Police "Stings" and Hidden Cameras at Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter rich41457
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rich41457

Guest
I’m in conflict with my convictions and disgusted with my Church. In Raleigh, NC an article appeared on the front page of the newspaper today stating that a “sting operation” was done during the New Year’s Day Mass to catch someone taking money out of the offering plate. The “sting” involved 5 undercover police officers and 10 hidden cameras. The “target” was a long-time 75-year old usher (parishner). They had to perform the “sting” three times before they arrested him. They caught him with a police marked $20 bill.

My conflict:Our Monsignor suspected who this person was – the sting was targeted specifically against him.
  1. Why didn’t the Monsignor talk/council the person (or all the ushers if he didn’t want to single out an individual)?
  2. Is this what our Church is coming to; the “almighty dollar” becomes more important than a priest’s obligation to council, show grace, and lead a wayward 75 year old man back to the flock?
Ironically, this front page article ajoins another front page story headlined “Lacrosse pair back in Duke’s good graces”
 
rich41457 said:
I’m in conflict with my convictions and disgusted with my Church. In Raleigh, NC an article appeared on the front page of the newspaper today stating that a “sting operation” was done during the New Year’s Day Mass to catch someone taking money out of the offering plate. The “sting” involved 5 undercover police officers and 10 hidden cameras. The “target” was a long-time 75-year old usher (parishner). They had to perform the “sting” three times before they arrested him. They caught him with a police marked $20 bill.

My conflict:Our Monsignor suspected who this person was – the sting was targeted specifically against him.
  1. Why didn’t the Monsignor talk/council the person (or all the ushers if he didn’t want to single out an individual)?
  2. Is this what our Church is coming to; the “almighty dollar” becomes more important than a priest’s obligation to council, show grace, and lead a wayward 75 year old man back to the flock?
Click to expand...
First, I just want to say how sad it is that this usher believes it is his right to steal from the Church.

To reply to your specific questions:
  1. How do you know that Msgr. had not counselled the usher in question? Perhaps he did. Perhaps his words fell on deaf ears. Does the article you mention state that Monsignor refused to counsel the usher?
  2. No, I do not believe that the Church has come to valuing “the almight dollar”, as you put it, over and above the obligation to lead a person back onto the correct path. Again, how do you know that Monsignor did NOT attempt other means of correction before taking this drastic step?
 
I’m in conflict with my convictions and disgusted with my Church. In Raleigh, NC an article appeared on the front page of the newspaper today stating that a “sting operation” was done during the New Year’s Day Mass to catch someone taking money out of the offering plate. The “sting” involved 5 undercover police officers and 10 hidden cameras. The “target” was a long-time 75-year old usher (parishner). They had to perform the “sting” three times before they arrested him. They caught him with a police marked $20 bill.

My conflict:Our Monsignor suspected who this person was – the sting was targeted specifically against him.
  1. Why didn’t the Monsignor talk/council the person (or all the ushers if he didn’t want to single out an individual)?
  2. Is this what our Church is coming to; the “almighty dollar” becomes more important than a priest’s obligation to council, show grace, and lead a wayward 75 year old man back to the flock?
Ironically, this front page article ajoins another front page story headlined “Lacrosse pair back in Duke’s good graces”
 
  1. How do you know the Monsignor did NOT counsel all the ushers? Or this usher?
  2. Leading back to the flock is well and good. But stealing is stealing, and restitution must be made. Again, since you do not know that #1 was not done, the presumption is that this man was engaged in stealing, and was caught stealing, and that he knew he was stealing. He had many options --to consult the priest or someone else himself, to confess his sins before this ‘sting’, etc.
    I certainly do not see where he will not be ‘permitted’ (upon confession and restitution) to be ‘part of the flock.’
  3. His age (since you include it) is not germane. If anything, I’d be more inclined to think a 75 year old man was more fully aware of the ramifications of stealing and cognizant of options for himself than even a 25 year old man who has less ‘experience’ of life.
Rather than look down on your church --and instead of looking down on this man, which I certainly am not–why not consider that, sad as this is, this ‘sting’ could very well be the making of not just this individual but of your church.

He can take his consequences in a Christian spirit; you all can receive both him and the pastor (whom you aren’t exactly treating in a Christian spirit in the tone of your post) in Christian ways.
 
I would be more upset if he continued stealing and wasn’t caught. The pastor helped to catch a criminal.
 
rich41457 said:
They caught him with a police marked $20 bill.
Click to expand...
Boy oh boy! What heroes! Five armed cops, 10 cameras and three attempts before getting this man on what is a misdemeanor or what will certainly be knocked down to a misdemeanor in court.

Talk about a waste of taxpayers’ money to make such a crummy arrest.
 
I think it is worse to steal from the collection basket than your average convient store, I mean, the money is for the Church and the organizations that they fund, homeless shelters and the like. The Monsigneur had to do something to protect the many innocent people that depend on church funds.
 
migurl said:
I think it is worse to steal from the collection basket than your average convient store, I mean, the money is for the Church and the organizations that they fund, homeless shelters and the like. The Monsigneur had to do something to protect the many innocent people that depend on church funds.
Click to expand...
Like maybe, instead of dropping a dime on that fellow, he could have confronted the man and told him not to come back to that church.
 
Your assumptions of my assessment are somewhat sophomoric.

Yes, you are correct that the article did not say that he didn’t talk to the man…but who in their right minds would allow a “fox to continue to guard the henhouse”.

As a businessman for more than 30 years I find it hard to believe that the Monsigneur had talked to him. In any business if you entrust someone to protect and account for your money, and you suspected them of stealing (embezzling), you don’t keep them at that job (be it voluntaiily or not). Even a dime taken can hurt the company……or in this case one less dime for a needy family (maybe the usher himself was in desperate need of money).

If the Monsigneur were protecting the interests of the congregation and the recipients of the collection money, he would never have allowed it to get to a “sting” let alone continue to allow the usher to handle the Church’s money.

As far as the treating people in the Christian spirit, my compassion is for a person who has done wrong and the reasons and treatment for the wrong-doing. Does he have a gambling problem? No money from retirement? Hungry? He has been a long-time usher of the Church providing service to the Church as we are all encouraged to to….and as I have taught my three children who have serve the church in many ways as alter boys, helping downtown at soup kitchens, community service, and yes; putting some or their allowances in the same collection plate each Sunday.

Before setting up sting operations and having him arrested, the Church should have sought him out and attempted to help him first. If not our Church and it’s teachings, compassion, and forgiveness, who else out there can give someone a helping hand instead of just arresting them and throwing them in jail?
 
Well, my compassion goes out to the sinner too. And it also goes out to the ones ‘sinned against’. That money goes for fuel bills, it goes for programs to feed and clothe the poor. So maybe the ‘marked $20’ is the only bill that can be proved to have been stolen? By the man’s own admission he has stolen before. And not from some big almighty ‘corporation’ but from the people in the pews–his friends and neighbors. Because that’s where most of the money goes to–supplying a place for them to worship, supplying spiritual and corporal works of mercy to them, their families, and their own contributions to charities.

What if this were 300 years ago and he was taking harvest foods figuratively speaking from the mouths of the poor? What if his theft of the then equivalent of $20 in food or goods was the reason that some poor widow froze to death or some child starved to death?

Stealing is stealing. The end doesn’t justify the means. This man knew he was stealing and he is the one we should be considering–not to cast stones, but certainly not to raise to the status of “poor misunderstood man being PERSECUTED by money grubbers”.

You know, one of the reasons that we have all kinds of sin, bad behavior, and general apathy today is that nobody wants to take a stand, for fear that they’ll be labeled as unkind, unChristian, or only concerned about what’s in it for them.

So people can go ahead and steal, and curse, and lie, and cheat, and commit all sorts of sexual sin. . .because so many will just say, “Oh, we can’t BLAME poor so and so because he’s old. . .he’s poor. . .he’s ethnic. . .he’s this and this and everything else, anything but responsible for his actions.”

I notice some people have no trouble whatsoever in casting blame, and deriding, the priest, or the police, who are simply in the case of the police doing their job as upholders of the law, and in the case of the priest, trying to shepherd his flock without having them be, pardon the expression, fleeced.
 
Tantum_ergo said:
So maybe the ‘marked $20’ is the only bill that can be proved to have been stolen?
Click to expand...
Seems so from the report, which would mean big-fuss-over-a-misdemeanor.
the police, who are simply in the case of the police doing their job as upholders of the law,
Click to expand...
Most police departments (in my experience anyway) have more important things to do than set up stings in a church and are glad to tell the priest/minister so.
 
What’s wrong with you guys? This is perfectly acceptable. The priest is in a no win situation. Imagine it. He THINKS something fishy is going on but has no proof. Kind of hard to tell a 75 year old pillar of the community that he is unwelcome in the usher corps anymore without an explanation. And anyone who thinks the priest should have said “Well, I have some suspicions about your honesty, so I can’t let you serve anymore…” Seems to me y’all aren’t thinking it through. If he can’t prove it, he can’t pastorally do anything without generating a HUGE community stink. He can’t prove it unless he has evidence.

Reading between the lines, I betcha there is a friend or parishioner who is a cop and agreed to do an undercover op. If they had finished the third sweep and uncovered nothing, the priest could let the whole matter drop and no parish-wide controversy need erupt. To me, it seems he did the prudent thing: He protected everybody’s feelings until and unless the evidence was undeniable. But to get undeniable evidence without impugning the man unfairly, he needed police help. I admit suprise that the cops went to the trouble. Must be a personal connection.

P.S. Besides, you guys aren’t thinking on principles. The principle YOU guys espouse is the one the church USED to use for priests caught molesting kids. Odds are that if this guy steals from the church, he is stealing elsewhere too. To just deal with it privately and let him go on his way just enables him to do it somewhere else.
 
P.S. Besides, you guys aren’t thinking on principles. The principle YOU guys espouse is the one the church USED to use for priests caught molesting kids. Odds are that if this guy steals from the church, he is stealing elsewhere too. To just deal with it privately and let him go on his way just enables him to do it somewhere else.
Click to expand...
**Excellent **point.

Stealing is not sexual abuse, but they are both sins.

Well, at least now we know that those older priests and bishops, 30 years ago, in trying to be Christian and kind to the sinner, giving him the chance to repent, listening to the psychiatrists who assured them that Father X was cured and could be trusted, were really not the stupid or coverup kings that people call them today.

Cause it’s 30 years later and people are quite willing to have a person who is proven to be a thief have his sins ‘covered up’ so that he doesn’t face scandal.
 
…
…
… Two points to ponder.
  1. Code: 
    What if the usher had stolen the widow's mite?
  2. Code: 
    Jesus threw crooked moneylenders out of the temple so that His Father's House would not be used as a den of thieves.  Used a whip, too.  Talk about a sting.
~~ the phoenix
 
Take off your blinders. Again you have missed my point. I have no problem with people being punished for their sins or breaking the law. In fact, as a conservative, I even believe in the death penalty. To say that they were just doing their jobs? This isn’t about someone coming off the streets and robbing the ushers then getting in their get away car. “Just doing their jobs” was a redundant saying during the Nuremburg trials in 1945. Regardless, I feel the police doing their jobs is fine……but undercover cops and 10 surveillance cameras in church? You don’t find this a bit excessive and/or intrusive?

The fact is that the Monsigneur ***didn’t do his job ***of guiding a longstanding MEMBER of his Parish to the right path. This should have occurred when the Monsigneur first found out of the transgression. Maybe unlike Vermont, our Parish is very wealthy. The money this usher stole also goes to our Monsigneur’s $400-500,000+ home mortgage (along with several other homes for clergy of the same value) and a vast wealth of priceless old paintings he proudly displays in his home. Don’t get me wrong, the usher did steal and maybe has been stealing for a long time….and he was wrong……I just don’t think that it had a major impact on our Parish as we have had no problems raising money for whatever we need including new additions and buying a whole Baptist church/property next door for our expansion.

What’s next besides the 10 hidden cameras and sting operations? Will we have videos and recordings done in the confessional? If we confess a sin will he have a mobile police station at the front door of the Church…ready to nab us when we get out of confession? Instead of rosary beads, will we be saying Hail Mary’s off the links of handcuffs?

You mentioned “and commit all sorts of sexual sin. .”. It seems to me that there is a double standard in the Catholic Church……priests have been accused of sexual harassment and most don’t get arrested like our usher…… but quietly get “ushered” out of the Church……… with the Church THROWING HUGE SUMS OF MONEY FOR SETTLEMENTS TO MAKE THESE SINS (AND BREAKING THE LAW) JUST DISAPPEAR IN OUT OF COURT SETTLEMENTS!

Ironically, you say in your response back to me “You know, one of the reasons that we have all kinds of sin, bad behavior, and general apathy today is that nobody wants to take a stand, for fear that they’ll be labeled as unkind, unChristian, or only concerned about what’s in it for them.” This is exactly what you are saying to me. I took a stand….you just didn’t like the stand I took because I placed some of the blame on a Priest and the Church………

By the way, that is also the definition of a hypocrite!

I, and my family also serve the Lord (first).
 
rich41457 said:
……priests have been accused of sexual harassment and most don’t get arrested like our usher…… but quietly get “ushered” out of the Church………
Click to expand...
No…priests no longer get ushered out quietly when they are found to be criminal. Those days are long gone.

I can hear that you are really angry about this news story and I am sorry. Perhaps I’ve lived longer than you. Maybe I’ve seen more and heard more than you…
Over the years I’ve witnessed a number of senseless petty thefts in churches, parish centers and Catholic schools. This is painfully sad to hear and see…I think that at any given time there will be a certain percentage of people who think they have the right to fleece the Church. Maybe more people who are inclined to steal will think twice about being criminals and sinners after reading about this sting operation. It might do them good to know that God isn’t the only one watching. Parishioners have been fleecing for as long as I can remember…maybe it is time that they too get ushered out in new kind of way.
 
Rich, if I have offended you personally, accept my apologies. (ditto to Richoldson who also might have taken offense).

But I stand by my post. I am sorry that you found this excessive although I am somewhat surprised that with a very wealthy church you found what was used excessive. But it could have been. I’m no expert.

I have a slightly different view of Monsignor’s job than you do. Probably because I’m an older woman, and live as you note in a relatively poorer area, and also probably because I’ve seen too much of the victim mentality which has been pushed onto so many. Everything is always the fault of somebody else, and every action is always supercriticized by armchair critics who have either never themselves stood in the shoes of those they castigate, or else feel that if they themselves have had one experience in a situation, everybody has (or should have) that same feeling and that all situations are alike.

Mind you, I am not saying this of you. I am saying that with this kind of mentality seeping down to people through education and the media, it is slowly and subtly warping our perceptions and perspectives.

I am willing to try to see it your way. Maybe there were 1 or 2 too many cameras. But then again, maybe if there had been 1 or 2 fewer the theft might have been missed?

Maybe the Monsignor could have done things differently (and maybe he tried but we’ll never know). It certainly is a sad situation no matter how we look at it.

Certainly I will pray for all involved. I’m not perfect myself. And may God heal all those suffering, in sorrow, and in pain. And God bless you.
 
I don’t get it. What should the priest have done? In his shoes, would you REALLY have confronted the man without being entirely sure or having any hard evidence? The confessional is protected by canon law, but I’m sure you know that and were just venting anger.

A lot of people have an emotional problem with the church having fine things. I can sympathize with the perspective that wonders why a priest should have a luxury home with fine art in a world where 40,000 children starve to death every day.

But look at it this way: What message does it send if the average parishioner himself lives in a $500,000 home, drives a Bimmer yet expects his church to be a cheap commercial structure and his priest to live on the cheap? I guess I think it is TOTALLY appropriate for the faithful to want their place of worship to be MORE splendid and pleasing than their own homes as a physical reminder to themselves and to the world of what is important in their lives. I look at the cheap materials used in building my own parish (though done in a creative and artistic manner) and am ashamed to say that many to most of OUR parishioners live in $400 to 500k plus homes and somehow seem confortable relegating worship space for God to economy grade materials and workmanship.

As for the expensive rectory, don’t worry much about it. The past erroneous practice of private confrontation of crime and subsequent enabling of it to continue will likely soon force the sale of those kinds of properties to pay the lawsuits. 😦

P.S. It’s probable that nobody sought the media exposure that came with this. If the priest called the press, then you’d have an extremely good point. As it is, I suspect that reporters merely found it by rooting through the police reports (common practice).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top