Were you screened out by your diocese or parish?

[Clevus]

Are you asking people who have lost or been denied employment due to a background check to share their experiences? Is this appropriate for CAF?

Of course, and you and I as Catholics desire to know the plight of the innocent, as they are our brothers and sisters, and do everything we can to ensure that no person or institution imposes non condign punitive measures on him for the same case. A person in the midst of these measures still has us ‘visiting them’ with hope, by our lending open ears to their words, that one day their sentence is complete and they once again can emulate the good works of reformed Sts. Paul and Augustine. It is our duty to sincerely ensure they are given hope and payment is allowed to happen just as our zeal to express our benevolence poured out to them.

Meanwhile the Church’s duty, is to ensure that it’s sources for the common good are not taken from corrupted sources. It has just discovered it is, (Sr. Prejean’s work) and it is long overdue to shift focus on the due process system of the nations. Criminal records are a culmination of a process where sentencing reflects the advancing of careers of the ministers of justice and counselors, and verdicts rendered accordingly. Incompetent counsel rarely raises an objection by the judge.

I think that those whom the Church deems the sentencing received is not sufficient to embark on a new life should as a minimum have a say to at least speak their mind as a community member.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I think that those whom the Church deems the sentencing received is not sufficient to embark on a new life should as a minimum have a say to at least speak their mind as a community member.

How is the Church stopping them? If they want to put an article in the paper complaining that they failed a background check and so did not get a job at the Catholic church, they would seem to be perfectly free to do so. Depending on what the offense was, they might not get much sympathy from the public though.

 

[Clevus]

How is the Church stopping them? If they want to put an article in the paper complaining that they failed a background check and so did not get a job at the Catholic church, they would seem to be perfectly free to do so. Depending on what the offense was, they might not get much sympathy from the public though.

But they would from Catholics?

It deals with it at the diocese and parish level, and it is their issue. It seems a lot of work and expense can be saved by simply going to the public with the announcement of it’s exclusive desires. Then they would have what they desire, one sector of the population shut out permanently. No more Church visitations and annoying bad people trying to muscle in on their claim to righteousness. After all, second chances are only reserved to them and family members, or am I not getting this new Catholicism?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

What you are saying you want the Church to do makes zero sense, either legally or from the standpoint of good business practice.

It stands to reason that a Church that has suffered from a lot of scandals and crimes over the years (in addition to the sex abuse, I’ve read or heard many, many stories of various financial frauds in parishes) wants to take steps consistent with the law to mitigate its risk and protect parishioners and itself from harm, and also protect itself from liability. This to me is reasonable. It’s unfortunate that some people, due to things they did long ago (or even just last year), might get “screened out”, but it’s also unrealistic to expect an employer that’s a huge target for liability to be the one handing out “second chances”.

Perhaps the answer is for parishes to support those businesses that do specialize in giving second chances to past offenders. Often these are small businesses that do not put a large number of people at risk and are not going to be all over the front page of the newspaper if somebody slips up and gets caught. I would further add that a lot of the jobs parishes screen for are volunteer positions; I doubt that anyone’s livelihood or life is set back by the inability to volunteer, without pay, in a certain setting.

 

[SwizzleStick]

What you are saying you want the Church to do makes zero sense, either legally or from the standpoint of good business practice.

It stands to reason that a Church that has suffered from a lot of scandals and crimes over the years (in addition to the sex abuse, I’ve read or heard many, many stories of various financial frauds in parishes) wants to take steps consistent with the law to mitigate its risk and protect parishioners and itself from harm, and also protect itself from liability. This to me is reasonable. It’s unfortunate that some people, due to things they did long ago (or even just last year), might get “screened out”, but it’s also unrealistic to expect an employer that’s a huge target for liability to be the one handing out “second chances”.

Perhaps the answer is for parishes to support those businesses that do specialize in giving second chances to past offenders. Often these are small businesses that do not put a large number of people at risk and are not going to be all over the front page of the newspaper if somebody slips up and gets caught. I would further add that a lot of the jobs parishes screen for are volunteer positions; I doubt that anyone’s livelihood or life is set back by the inability to volunteer, without pay, in a certain setting.

All very good points. Holy Mother Church has already suffered tremendously from giving second chances and believing in forgiveness and redemption for some who took advantage of those Christian principles and that caused some very real harm to very many people and to the Church. The “Safe Environment” program is a reasonable and practical way for the Church to protect Herself and Her children and people. Steps had to be taken to try to stop the horrible abuse and scandals. It may not be perfect, nothing is, but something has to be done and this is what has become the standard, not just within the Church, but in general too…

I recently changed jobs and my employer required an FBI background check, a mug shot and fingerprinting. I had never been fingerprinted in my life or had a mug shot taken, but it was a necessary part of the process. Though that may be more than usual, I think a background check is petty much SOP pretty much anywhere these days.

 

[Clevus]

So you don’t think a corrupted criminal record file poses any great concern to the individual, innocent or otherwise?.

 

[SwizzleStick]

So you don’t think a corrupted criminal record file poses any great concern to the individual, innocent or otherwise?.

I’m not sure who you are addressing, but I’ll respond.

Of course, that is a concern for the sake of justice. Records would need to be corrected for the sake of the innocent. But, that is an entirely different issue than requiring a background check for employment.

 

[Clevus]

Doubts on death row

By the Late RUBIN (HURRICANE) CARTER, Globe and Mail, March 5, 2005

Rubin Carter, sometimes known as Hurricane, was executive director and chairman of the board of Innocence International, an organization dedicated to uncovering wrongful convictions. He spent 20 years in a New Jersey state prison, narrowly escaping the electric chair, for a triple murder he did not commit.

… The Death of Innocents is a profoundly disturbing and horrifying demonstration that, once a jury has found a person guilty, it takes a monumental effort to reverse that decision. That’s why competent counsel is necessary. There is a great deal at stake in upholding criminal convictions. Careers, political and otherwise, are built on these convictions. Successful police officers are promoted, successful prosecution attorneys become judges, and a successful judge is one who is seldom reversed on appeal.

Even at the best of times, nobody likes to admit fault. But when admitting that a mistake has been made begins to threaten one’s own professional standing – one’s own career – then justice becomes a very personal matter. Establishing that one, or one’s colleague, did not make a mistake becomes much more important than the possible innocence of the person convicted.

There are many people in prison today who find themselves standing on the wrong side of the law not because they went astray, but because the law, having been placed in the wrong hands, strayed from the right path. Many instances of this have occurred right here in Canada. For instance, Guy Paul Morin was convicted of raping and killing nine-year-old Christine Jessop. Christine’s parents told the police that they had returned home at a particular time and found her gone. The time they gave made it impossible for Morin to have committed the crime. Under questioning from the police, the mourning mother admitted she could have arrived home at a different time. Her original statement would have seriously weakened the case against Morin. The changed version strengthened it. And an innocent person was convicted of a horrible crime.

“Junk science” and “forensic fraud” were also involved in this case. Hairs found in Morin’s car were presented to the jury as consistent with hairs from the murdered girl, but the link turned out to be a weak one."

 

[pnewton]

There is no way the Church won’t get plastered from one side or another. Either she will be seen as unforgiving or of facilitating child abuse. Background checks are the easiest way to walk the line, but sure enough, here comes the criticism. Our own parish does not do checks. The diocese does the checks, using a third party. All we do is get a report of those who can’t have work with kids and try and find some other place of ministry as discretely as possible.

I am not going to worry about the choir, though I understand that might fall under our rules. I fail to see where one sits in Mass is an issue, and God forbid we start screening people for the Sacraments because kids go to Mass. Schools do something similar. You have to be screened to enter, but not to go to a public event.

 

[Horton]

OP - You are not making any sense. Why would doing background checks for those employed at parishes, schools, or diocese offices be a negative for anyone.

If someone has a criminal history of embezzlement or other financial crime, I don’t think it would a good idea to make the business manager of a parish. If they have a horrible driving record, accidents, DUIs, or reckless driving, I don’t think it would be a good idea to allow them to drive kids around. If they have a history of child abuse we don’t want them working with kids. And then the big obvious one, sexual offenders have no place as an employee or volunteer in a parish, school, or diocese where there is even a slight possibility of contact with minors.

But this is just for employees and volunteers. If you know of a situation where details were somehow released through gossip, the person at fault is the one who disclosed the information. If someone has a notation on their record that does not belong there they can get it removed.

I’ve been subjected to background checks throughout my career due to the type of work I’ve done. I was retired for four years, just having gone back to work recently, and even then I’ve had at least one background check when I did some volunteering.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Doubts on death row

I’ve been involved with anti-death row stuff so I am well aware of the problems with it, but citing the problems with death sentences in a discussion of routine background checks is a bit melodramatic and extreme. We all know that most background check failures are not victims of wrongful murder convictions. I also don’t believe that the vast majority of convictions in the US today are wrongful. A percentage may be, but the vast majority are not, in my opinion (which I’m sure someone might disagree about).

OP, it seems to me you have an agenda here driven by the fact that you know a couple of people who you think have been wronged by having some prior conviction come up in a routine background check. In one case, whoever performed the check did not maintain confidentiality about the results. The failure to maintain confidentiality was wrong and was a failure of the check system. However, that does not make all background checks a bad thing because one went wrong. Furthermore, if someone is worried about a background check turning up something then most reasonable people would avoid any job or volunteer opportunity where the check might be done, or perhaps discuss with their priest in private whether they should even bother to apply for something because the background check is likely to turn up this 30-year-old conviction for such and such.

Yes, some people may suffer harm and injustice from a background check, but the overall good to the greater number of parishioners who do not have to be exposed to potential harm or pay financial costs to cover a white collar crime or liability to a victim outweighs the handful of cases where somebody is harmed.

Furthermore, the Church cannot give everybody a job and no one, including those who need a “second chance” or even have suffered injustice, is automatically entitled to get a job, paid or unpaid, with a parish or diocese. This is just common sense.

 

[Clevus]

I was hoping to invite talks from those who were screened, and it was frowned on. I could just as well asked holocaust victims to tell their ‘uncomfortable’ story as well. In everyone minds they are still guilty and the trial continues, and there is no room for the New Man, let’s face it.

But I have one suggestion on what we can do. I would suggest the screening go back to detailed/selective, not general, screening it started out to be (2008-10, Dallas Essential Norms era), which were more in conscience with the Church. In that policy children were protected, no argument, and seriously who can. But the hierarchies of threat dissipated eventually, until the general ruling had every category equivalent to a “child abuse” seriousness. It came to the point one parish priest told his parishioner that a non sex related misdemeanor constituted a threat to children. Now we can see the slow absorption taking place. This is what I think Christ had not intended. We discovered we have no opposition to extend our limited privilege to encompass everyone. Lawnkeepers a high category threat, c’mon? Gravedigger a high priority threat,c’mon? and I can show you dioceses where the category is only one.

But fair enough. Then I place it in your hands. You tell me. Tell me who is left after all those who are screened? Tell me how one who is being pressed into service by the sheer Spiritual nature of being an appendage of that Mystical Body is to fill his Divine mandate.?

You mentioned in your list of categories of 2 people who fit the list and I know are dearly loved in the community, one being an elderly priest. I love that man too. He has issues too with me, but nothing about his past I care to divulge and I could choose do a lot of damage. I could use the current screening template to report him, but I never will. Gone,buried.

Our community is getting shorter already.

And what of the other of his personal habits. Maybe I should report his never being charged decades ago in drinking and driving when my town was another ‘Mayberry’ in spirit, and a cell was always waiting for him should he desire a place to sleep. No charges laid there for a future criminal record. I could report that too. The audacity that he should try to hide from the long arm of the Church.

Our community is getting shorter again.

No I just don’t get it. Protect the kids, and I have 3 grandkids underage. I see the reactions reminisce in something I read in the collective roar of the crowd when the guillotines fell. The eyes filled with rage. The hangings under oak trees I heard some it there too. Nothing remotely tolerant I could recognize in those moments.

I know the rest can, but if one of my kids gets rejected because of a record, I’m sorry, I can’t do it, I would need to give him a second chance. Personally I don’t know how you people claim you could do otherwise. The world has given you it’s intolerable record system.

Welcome to the world, but no claimants, swallow it, even the worms with the delectable morsels of scandal.

 

[mikekle]

I am strongly opposed to most background checks for employment, for banks, child care, I can understand, but even our entry level cashiers at a convenience store must pass a BG check now, and actually its one reason why we have staffing problems, over 70% of applicants cannot pass BG or drug test.

I had to have one done for my job and I remember the person hiring me made a comment about not believing there was still a possession of alcohol by minor on my record, this was when I was 18 yrs old, (over 20+ yrs ago), this should have come off automatically long ago.( I realize I can go thru a process to have this removed, but since it has never caused me any problems in getting hired, Im not going to spend the money). I was actually surprised it came up as I thought most jobs did 7-10 yr BG checks

Even with more serious crimes, I do not think its right to hold a person to their crime for their entire life, that is not christian mindset to have imo. There must come a point where a person has a clean slate again, debt to society paid in full. Todays BG checks are exactly like the old scarlet letters.

I think churches do them just to avoid catching flack from secular society, since everyone else is now doing them, well, we must do them too

If anyone has noticed too, we seem to have more problems today than we did in the past, when BG checks for jobs were rare, so that is something to keep in mind as well.

 

[pnewton]

I think churches do them just to avoid catching flack from secular society, since everyone else is now doing them, well, we must do them too.

That is not why we do them. We do them to keep convicted sex offenders from contact with children. In fact, we do not get any answer from the company that does them but a “yes” or “no”, and no crime except sex crimes are even considered in that answer. So if someone had a felony conviction, even a major felony, he would still get approved for a volunteer role with children.

 

[graciew]

I was hoping to invite talks from those who were screened, and it was frowned on. I could just as well asked holocaust victims to tell their ‘uncomfortable’ story as well. In everyone minds they are still guilty and the trial continues, and there is no room for the New Man, let’s face it.

But I have one suggestion on what we can do. I would suggest the screening go back to detailed/selective, not general, screening it started out to be (2008-10, Dallas Essential Norms era), which were more in conscience with the Church. In that policy children were protected, no argument, and seriously who can. But the hierarchies of threat dissipated eventually, until the general ruling had every category equivalent to a “child abuse” seriousness. It came to the point one parish priest told his parishioner that a non sex related misdemeanor constituted a threat to children. Now we can see the slow absorption taking place. This is what I think Christ had not intended. We discovered we have no opposition to extend our limited privilege to encompass everyone. Lawnkeepers a high category threat, c’mon? Gravedigger a high priority threat,c’mon? and I can show you dioceses where the category is only one.

But fair enough. Then I place it in your hands. You tell me. Tell me who is left after all those who are screened? Tell me how one who is being pressed into service by the sheer Spiritual nature of being an appendage of that Mystical Body is to fill his Divine mandate.?

You mentioned in your list of categories of 2 people who fit the list and I know are dearly loved in the community, one being an elderly priest. I love that man too. He has issues too with me, but nothing about his past I care to divulge and I could choose do a lot of damage. I could use the current screening template to report him, but I never will. Gone,buried.

Our community is getting shorter already.

And what of the other of his personal habits. Maybe I should report his never being charged decades ago in drinking and driving when my town was another ‘Mayberry’ in spirit, and a cell was always waiting for him should he desire a place to sleep. No charges laid there for a future criminal record. I could report that too. The audacity that he should try to hide from the long arm of the Church.

Our community is getting shorter again.

No I just don’t get it. Protect the kids, and I have 3 grandkids underage. I see the reactions reminisce in something I read in the collective roar of the crowd when the guillotines fell. The eyes filled with rage. The hangings under oak trees I heard some it there too. Nothing remotely tolerant I could recognize in those moments.

I know the rest can, but if one of my kids gets rejected because of a record, I’m sorry, I can’t do it, I would need to give him a second chance. Personally I don’t know how you people claim you could do otherwise. The world has given you it’s intolerable record system.

Welcome to the world, but no claimants, swallow it, even the worms with the delectable morsels of scandal.

Clevus, it isn t clear to me if you are speaking of a specific regulation or a second chance for persons who have a record in general.
If it is about a second chance, persons live with other persons and we have all in turn introduced or been introduced so that a door can be open in one way or another under different circumstances in our daily lives.
This happens and often.We live in a community.
There may be a record or not,but there is also a story. A personal story .
We can freely choose to open our door and our heart , as it has been opened to us in different sizes of mistakes. What I think we cannot force is other people to accept and include.
It goes the same with your time. You can freely offer yours but not take it away from others without asking,or getting angry because they choose not to.
Often times,a lot us gained with some level of personal relationship. We generally speak " in general" and persons do have a name ,a face and a story to be heard.

 

[Clevus]

I’m not sure who you are addressing, but I’ll respond.

Of course, that is a concern for the sake of justice. Records would need to be corrected for the sake of the innocent. But, that is an entirely different issue than requiring a background check for employment.

Wouldn’t it be a case of making use of potentially scandalous information? If one knows that 2%(and growing) are cases that are in the file in error or deliberate, it would seem the proper approach would be avoidance. For instance if one of those 2%(most likely higher) does not deserve the sentence they were given, then his applying in the diocese would find his sentence added to by the diocese refusal. If the diocese knows there is this potential, how does their using it has a legitimate source of data mitigate it’s justification for it’s use?.

Does the diocese consider these people collateral damage?

 

[Clevus]

I realize I can go thru a process to have this removed,

Sorry to say this but it never gets removed, even with expungement. They simply move the file to another area. If they query one about his past he can never say “no record”. It used to be that the law insisted they use the wording, “Have you ever been charged for a crime which you have never been expunged”?

Worse still, and the Church should know better, a case just came up recently where a BG check came up that the person was pardoned for a sexual assault. The diocese behind the scenes asked the person to back down on his application.???. He did.

this should have come off automatically long ago.

There was a time it would come off automatically, and the police would do it on their own. These were the times of Fr. O’Malley, Bells of St. Mary fame. Today, ever ready to pounce on these people, to the question “have you ever been arrested?” the police would attribute the answer to belligerent lying. One can never walk away from the past.

I think churches do them just to avoid catching flack from secular society

Exactly

 

[mikekle]

That is not why we do them. We do them to keep convicted sex offenders from contact with children. In fact, we do not get any answer from the company that does them but a “yes” or “no”, and no crime except sex crimes are even considered in that answer. So if someone had a felony conviction, even a major felony, he would still get approved for a volunteer role with children.

So its basically a scarlet letter for life, for anyone convicted of a sex offense? Sex crimes are like any other crime, people do change over time. I know its not popular, but I believe once people pay their debt to society and prove they have changed, nothing in their past should be held against them, especially not for their entire life.

The theory that sex offenders can never change or be rehabilitated is complete baloney imo, its medieval type thinking, anyone can change if they desire to and have the will to do so.

Its kind of bizarre when you think about it, today most sex offenders must register as such, neighbors and businesses are notified when they move, etc but a murderer or someone guilty of major violent assault has no such requirements. Personally I think I would like to be notified if a person convicted of violent assault was moving anywhere close to me or working along side me at work, as an adult male, I dont have that much to fear from a sex offender.

 

[Phemie]

So its basically a scarlet letter for life, for anyone convicted of a sex offense? Sex crimes are like any other crime, people do change over time. I know its not popular, but I believe once people pay their debt to society and prove they have changed, nothing in their past should be held against them, especially not for their entire life.

The theory that sex offenders can never change or be rehabilitated is complete baloney imo, its medieval type thinking, anyone can change if they desire to and have the will to do so.

Its kind of bizarre when you think about it, today most sex offenders must register as such, neighbors and businesses are notified when they move, etc but a murderer or someone guilty of major violent assault has no such requirements. Personally I think I would like to be notified if a person convicted of violent assault was moving anywhere close to me or working along side me at work, as an adult male, I dont have that much to fear from a sex offender.

I know someone who was convicted of a sex offense and I know he’s seeking a pardon. Believe me, pardon or not, I don’t want him to ever have contact with my grandsons or any child. My husband and I have nothing to fear from him but children certainly do.

 

[jeannetherese]

The bricks through the windows typically follow next.
.*

Let’s not begin casting imaginary bricks.
If confidentiality was nor respected, then the individual responsible needs to be held accountable for the breach.