

Refusing to reconcile with those who erred is a sin. Mortal if your vincible.

Andy