Interdict scenerio, member in limbo,help

[AndyF]

Phemie, excellent data, thanks!

OK, but a few differing facts in the overall case of this thread.

1/ No Church official wants to know that my friend’s crime was minor and didn’t involve kids.
2/ “the court imposed no conditions…”. To this I say tough, if it’s not in sentencing, it can’t be considered outside the court. In other words he’s safe on the outside.
Sentencing is to consider this, if it doesn’t then the judge isn’t doing the job you expect of him. Your problem is with him, not the guy who’s payed his debt, which reminds me… here’s a bit more that may explain what’s happening…

The Church adopts this policy under the concept of the common good, which sacrifices the individual rights for social rights. Not a problem IF by agreed definition of the common good that it is used has a second option which it is supposed to be out of respect of human rights. Other means are always to be sought first.

The Church knew that the common good could be addressed by the civil system to incarcerate all offenders it deems a threat, creating for it a singular pool of acceptable candidates that would be safely at large.

The real truth is that the Church knows this but doesn’t want to make waves since it’s institution is targeted in sex scandals itself. It wants to remain low key focusing on it’s own issues until all this blows over.

Secondly, it has an ally in that it counts on the current tide of human rage in regards to the child safety problem in hopes that most candidates who would otherwise launch a public protest would also remain low key. Another example of another tide was the WW2 war initiatives such has bonds,etc. Protests were few for sure, anyone with a free neck would stand clear of all rope, never mind snide mentions of treason.

Therefore, the Church sins in not seeking resolution at it’s source, and opting to ignore individual rights. This particular sin is listed in Sins of Ministry, outlined in Fr. Galilea’s book, Temptation and Discernment.

AndyF

 

[puzzleannie]

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?
y

since you have not yet told us exactly what the priest said and did I can’t comment, and I would still like an answer to my questions: how do you and the rest of the parish happen to know all this in violation of every policy?

 

[catharina]

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

Very heavy drama above, Andy. Not quite relevant though, IMO.

Your friend is certainly not Augustine or Paul - nor does he live in their times.
He lives now, in this country. Safeguards exist in programming for children.
This has been true for the 40+ yrs of my professional life.
In every matter and instance, felons are barred. There no exceptions.
As staff, volunteers, visitors, consultants: NO FELONS is the standard.
The Church has come to learn this standard from the State.
The State learned it through grievous and dangerous incidents.
Hence, the standard exists and it is uniform.
(It is also common knowledge among those who serve children.)

This might seem unfair to you - and at times it might “feel” unfair.
Nevertheless it is the legal protective standard. The type of felony doesn’t matter.
No one with a felony in their past is admitted to work with children.
If your friend didn’t realize this fact, his situation must seem difficult.
Nevertheless, the standard is the standard - and the standard is a good one, IMO.

Any psychiatrist (or lawyer) will also tell you that a record of felony will close some doors.

 

[Moscati]

catharina:
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.

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

Andy

Andy . . . I don’t think Augustine committed any sexual “crimes”. Concubinage was perfectly legal (though immoral and sinful) at the time.

And Paul saw Jesus on the road to Damascus, not the road to Emmaus. Also . . . Paul sinfully persecuted Christians out of a sincere desire to follow God’s commands. His culpability is somewhat reduced. Can your friend say the same about his crime?

There are just as many examples in the Bible of people having to deal with the consequences of their sins after their repentance. Moses wasn’t allowed to entire the Promised Land–over one single transgression a long time before. King David’s child died, and his son raped his daughter, and all sorts of horrible things happened because of his sin. Ananias and Saphira in the book of Acts were struck dead over one lie. Sin has consequences. One of the legal ones, in this time and place, is the fact that a felon cannot volunteer. It may seem unfair, but that’s just the nature of sin and consequences sometimes.

I will pray for your friend.

It’s not an immoral law, and it’s the law of the land, so the Church abides by it.

 

[catharina]

Andy . . . I don’t think Augustine committed any sexual “crimes”. Concubinage was perfectly legal (though immoral and sinful) at the time.

And Paul saw Jesus on the road to Damascus, not the road to Emmaus. Also . . . Paul sinfully persecuted Christians out of a sincere desire to follow God’s commands. His culpability is somewhat reduced. Can your friend say the same about his crime?

There are just as many examples in the Bible of people having to deal with the consequences of their sins after their repentance. Moses wasn’t allowed to entire the Promised Land–over one single transgression a long time before. King David’s child died, and his son raped his daughter, and all sorts of horrible things happened because of his sin. Ananias and Saphira in the book of Acts were struck dead over one lie. Sin has consequences. One of the legal ones, in this time and place, is the fact that a felon cannot volunteer. It may seem unfair, but that’s just the nature of sin and consequences sometimes.

I will pray for your friend.

It’s not an immoral law, and it’s the law of the land, so the Church abides by it.

Thank you, Moscati - shame on me for missing the error re Paul’s journey to Damascus.

As for Augustine, if I recall, the sinfulness of his life occurred in part, as aconsequence
of his father’s paganism. Only his mother Monica was a devout Christian then.

Eventually Augustine repented and even his father converted before his own death.
Both clearly the object of much prayer from St. Monica, mother of one and wife of other.

As for the bolded-above, that’s my point;
we must observe the guidelines that exist today
as did Augustine in his day after conversion,
as did Paul in his day after conversion.

The guideline exists to protect minor children.

 

[Spirithound]

It is my understanding that lawyers and police officers must have a clean record. This would be an example of an individual being “punished” beyond his original sentencing.

 

[AndyF]

Andy . . . I don’t think Augustine committed any sexual “crimes”. Concubinage was perfectly legal (though immoral and sinful) at the time.

The we can only draw on half the Sodom and Gemorah story for discussion, since what was committed there wasn’t a crime either. Crime is an offense to social justice. We know crimes are committed regardless if we know there was a law or not. There are anti social actions that are intrinsically criminal. There may be many positive and negative reasons the crime is not legislated. It could be evil but still suits the community as in Sodom.

Paul sinfully persecuted Christians out of a sincere desire to follow God’s commands.

Christ makes an appeal to his sense of justice. “Why do you persecute me?” isn’t a query as if Christ didn’t know why. He is telling Paul to re-examine that which God has instilled in man, conscience. All his faculties and conscience pointed to “you shouldn’t persecute”. There was no excuse, either he tells Paul to take a second look at His Ministry of Mercy, failing that, to the messages of conscience he was receiving to that point.

“Why” signifies something that Paul was aware of but didn’t respond to.

Can your friend say the same about his crime?

My friend presents some convincing basic arguments if we are to examine the constitutions of most countries.

What stands out prominent is that a sexual crime, that which the Church states he is guilty of, is not what he was charged for. This becomes in a court of law an automatic aquital. It also makes the Church’s stance suspect and discriminatory and the case not an element of qualification has it claimed.

It’s purpose is guilt transfer and it’s mechansim is the hope that the current wave of sentiment in the child safety issue will caution under fear or indiscriminate prosecution (vigilante) those who are innocent from voicing a protest. The Church simply states it is protecting the children, and this it hopes will change focus off of the devious ruse it is playing.

The mitigating circumstance IS the false accusation.

My friend refuses to be the whipping boy who will take on his shoulder every accusation thrown at him, and I wouldn’t either which is why I think he has a cause otherwise I wouldn’t have posted this.

There are just as many examples in the Bible of people having to deal with the consequences of their sins after their repentance.

Those who repented for their sin of “A”, weren’t expected to repent of the sin of “B” which they didn’t commit, and neither were they expected to feel the consequence of “B”.

it’s the law of the land, so the Church abides by it.

Taking actions on false accusations is not the law of the land, and neither is it God’s law.

The Church claims to be screening for child abuse offenders. Every case needs to be judged on it’s own merit, but it refuses to study individual cases. Because it IS the Church, this makes every case an implication that the rejected subject is guilty of child abuse and it knows it sends the wrong message. Innocent families who have benefited by a now a life of social reform will now be subjected to redicule and scandal. It constitutes for all intents and purposes double jeopardy.

This policy will hurt more people than it claims will benefit. I think there is more that can be done to improve child safety, but the use of immoral means will not help the Church’s cause. I think the answer is simply to be more vigilant. Screening is fine, but not all people are criminals now, and not all criminals are guilty of every type of crime.

Andy

 

[Phemie]

**The Church claims to be screening for child abuse offenders. **Every case needs to be judged on it’s own merit, but it refuses to study individual cases. Because it IS the Church, this makes every case an implication that the rejected subject is guilty of child abuse and it knows it sends the wrong message. Innocent families who have benefited by a now a life of social reform will now be subjected to redicule and scandal. It constitutes for all intents and purposes double jeopardy.

This policy will hurt more people than it claims will benefit. I think there is more that can be done to improve child safety, but the use of immoral means will not help the Church’s cause. I think the answer is simply to be more vigilant. Screening is fine, but not all people are criminals now, and not all criminals are guilty of every type of crime.

Andy

If your diocesan policies are like mine they screen for EVERYTHING. Child abuse is only part of it. If you have been convicted of ANYTHING they may refuse to take you as a volunteer. If you’ve so much as been accused of child abuse they will not accept you since that is probably what their insurance company requires.

Your friend needs to simply accept that his parish will not take him as a volunteer. There is no obligation on their part to take anyone as a volunteer and certainly someone who has a criminal record is a liability they probably don’t want to deal with.

 

[AndyF]

If your diocesan policies are like mine they screen for EVERYTHING. Child abuse is only part of it. If you have been convicted of ANYTHING they may refuse to take you as a volunteer. If you’ve so much as been accused of child abuse they will not accept you since that is probably what their insurance company requires.

Your friend needs to simply accept that his parish will not take him as a volunteer. There is no obligation on their part to take anyone as a volunteer and certainly someone who has a criminal record is a liability they probably don’t want to deal with.

It is a case of discrimination, not a skill selection.

Those with liabilities are the raison d’etre of our Church if I recall.

All I’m saying is for whatever they implement, they should remain on the table with their policies. This means if they agree to a conflict of interest, then the consequence is that they cannot provide for pastoral care for these people. It is no longer a Church for those who come “for the crumbs from the masters table”. This becomes a policy that deviates practically and in principle for the first time in 2000 years and negates part of Christ’s ministry.

Another consequence that comes to mind is prison padre work which now becomes morally impossible for the Church. Bestowing last rights in prison becomes an exercise in hypocrisy.

These are just two so far. Has the days go by, the compounding unpredicted problems will arise. We have a case a few years ago where a baby was almost killed by a vigilante group. They found out about a person’s record through a supposed safe “leak”, and they threw a brick with a note through the guys window. It narrowly missed a baby playing on the living room floor.

Andy

 

[AndyF]

Very heavy drama above, Andy. Not quite relevant though, IMO.

Your friend is certainly not Augustine or Paul - nor does he live in their times.
He lives now, in this country. Safeguards exist in programming for children.
This has been true for the 40+ yrs of my professional life.
In every matter and instance, felons are barred. There no exceptions.
As staff, volunteers, visitors, consultants: NO FELONS is the standard.
The Church has come to learn this standard from the State.
The State learned it through grievous and dangerous incidents.
Hence, the standard exists and it is uniform.
(It is also common knowledge among those who serve children.)

This might seem unfair to you - and at times it might “feel” unfair.
Nevertheless it is the legal protective standard. The type of felony doesn’t matter.
No one with a felony in their past is admitted to work with children.
If your friend didn’t realize this fact, his situation must seem difficult.
Nevertheless, the standard is the standard - and the standard is a good one, IMO.

Any psychiatrist (or lawyer) will also tell you that a record of felony will close some doors.

You say you work in the justice department.

At what stage does a none repeat offender who has completed all his obligations has demanded, payed his debt to society?

When does a none repeat offender who has completed all of his obligations has demanded by the court receive full reinstatement, all his rightful liberties, has a constitutional bona fide citizen.?

Can you describe a case hypothetical or otherwise of a non repeat offender who has completed all of his obligations, and who qualifies for full reinstatement into society in the spirit of the precept of 2 Cor 2,6. Since you state my friend’s case doesn’t apply, then for clarification, could you describe one or the conditions where it does?.

Andy

 

[Phemie]

It is a case of discrimination, not a skill selection.

Those with liabilities are the raison d’etre of our Church if I recall.

All I’m saying is for whatever they implement, they should remain on the table with their policies. This means if they agree to a conflict of interest, then the consequence is that they cannot provide for pastoral care for these people. It is no longer a Church for those who come “for the crumbs from the masters table”. This becomes a policy that deviates practically and in principle for the first time in 2000 years and negates part of Christ’s ministry.

Another consequence that comes to mind is prison padre work which now becomes morally impossible for the Church. Bestowing last rights in prison becomes an exercise in hypocrisy.

These are just two so far. Has the days go by, the compounding unpredicted problems will arise. We have a case a few years ago where a baby was almost killed by a vigilante group. They found out about a person’s record through a supposed safe “leak”, and they threw a brick with a note through the guys window. It narrowly missed a baby playing on the living room floor.

Andy

OK, what you are saying doesn’t in any way compare to refusing a volunteer.

Let me ask you a few questions.

If you volunteer to drive for Meals on Wheels and you don’t have a driver’s license are you going to say it’s discrimination if they don’t take you?

If you volunteer to count the collection and you have served time/been on probation for theft, is it discrimination if they don’t take you?

If the liability of taking on a volunteer with a criminal record is such that the insurance won’t cover the parish, is refusing to take someone with a criminal record discrimination or good stewardship?

None of the above in any way compare to a pastor ministering to people in jail. There is no liability to the parish if the pastor goes to the jail or if ex-cons come to the church of their own free will for counselling or for worship; there is liability to the parish if it assumes responsibility for them by taking them as volunteers.

 

[AndyF]

catharina:

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

It has everything to do with the Church’s own mandate. To the Church “children” means everyone’s children, the subject’s included, this you have trouble with it seems. Civil law may excuse it has Phemie relates, but the Church has a higher obligation. In order to remain focused we need to hold the Church’s mandate in sight as well, even if it wishes to deviate.

That the Church supports the standard is admirable

It would seem it does, but it must now in full knowledge and in conscience declare itself in conflict of interest in regards to that sector of society who are also under it’s care. These belong in that grouping those who are outcast and seek pastoral comfort. It can’t “have it’s cake” as it were. If it does try, it will very soon be discovered and it will become an embarrassment eventually.

If it wishes to be a Church has defined by Christ, that is one that is infallible, instructs, and is a model for Civil Entities, then it cannot become a dual partnership with a fallible nature without inevitable failure. Instruction comes from the top down.

Andy

 

[Corki]

Andy,

You seem intent on mixing up three entirely separate operating processes. Dealing with each individually might help clear things up.

1. The first process is the civil legal process. Although the specifics of your friends situation are vague (and not your place to share anyway) it seems he was convicted civilly of some civil offense (not a Church-related offense) and paid his debt to society in some form (fine, jail time, probation, whatever). That process is completed and he is fully instated into civil society EXCEPT for the fact that the record still exists. It could be held against him if he is ever again suspected of a civil crime. The record doesn’t disappear even if the punishment has been fulfilled.
2. Your friend applied to be a volunteer in some ministry that may or may not involve children. No one has a right to be involved in any volunteer or parish ministry. The parish however, has a right to set up a selection process. It also has a duty to follow diocisan policies as a minimum standard. In your friends case, he was no selected for the position due to a criminal record. There are many possible reasons for this, such as:

A) The diocese may have a policy that no one with a record of criminal convictions can volunteer with or near children.

B) The parish may have a policy not to select volunteers with criminal records.

C) Something may have been wrong about the paperwork. In my diocese, when you submit your information for a background check, you must disclose the details about any criminal convictions other than traffic violations. Failure to list a conviction or leaving out some of the details or even putting the wrong date on the form can cause the background check to not pass.

Those are just a few possibilites.

1. You seem to equate the existance of a criminal record and the fact that it might still creat consequences with forgiveness (or lack of) sins. Sins that are also crimes can be forgiven whether or not a person’s sentance has been served, debt to society paid or none of the above. The two realms are not related.

Another consequence that comes to mind is prison padre work which now becomes morally impossible for the Church. Bestowing last rights in prison becomes an exercise in hypocrisy.

There is no hypocricy involved in granting last rites to someone who is in prison. Where do you get such an idea? Why would there be any moral problem in ministering to prisoners? In fact, that’s a corporal work of mercy not a moral problem.

If your friend wants to serve the Church he should look at volunteer positions that don’t involve background checks. There are many at the parish and diocese level.

 

[AndyF]

Corki:

"You seem intent on mixing up three entirely separate operating processes. Dealing with each individually might help clear things up.

The first process is the civil legal process. Although the specifics of your friends situation are vague (and not your place…"

I’m his counsel I guess.

Actually, scripture in the book of Mathew insists on settlement in front of the magistrate and doesn’t condone perpetual sentencing. Everything required to reinstate him is to be open then and there. The victim has his chance either directly, or through his rep the judge to demand what is needed. The finality of 2Cor2,6 is the culmination of all processes dealing with punishment. Mathew calls for speedy settlement in front of the magistrate. No post jabs or kicking allowed I’m sorry to say.

You need to understand that at one time the criminal record was used has a record only. It was only the police who had access to it. In fact it took some legal muscle to get anything out of them. It was not meant to be an instrument of further sentencing and to restrict, but to monitor and keep track of illegal activities of past offenders. Restriction “because” of a record was in the past unheard of. Coincidentally, there was much more devotion to the Church also, the Church being much less timid than today and not afraid of it’s paternal responsibilities to set society straight.

The reason it isn’t this way is due to the hardened hearts of a non-christian society, and this is where the Church is to correct the Civil body on these errors. What you describe is not a monument to moral virtue, but a blight and shame on society, and nothing to be proud of.

Andy

 

[Corki]

Andy,

Nothing you have described even comes close to perpetual sentancing.

What you describe is not a monument to moral virtue, but a blight and shame on society, and nothing to be proud of.

How is it a blight and shame to apply standards to selection of people who will be involved in various ministries and/or volunteer assignments? We all have different gifts to bring to the Church. One of the pastor’s jobs is to discern how to use each person’s gifts. Consider the background check a tool the pastor can use to help discern how someone should participate in parish life.

 

[LilyM]

You need to understand that at one time the criminal record was used has a record only. It was only the police who had access to it. In fact it took some legal muscle to get anything out of them.

This source contradicts you:

peoplesearchpro.com/resources/background-check/criminal-records/

Note the very first sentence - “Criminal files have always been a matter of public record”.

The only difference between the ‘olden days’ and now is that records are now kept electronically and so easier for members of the public to access and cross-check against what is declared on a job application.

It’s long been an obligation for doctors and lawyers, for example, to declare their criminal histories when seeking admission to practice. It’s all part of the requirement to be a ‘fit and proper person’ or a ‘person of good character’ or however various jurisdictions phrase it.

It’s been a requirement for as long as entry to these professions has been legally regulated - probably for centuries. And probably for equally long they could be and have been barred from these professions for past crimes as well as dismissed for crimes committed while employed.

Same goes for certain government jobs. I’m sure that for as long as the various police forces, the State Department or the CIA or FBI or their predecessors have existed, people seeking employment with them have had their criminal histories examined.

Please, produce some scholarly sources supporting your statement, if you have any. I’d love to see them.

By the way, people can and do have their criminal records expunged, or convictions not recorded, when the relevant authorities deem it appropriate to do so. This is particularly true of first offences if they aren’t serious.

The fact that this has not been done in your friend’s case says something about how serious his crime (or his criminal past in general) was viewed to have been.

 

[St_Francis]

Andy,
/as far as I can tell, your friend was denied a volunteer position because of his record, and had the priest tell him that he was a danger to his grandchildren. There seems to possibly be a situation in which your friend pled guilty to a lesser charge after being falsely accused of a greater charge, but that’s a little unclear.

bad things happen to good people all the time. As Catholics, we are supposed to deal with this in a certain way, which is to offer up our sufferings in union with the sufferings of Christ. Christ was falsely accused of a crime for which He was killed. Your friend can unite his sufferings with those of Christ, understanding the need of the Church for a very strict policy and forgiving those who were unable or unwilling to make an exception.

it would seem that your friend is not under any sort of interdict, because he is still able to receive the sacraments, to which he does have a limited right; however, he does not have the right to volunteer. This has happened to him, and it feels awful, but much worse has happened to people who have done less, and they have survived and used the experience for their spiritual growth rather than to throw a pity party for themselves. It may be that accepting this bad experience will reduce the amount of time he or a loved one will have to spend in Purgatory and contribute in other ways to his spiritual life.

 

[Spirithound]

Andy,
/as far as I can tell, your friend was denied a volunteer position because of his record, and had the priest tell him that he was a danger to his grandchildren.

The priest said no such thing. This is Andy’s interpretation of what it “means” to be denied a volunteer position.

 

[AndyF]

LilyM:

It’s all part of the requirement to be a ‘fit and proper person’ or a ‘person of good character’ or however various jurisdictions phrase it.

So how is it that St. Paul finds one past-offender fit, proper and of good character?. Does that mean that in 2000 years only one person met that qualification.? What are the odds.

Seems to me Paul puts himself out on a limb with this paragraph. I mean he knows he’s making a broad precept for all generations. If it imposed the least justified concern for society, why make the statement?

I understand the points made, but they don’t reconcile. What “is” shouldn’t be. Incidentally, collective apologies are common as well which goes to prove millions of consciences can’t get it right all the time either. Maybe they have this one wrong too.

By the way, people can and do have their criminal records expunged, or convictions not recorded, when the relevant authorities deem it appropriate to do so. This is particularly true of first offences if they aren’t serious.

His case was a misdemeanor. He doesn’t request a pardon because he cannot involve himself in the sin of an entity. This is instructed in Proverbs and Wisdom. Societies are to pardon unconditionally but refuse to, so they place the oness on the individual. The system is built around making it has uncomfortable and costly has possible. “Fees!” of upwards of 300$ or more are not uncommon, worst, the record is never expunged but transferred to another file system, thus defeating the purpose and bringing the case to one of theft. He says it would be a sin for him to agree to play along knowing full well society is wrong.

He says the only way he could would be to receive a dispensation to apply.

At confession, stating that a confessor demanded a price for an apology would result in a refused absolution.

AndyF