T
thechrismyster
Guest
the man was a criminal. the police catch criminals. the man was caught by the police. sounds like all in a days work to me.
if it was $1000, would it be ‘more’ stealing than only $20?
- Status
if it was $1000, would it be ‘more’ stealing than only $20?
G
grotto
Guest
Come on - its not life like an old Bing Crosby movie! There are too many factors with this story to attack the Priest and police authorities for stopping a thief! If the elderly thief is exhibiting senility then of course he would not be accountable, but would also be stopped from having access to the parish coffers! Animosity doesn’t belong in the picture. smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/355v.gif
smileycentral.com/sig.jsp?pc=ZSzeb096&pp=ZN
smileycentral.com/sig.jsp?pc=ZSzeb096&pp=ZN
A
a_pilgrim
Guest
Here’s a “hypothetical”…
Suppose the usher had sacramentally confessed his penchant for taking money from the collection basket to the Monsignor… would the Monsignor’s involvement in the sting operation constitute a breach of the sacred Seal of Confession?
Suppose the usher had sacramentally confessed his penchant for taking money from the collection basket to the Monsignor… would the Monsignor’s involvement in the sting operation constitute a breach of the sacred Seal of Confession?
R
Richardols
Guest
Still sounds like a waste of a lot of police time and effort for a $20 theft. Even shoplifters here just get a citation to appear in court - no 5 cops and 10 cameras to nab a guy ripping off three steaks.
Yes, it would be. In my state of Arkansas, theft doesn’t become a felony until the amount stolen amounts to $200 or more. I don’t think NC’s amounts would be much different.
And, on a first offense, even if it were a felony, it could generally be pled to a misdemeanor.
M
manualman
Guest
The Monsignor would excommunicate himself by doing so. If the priest learned of it via confession, I THINK the priest could require him to cease being an usher as part of the penance. He could even enforce him not being an usher anymore. But he couldn’t say why or use his knowledge to in any way catch the man doing it.
Interesting discussion. Thanks all.
A
Anim8
Guest
My father is a Deacon at my Parish and we have been having this problem. I have been kept in the dark for the most part, but I, my father, and others know who it is. The only problem is that this person is close to our pastor. I know things have been said, but I really don’t know what’s going on about it. I still see the man at Church, and he even still helps out in back. 
W
wjp984
Guest
I don’t understand why you think this was wrong. Vist the man in jail and grant him absolution in jail. Coucil the man in jail and assure him of his salvation in jail and keep him close to the faith in jail. However, this man was caught and got what he deserved. If he would have been confronted about it he would not have been caught and punished for it.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
This is the part of the post that I have trouble with. If he was confronted (and he may have been) he was caught then with the confrontation, right? And if indeed he confessed he would be punished by being made to do restitution and other penance. And he could have indeed been confronted, lied, or falsely promised to stop, and still gone on to sin. . .otherwise every time we confessed and were forgiven, we’d never again do a sin.
I think that being caught publically is being perceived of as the punishment for sin, but it isn’t really the punishment–it’s a consequence.
If the man had stopped sinning, gone to confession, etc. he still would have had to make restitution and to have done a penance.
And now, his penance is not abrogated by his being ‘caught in public’. He’ll still have to confess, make restitution, and do penance.
T
TimOliv
Guest
Anything told a priest in confession CANNOT be used to the detriment of the penitent. If the Monsignor removed an usher based on his confession, he would be breaking the seal of confession. The only thing the priest could do would be to try and persuade the man to remove himself from his duties as an usher or to confess to his crimes outside of the confessional. The priest CANNOT use the information against him if it was learned in the confessional.
T
TimOliv
Guest
Your Father and others “know” who it is, but nothing can be done about it. Do they know who it was, or do they “know” who it was? There is a definite difference. If I see a man pilfer from the collection, I know he stole from the church. If, I am not in church at the time but I heard from someone that was speaking to his best friend who was at the church and saw him take the money, then I “know” who did what and where. The difference is one is actual knowledge, the other is giving the rumor mill regard as knowledge.My father is a Deacon at my Parish and we have been having this problem. I have been kept in the dark for the most part, but I, my father, and others know who it is. The only problem is that this person is close to our pastor. I know things have been said, but I really don’t know what’s going on about it. I still see the man at Church, and he even still helps out in back.
When I see that a large group knows that a person did something, I am inclined to doubt that any one of them saw the act, and lean more towards the possibility that they assume such based upon the character (at least as they see it) of the accused.
Kind of like when we had a local pastor who drove a new Jeep. Everybody in church just “knew” that the second collection wasn’t for retired religious at all, it was for his car.
Casting the first stone…didn’t Jesus have something to say about all of that, or am I taking the bible too literally, folks?
I
iserve
Guest
The last answer proves the point: that to really “know” you have to catch someone in the act, which is exactly what this priest did. The second act of this play should include inviting this man back (though not as an usher) and letting him and his congregation witness the joy of redemption.
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
The theft was NOT $20.
The twenty-dollar bill was merely the PROOF that the theft had taken place. It was a marked bill. The actual theft amount may well have been much higher.
There have been numerous financial scandal stories that over time hundreds of thousands of dollars have been siphoned off from collections.
It will be interesting to find out, after the furor dies down, to see what the average collection turns out to be. Collections are fairly consistent on average. So, if after a thief is taken out of the equation, it would be interesting to see if the actual counted collection amount goes up and by how much (on average).
Since the charge is a misdemeanor, there would be a minimal penalty, but it would remove the usher out of the chain of control of the church monies and it would serve notice on anyone else with “sticky fingers”.
The twenty-dollar bill was merely the PROOF that the theft had taken place. It was a marked bill. The actual theft amount may well have been much higher.
There have been numerous financial scandal stories that over time hundreds of thousands of dollars have been siphoned off from collections.
It will be interesting to find out, after the furor dies down, to see what the average collection turns out to be. Collections are fairly consistent on average. So, if after a thief is taken out of the equation, it would be interesting to see if the actual counted collection amount goes up and by how much (on average).
Since the charge is a misdemeanor, there would be a minimal penalty, but it would remove the usher out of the chain of control of the church monies and it would serve notice on anyone else with “sticky fingers”.
C
childofmary1143
Guest
What I say here, if you get offended I dont give a damn as I won’t apologise for speaking the truth.
First off, who cares about how many cops and surveillance cameras there were involved in the sting operation. Its totally irrelevant.
2nd off where the hell do you get off saying that the Monsigneur didn’t counsel him. You don’t know if he did or didn’t so you have no right to say that he didn’t. To say that he didn’t when you don’t know if he did is a lie on your part.
Also you insult the Monsigneur’s reputation when you insinuate that he lives in a rich home and wouldn’t miss that money. Even if the Monsigneur does live in a big home, its still stealing.
T
TimOliv
Guest
J
jc-servant
Guest
The number officers involved and the number of cameras would have been the choice of the police not the priest. It only makes sense to get blanket coverage of all possible areas where the theft could be happening.
If my priest had approached me on such a matter when I was still a police officer, then I probably would have asked friends to help me on the operation as a favor so there could be more coverage than the one (or no) officer the department would likely assign. It might have looked like overkill to an outsider, but what do most members of the public know of police tactics anyway. It is really irritating when people call the police to handle a problem that they could not manage on their own and then they want to tell the police how to do their job.
Further, I agree with some other posters that this was more than a $20 theft since it had been recurring over time. The $20 bill was merely the only “marked” one found on the suspect. We can be forgiven for our sins such as theft in confession, but we still owe temporal punishment. This man may just be required to take care of that temporal punishment by doing community service or a few days in jail.
If my priest had approached me on such a matter when I was still a police officer, then I probably would have asked friends to help me on the operation as a favor so there could be more coverage than the one (or no) officer the department would likely assign. It might have looked like overkill to an outsider, but what do most members of the public know of police tactics anyway. It is really irritating when people call the police to handle a problem that they could not manage on their own and then they want to tell the police how to do their job.
Further, I agree with some other posters that this was more than a $20 theft since it had been recurring over time. The $20 bill was merely the only “marked” one found on the suspect. We can be forgiven for our sins such as theft in confession, but we still owe temporal punishment. This man may just be required to take care of that temporal punishment by doing community service or a few days in jail.
L
Like
Guest
In the long run, I hope the thief is not punished as in below
Acts
Chapter 5
1: A man named Ananias, however, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property.
2: He retained for himself, with his wife’s knowledge, some of the purchase price, took the remainder, and put it at the feet of the apostles.
3: But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart so that you lied to the holy Spirit and retained part of the price of the land?
4: While it remained unsold, did it not remain yours? And when it was sold, was it not still under your control? Why did you contrive this deed? You have lied not to human beings, but to God.”
5: When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his last, and great fear came upon all who heard of it.
More Acts 5:6-11
P
pnewton
Guest
Why do you continue to focus on the $20? That is all that was marked, not stolen. Obviosly enough had to be taken to raise the attention or their would have been no sting. So they may not have evidence of a major crime. That still does not mean they can not get a more serious conviction. Most convictions are still based on confession and when confronted with his crime, a skilled detective may get the full story in a confession.
In any case, the thievery will have stopped so that the church can start using all their funds for God’s work and that is unarguably a good ourcome.
K
kesa82
Guest
So you don’t mind if the GESTAPO or the NKVD is invited into church with cameras do you?
GESTAPO I SAY ! I have SEEN WITH MY OWN EYES what these creatures do to poor people who can’t afford Johnny Cochran to defend themselves.
Truth
Yeah, I’ve seen their " truth" , like when less than one in twenty of them resighned when Hitler started sighning their blood money paychecks.You live in Disneyland, but I’m afraid that, baring a miracle, your grandchildren will experience their " truth".
H
Holly3278
Guest
I think the Monsignor did the right thing.
J
jc-servant
Guest
Having cameras in church is nothing like the Gestapo whether the police placed them or the parish did. The man in this story was not stolen from his family in the night, tortured or killed. He was not locked into a room and questioned without food or water for days without sleep. He was not singled out for no reason either! To equate the police with the Gestapo for doing their job within the boundaries of the law is irresponsible and uncharitable. It evinces a clear lack of knowledge of what the real Gestapo did and it demeans their real victims.So you don’t mind if the GESTAPO or the NKVD is invited into church with cameras do you?
GESTAPO I SAY ! I have SEEN WITH MY OWN EYES what these creatures do to poor people who can’t afford Johnny Cochran to defend themselves.
Truth
You live in Disneyland, but I’m afraid that, baring a miracle, your grandchildren will experience their " truth".
- Status