Little information on work with the needy

[AndyF]

The Catholic Fraternities meet the demands for the care of the poor and needy. But how is actually “getting out there” work in reality.?

Myself I deal mainly with institutions who provide the structure for my assistance, and I think this is the norm today in North America. It would appear that for the time being it is my fortune that I am given more physical assignments which is OK, (poundage purging. ) but I hope to broaden my horizons into one-on-one assistance. I see one area in the streets where there is a direct need and I will pursue this shortly when I can assemble an interested group.

Except for the third world countries where there mirrors much of the world Francis was involved with, there are institutions that care for the needy. The tasks these once performed in a learn as we go system are now done by professionals. Today one can take a course to become “X-assistant”, and the law will not allow anyone without credentials to come near, and unlike today lawsuits were reserved to the wealthy in 11th Century Italy and Spain. Visiting the sick can only be accomplished through screened entry as well. One must build a relationship with the hospital staff to gain entry, or obtain proper documents from headquarters.

What of social skills?.

In order to emulate, “I was a prisoner and you came to visit me.”, one needs to be screened, and once in, needs to be a tactician in order to break psychological barriers of mistrust. Credentials in psychiatry and other psychologies would be an asset to these Tertiaries. The Franciscan TOS needs to exercise care in prison work if he has a growing family. The ready to be released prisoner has many resources and means to travel and a ready file system of every person’s location. This is not to say of course the work of tertiaries never involved risk. Where I work, it is common for disputes to spring up unexpectantly. If I were well prepared I would not shun such work regardless.

I am still searching for hands on “how-to” and “what not to” reading material by Franciscan authors and those of other fraternities who would like to pass on their skills and experience, but found none so far with the fraternal credentials that would provide a unique perspective pertinent to devotional life. That is surprising considering the centuries of experience that would have amassed a whole library by now, and of course we know how friars like to write.

These are just two areas where the circumstances differ from the older situation.

What do you think?

Andy

 

[littlequestion]

I think about this a great deal. There are problems with the screening process. In most cases it was set up to ensure that the recipients of assistance would not be exploited, but it often has led to the opposite result.

There is now a caste system in which anyone who has ever had a problem in life, or been falsly accused, is rendered into an non-acceptable, subhuman status.

It is one of the reasons native-born Americans cannot find work while undocumented immigrants can. The employers who may be willing to hire the poor American even when aware of a problem in their past are unwilling to risk public animosity or lawsuits by all the watch-dog groups. It is so bad that day-laborers cannot get work in any neighborhood that includes a school in some cities if they have so much as a parking ticket that went through a court record level (perhaps bcause of a legitimate attempt at defense by a poor person who couldn’t pay a fine). This is the policy in the Austin Independent School District in Texas, for example. Today I listened to a native-born man explain his dilemma to a colleague because he has endangered himself by driving to work in spite of a suspended license due to several thousand dollars’ worth of punitive surcharges on an old ticket that he could not afford to pay at the time.

Undocumented immigrants can be hired with a much smaller risk by the empoyer because the employer can legitimately claim he had no way to discover a past record, and this includes documented immigrants to the point that their own countries may not be required or willing to give the USA all their details during whatever screening goes on for “green cards”. American watchdog groups are not even likely to pursue a lawsuit (which is a major funding industry) if they notice that an employee is foreign-born, but a native-born American will find his entire life dragged through the mud if he is seen wielding a hammer or driving a bus anywhere near a school with active watchdog groups.

The screening for visitation in institutions is equally problematic. I once watched a female chaplain in an assisted-living community write up a dementia suggestion on a resident because that resident was a Missouri Synod Lutheran who would not accept Communion from the female chaplain. I protested that behavior and soon found myself in a meeting with the “Lutheran Social Services of the South”, defending my own character against that person and found my own family in turmoil because that same Lutheran was able to locate the phone number of a relative and made vicious accusations to family members who lived 2,000 miles away and had no clue why a Lutheran female pastor would even have their number, let alone making disgusting remarks about my sexual orientation as a celibate heterosexual Catholic woman!

I am still trying to recover my career from that ELCA Lutheran assault and I face what all working-class Catholics face: a terrible caste system that has grown up within and around the churches and the secular social service professionals who maintain human status for themselves while dehumanizing any who have had to ask for financial assistance, especially when it comes to ethnic culture or heterosexual preferences. Native-born Americans with heterosexual preferences and traditional religious practices are screened out as “homophobic”, “delusional”, etc.

All you have to do is push a working person into recipient status for a few months and you have full ownership of their entire right to work, to live, to maintain human relations, etc.

 

[AndyF]

littlequestion:

Thanks for the post.

The screening for visitation in institutions is equally problematic.

In the Canadian system it’s a punitive system. The system feigns to the general public the impression that the correctional services is a benevolent system whereby the offender is encouraged to return to society. This ruse goes by the name of restorative justice.

After posting my thread I since was able to talk to a Franciscan who works in the penal system. He said they screen visitors out to ensure they don’t have a criminal record and there is a visit first to the pastor in charge. This screening is really a vendetta ploy against the incarcerated based on no reasonable justice. This rule is based on the premise the person may try to sway the prisoner to anti social behavior or perhaps he will attempt to give him something to escape. The irony is that the visits are closely watched and the barrier will not allow contact whatsoever. There is a recording system to ensure appropriate wording is being used. So there is absolutely no bases in these modern institutions for this.

The Franciscan doesn’t realize he has another mandate and that is to teach ethical conduct. (“on occasion use words”). On the principle of the common good to protect society, they add a criminal record to crimes. The problem with this is that one needs to take the justice out of the context of what Jesus desires is to be the correct process. In Mathew 18,15 Jesus stresses the urgency of quick settlement of disputes of victims(and their reps) and offenders at the magistrate’s bench, and that makes sense. All concerns are funneled to this one instance of time where appropriate sentencing is applied to the crime with a consideration to risk. So we can see a criminal record is not required, for the reason it is being given. If a person is dangerous then it should be settled at that time. Secondly, the Franciscan should instruct the officials that the system is not sanctioned by God in this respect, (actually the pastor should support the view.), and does not qualify for the category of common good because the remedy is available at sentencing. Common good is not meant has a free for all on tormenting offenders, or an excuse not to find alternate methods, but as an item of last resort. The misconception is that common is always synonymous with good, and this is false and is where the Church fails badly in being the teaching example of our society. In Cor 2,5 Paul instructs the people to stop the discrimination and restore the offender back into the community.

Like you noticed, history of trivial crimes are used to torment citizens for a lifetime. What you are seeing is the corruption of power, of a decreasing willingness to uphold Divine Morals. It sees itself has invincible, incapable of wrong and error.

It would be nice to see Franciscans with real spunk, a Kolbe for our times ready to deny self to lay a case for God.

Andy