Those screened because of crimes

[Clevus]

(Not sure if this should go into Morality, but seems more fitting in Law and Principles).

Whether we like it or not, the screening processes in our dioceses is living evidence that the Church ensures that past transgressions are not to be forgotten. The sad irony is that a criminal record, in the majority of cases, is a success story read by a person who is tasked to dig into the past and seek faults. The trial/prison long over, payed his debt, he was able to surmount his obstacles, and now presents himself to the community a “new man” ready to continue his responsibilities.

A few questions of discussion in regards to the state of those who have now been segregated from our congregation because of a screening process. They seem to be forgotten few of our Church.

What is the Church’s expectation for a typical quality of Catholic life of those who have been de facto excommunicated from community service?. Creates interesting situations. Can an excommunicated be brought to sainthood because of this permanent non-condign measure applied by the Church, he now is made to suffer in Christ’s name and carry it to death? If he suffers inbehalf of the Church, that is, "working with’ and tolerating injustice for the Church’s sake, then he is due commendation. What remains is that he is uncondignly extended. Another situation. If he is to suffer this delict, then he can reinstate his place in the community by requesting a special confession to put him in full communion, (as I understand the process. I think it need a Bishop confessor also).

In the majority cases, the condign portion of the punitive measures now long expended it’s purpose, the person now is to be reinstated into the community. What is the canon precedent that states that uncondign measures can now be applied permanently to ensure his, for all intents and purposes, severance from the community?

Does the same congregation have a responsibility to take action if evidence of the screening process uncovers, besides a criminal record, evidence of corruption in the judicial system itself?. If due process proved to be corrupted, would we find the same zeal for justice by the Catholic community in his behalf.?(we assume that God allows the privilege for probing because he expects all to act on the discovery of cases of injustice).

How is the criteria for the common good satisfied now that we know there is widespread corruption in the due process system, that untainted font of information that is the food of the common good, the very system that produces the record?.

The principles of the Catholic Church are now expressed through works of charity such has this policy. How does the justification of this policy differ from those principles adopted by non Catholics and Catholics alike, who continue to apply non-condign measures for personal reasons?.

It seems the screening policy would be costly. To save thousands of dollars, why doesn’t the Church extend the charity by sending a message to all those in prisons, and through newspapers, that all those who have a criminal record to not bother to seek community service. This way the ‘hits’ would be fewer, (and so will the pangs of conscience).?

Should the Church teach the Catholic children what happens to some Catholics because we permitted to not tolerate some people.?

Any other questions on topic you may have.

 

[joeybaggz]

(Not sure if this should go into Morality, but seems more fitting in Law and Principles).

Whether we like it or not, the screening processes in our dioceses is living evidence that the Church ensures that past transgressions are not to be forgotten. The sad irony is that a criminal record, in the majority of cases, is a success story read by a person who is tasked to dig into the past and seek faults. The trial/prison long over, payed his debt, he was able to surmount his obstacles, and now presents himself to the community a “new man” ready to continue his responsibilities.

A few questions of discussion in regards to the state of those who have now been segregated from our congregation because of a screening process. They seem to be forgotten few of our Church.

What is the Church’s expectation for a typical quality of Catholic life of those who have been de facto excommunicated from community service?. Creates interesting situations. Can an excommunicated be brought to sainthood because of this permanent non-condign measure applied by the Church, he now is made to suffer in Christ’s name and carry it to death? If he suffers inbehalf of the Church, that is, "working with’ and tolerating injustice for the Church’s sake, then he is due commendation. What remains is that he is uncondignly extended. Another situation. If he is to suffer this delict, then he can reinstate his place in the community by requesting a special confession to put him in full communion, (as I understand the process. I think it need a Bishop confessor also).

In the majority cases, the condign portion of the punitive measures now long expended it’s purpose, the person now is to be reinstated into the community. What is the canon precedent that states that uncondign measures can now be applied permanently to ensure his, for all intents and purposes, severance from the community?

Does the same congregation have a responsibility to take action if evidence of the screening process uncovers, besides a criminal record, evidence of corruption in the judicial system itself?. If due process proved to be corrupted, would we find the same zeal for justice by the Catholic community in his behalf.?(we assume that God allows the privilege for probing because he expects all to act on the discovery of cases of injustice).

How is the criteria for the common good satisfied now that we know there is widespread corruption in the due process system, that untainted font of information that is the food of the common good, the very system that produces the record?.

The principles of the Catholic Church are now expressed through works of charity such has this policy. How does the justification of this policy differ from those principles adopted by non Catholics and Catholics alike, who continue to apply non-condign measures for personal reasons?.

It seems the screening policy would be costly. To save thousands of dollars, why doesn’t the Church extend the charity by sending a message to all those in prisons, and through newspapers, that all those who have a criminal record to not bother to seek community service. This way the ‘hits’ would be fewer, (and so will the pangs of conscience).?

Should the Church teach the Catholic children what happens to some Catholics because we permitted to not tolerate some people.?

Any other questions on topic you may have.

You speak of prison and trial, then in the next breath, excommunication. Are you talking about civil or religious matters? You need to clarify your post because you are not very clear in what you are asking. Excommunication is a term generally associated with a ruling by the Catholic Church that a member, for cause, is denied the sacramental life of the church in addition to being banned from most associations.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

Are you speaking of volunteers in the Church, in the Church’s social services, in Catholic schools, or of something else, seminaries, perhaps?

I am rather troubled at ex-felons portraying themselves as victims of society, when the reality is generally the other way around. That is hardly the contrite attitude of a Christian.

I can tell you that people with criminal records do volunteer in Church charitable and social services all the time. They often have court ordered community service hours to do. They are, of course, under supervision. Obviously, people on the sex offender registry cannot volunteer in a school. People with a history of drug problems would not be allowed in a medical setting where they had access to drugs. Such prudence does not mean that ex-felons are “excommunicated from community service.”

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I think it matters what sort of crime that person did. Sex offenders, thieves, murderers are different from someone who was convicted of selling marijuana. Not that people can’t be redeemed.

 

[Clevus]

You speak of prison and trial, then in the next breath, excommunication. Are you talking about civil or religious matters? You need to clarify your post because you are not very clear in what you are asking. Excommunication is a term generally associated with a ruling by the Catholic Church that a member, for cause, is denied the sacramental life of the church in addition to being banned from most associations.

Civil matters are pertinent in canon law. He incurs the effects of excommunication, except the formality, even to the extent of shunning of society, the very purpose of the record search. He has been for all intents and purposes, declared category ad jure, because the record search reveals “…declares that whosoever shall have been guilty of a definite crime will incur the penalty of excommunication”(sources New Advent). They are acting on the fact, so it is de facto.

I find similarity in their plight and Admiral Husband Kimmel who desired a court martial so that he could bring to the surface his case to the public. So it is with these, who may desire for a public hearing to make his case and hear the case of canonical law. The ban process benefits the subject, and the community has the right to know.

 

[Clevus]

Are you speaking of volunteers in the Church, in the Church’s social services, in Catholic schools, or of something else, seminaries, perhaps?

I am rather troubled at ex-felons portraying themselves as victims of society, when the reality is generally the other way around. That is hardly the contrite attitude of a Christian.

I can tell you that people with criminal records do volunteer in Church charitable and social services all the time. They often have court ordered community service hours to do. They are, of course, under supervision. Obviously, people on the sex offender registry cannot volunteer in a school. People with a history of drug problems would not be allowed in a medical setting where they had access to drugs. Such prudence does not mean that ex-felons are “excommunicated from community service.”

The Church reacts to one time misdemeanors dating 30 years or more. The way I see it is the issue isn’t about seriousness. A recent case is when a person has managed to receive a pardon and it still reflects on the record. To the Church, the flag is what’s important, not what the evidence reveals. This case proves the Church also broke her promise to you, because in it’s preamble to the screening process, it promises to the world to work with civil authority. So it needs to be explained why it now questions the same judicial body’s decision to do an act of benevolence for this person. As soon has it came up as pardoned, it called for self control and categorize the case has null and a pass for him.

 

[Clevus]

I think it matters what sort of crime that person did. Sex offenders, thieves, murderers are different from someone who was convicted of selling marijuana. Not that people can’t be redeemed.

As far as I know, if it can impugned, the chances are low. We need to remember the case of Dismas the thief who fits into the former list.

 

[mikekle]

Obviously, people on the sex offender registry cannot volunteer in a school. People with a history of drug problems would not be allowed in a medical setting where they had access to drugs. Such prudence does not mean that ex-felons are “excommunicated from community service.”

This still seems a lot like a scarlet letter to me. If a person has paid their debt to society, done everything required, jail time, fines, etc. and yet we still continue to hold them to their crimes for the rest of their lives, by limiting what they can and cannot do? How is that the right thing to do?

Before background checks became common, people convicted of these serious crimes could fit right back into society, work anywhere they wanted in most cases, it seems like we have more problems nowadays versus times in the past when none of this information was available.

Its no surprise to me though, it is so popular in our times to believe giving up or taking away a little liberty or freedom may provide some degree of safety and security, when in reality, people like this deserve neither (there is a popular quote about this very thing actually).

We live in a brutal police state right now though, and many many people out there are ‘conditioned’ to accept this and even believe its a good thing.