Posted on 04/19/2002 11:21:03 AM PDT by sinkspur
The Fr. Efren Ortega defense: we don't need to screen the sisters because they are so holy.
Steve thought these guidelines were for other parishes,and other priests, not for him. Now, all he's concerned about is protecting his "rights".
Bishop Grahmann's words are important:
"You know very well that if there had been any sexual abuse, people would be saying we hadn't done enough to prevent it."
It says more about the adults of the parish who support a man who lies to his bishop and thinks diocesan policies don't apply to his parish than it does to the man. If you think a bunch of eighth-graders who had already picked out their confirmation names made this sudden switch on their own, you're naive in the extreme.
Read this article carefully. And read the only quote from the priest: he's concerned about himself, when he put himself in the situation to begin with.
The Vatican won't touch this. Not in a thousand years.
Within the youth programs, we've been following other policies that are designed to protect all kids. The most effective has been to ensure that there are always two adults in the classroom. Up until the last couple of years, that's been difficult (not enough teachers). This year, every class has had 3 or 4 teachers.
When you consider that each grade has close to 500 kids participating, that's A LOT of teachers. The estimated # of volunteers at our church is close to 600. That's a lot of paperwork, too.
That's a lot of volunteers! How many families in your parish? Who's your pastor?
I'm your neighbor, over at St. Michael's in Bedford. We've got a similar policy; I've been background-checked because I lector at Saturday Mass every three weeks.
Makes me wonder if the day will come when they try to create "licenses" for clergy with credentialing criteria, background checks, etc. Remember, there were times when it seemed they would never be involved in some of the things they are now involved in regulating. Church.....State???
In the Boston area we are trying to get rid of about 5 Bishops for protecting Criminal Homosexual Priests for a period of about 40 years, thousands of childrfen have been abused in the most Horrible way.
So far it has cost the Boston Diocese over 50 million and they appear to be going to spend and other 50 million or more..
Any cleric who does not take this seriously should be summarily fired and defrocked.
Father Bierschenk had a real sense as to who might be a predator BEFORE THEY WERE ABLE TO DO ANYTHING TO ANY CHILD and he acted quickly and decisively.
I guess Father should've hired somebody to do his background checking for him like the bishops did.
See post #10
Read this correctly: Any vestige of Traditional thought is to be extinguished. At any cost.
Are you saying that the "traditional thought" of transferring pederast priests from parish to parish ought NOT to be extinguished? At any cost?
Paul Harvey read a story today that said that Canon Law imposes harsher penalties on priests who have sexual liaisons with women than those with minor children. In fact, Canon Law recommends that these men be "rehabilitated and returned to ministry."
This shouldn't surprise anybody.
A shepherd is supposed to protect the sheep, not the barn.
Taking a tip from any successful corporate structure been bitten once too many times by Title Legislation claims, they could "outsource" this surveillance and paper-pushing to one who specializes in Human Resources, no holds barred prying and cutting edge political correctness.
Given the notoriety of this scandal to date and the general direction (toward the State) to which folks seem to be looking for fixes ... perhaps the Catholic Church could lead by example and open themselves to a working relationship with the local branch of the FBI or some other government entity charged with ensuring The Peoples' Security.
Pastors don't want it. Liberal pastors, conservative pastors, they both view anything from the chancery office as an intrusion on their authority as parish leaders.
I agree with you, however. An outsourcer could do the job, but might be cost prohibitive.
And, as you say, Father might be just a bit nervous what his own background check might reveal.
We joined the parish when we moved here 5 years ago. I've been teaching on Weds nite (6th grade - Old Testament) for the past four years.
Msgr. Broderick is great! This is a busy parish, with at least 20 different groups to volunteer in. I like teaching, because I learn more with each lesson, and it hasn't gotten tedious yet. 6th graders won't let you get away with a boring class!
If you're ever in the area, check out our new church! It holds about 1,500, and it's a beautiful, peaceful place. Check out our website: stannparish.org
I have and all the related articles too. It sounds to me that the Bishop imposed a deadline and then acted 3 weeks before the deadline. How does that tag the priest for as disobedient? According to the parishioner (who knows more about this than any of us) all of the background checks have been completed BEFORE the deadline.
Each church operates with hundreds of volunteers these days. It requires 55 Eucharistic Ministers per weekend to serve all of the Masses at my church -- that means 200 volunteers for the month, not counting weekday Masses and visits to the bedridden. Then there are the CCD classes with at least 2 teachers per class, and the regular school classes, and the 5 choirs, and the lectors, and the cantors, groundskeepers, Parish Festival organizers, newsletter, bulletin, Parish Council, etc., etc. I think you get the picture. Of course some people do double and triple duty, but the volunteer staff still represents hundreds of people. As far as I know, NOBODY has had a background check. Father George wouldn't begin to have time -- he's the only priest on staff and is aided by one clerk in the office.
My daughter works as a Minister of Music and Liturgy in a Catholic Church in another state. Believe me, the politics and jealousies that go on between the hierarchy and the parish priests are just as brutal as any in Washington, DC. between the Democrats and the Republicans. It sounds like this CONSERVATIVE parish did not meet the demands of the Bishop; and it probably does not have anything at all to do with background checks, if reality was known.
A decade ago I lived in Washington State, and we were trying to build a new church. The Bishop wanted kneelers eliminated and moveable chairs in the sanctuary. The parish and the Bishop fought about this for at least five years with our pastor trying to act as mediator. The Bishop always could have the final word because he controlled the pursestrings (The Diocese loans the money for new churches or remodeling.) We finally compromised with a semi-circular design (wanted by the Bishop) and pews with kneelers (disdained by the Bishop.) I think the only reason we got that design was because some other crisis distracted the Bishop (such as Rome investigating him because of his liberalism and his own disobedience), and the parish council slipped the parish-favored design through the process when he wasn't looking. The Bishop was NOT pleased, and he sent his newly appointed assistant (the new co-Bishop assigned from Rome to watch him) to the dedication and didn't bother to come himself.
Our Pastor was always in slightly less than boiling water with the Bishop. He'd been on the fast track up the ladder in a large, urban parish and had been transferred to our small, country parish as punishment for some transgression years before.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.