Screening Process, Ipso Facto excommunication
#11
Spence, I don't think that it's particularly unjust to deny a specific position to an individual based upon their past behaviour.  In fact, I'm not aware of any defense of natural law that would require that civil or religious society acquiesce to an individual any specific position.  There is no right to political office, no right to Holy Orders, no right to being a lector or a clerk or a teacher.
Reply
#12
in the primitive Church, one could only get the Sacrament of Penance ONCE.  Later, they were to be given Penance more often but not restored to Communion.  Pope St. Innocent deemed this too strict once the persecutions were ended. 

As far as screening, much could be accomplished by a new Oath (if not the old Oath against Modernism), but likely something adapted to current challenges (from secularists, sodomites, etc).  Long term goal should be the restoration of proper Religious regulars and nuns,  and possibly secular clerics in place of laics as teachers and minor orders clerics replacing most other laics.
Reply
#13
(07-06-2015, 01:27 PM)Uxi Wrote: in the primitive Church, one could only get the Sacrament of Penance ONCE.  Later, they were to be given Penance more often but not restored to Communion.  Pope St. Innocent deemed this too strict once the persecutions were ended. 

As far as screening, much could be accomplished by a new Oath (if not the old Oath against Modernism), but likely something adapted to current challenges (from secularists, sodomites, etc).  Long term goal should be the restoration of proper Religious regulars and nuns,  and possibly secular clerics in place of laics as teachers and minor orders clerics replacing most other laics.

Thank you for the recommendations.

Direct treatment could be the reimplementation of Benefit of Clergy (Lay amendment as a template) for first time misdemeanors. It would make a statement these days when the crime rate is at a low. A change could be that instead of the offender reciting a passage of scripture in order to gain his release as was typical, he could be given community service, albeit undocumented. It would make a statement to the world that the church can be adamant on certain key issues, at teh same time does not take these behaviors lightly. No record would be kept permanently on a first time misdemeanor.

The church needs to be up front with it's policies. No fence sitting as it is now. Children need to be taught in catechism the good news of newly adopted, "no tolerance", and that nasty people who make errors are not wanted. As well as evangelical prophesying to prisoners, they need to hear the good news(all policies are good news.) that they will be discriminated against for community service after their release and have adopted a parish and registered.  Preoccupied as the church is with honor among men and nations,  it could at least  warn them on how they should expect to be received. I think most will not make the futile attempt to integrate, and to the church's elation will not have to deal with them..

But as I already recommended, we owe it to them to excommunicate these people formerly and with bans and all the trappings. Their grandkids and children need to learn the true heart of the church, so they require to be present as they watch their grandparents receive their extended sentencing. The whole congregation needs to be there, so they can rejoice at ridding one more pencil stealer who deserves no substantive second chances from his church.

A few facts. The screening policy automatically shuns mostly first time misdemeanors, because that is the statistic pool that is present. Most crimes are of the minor type. Of these, a good number are circumstantial, in that they would not have happened if some other condition were not present. Few are premeditated, so the church would encounter few of these by proportion.  It is the serious crimes that are blown out of proportion and conveyed as predominant.  The crime rate is actually quite low, which proves people are at least trying. It is an an opportune time for the church to launch new charitable policies to assist these vulnerable. 


Reply
#14
(07-06-2015, 09:55 AM)dcmaccabees Wrote: Spence, I don't think that it's particularly unjust to deny a specific position to an individual based upon their past behaviour.  In fact, I'm not aware of any defense of natural law that would require that civil or religious society acquiesce to an individual any specific position.  There is no right to political office, no right to Holy Orders, no right to being a lector or a clerk or a teacher.

The ex offender applies to community service posting for the same reason the others do. What he can expect is the right not be discriminated against, and so do his competitors. He also has the right to non-conflicted occult compensation if he is the target of this prejudice. The prisoner needs to be informed that this is a recourse he could take in his offense, if he should find himself prejudiced
on release and registered in a new parish.

These are facts we already know as they are policy with no preconditions. Therefore it should be included in the prison evangelical mandate.
Reply
#15
(07-06-2015, 06:38 PM)Spence Wrote:
(07-06-2015, 09:55 AM)dcmaccabees Wrote: Spence, I don't think that it's particularly unjust to deny a specific position to an individual based upon their past behaviour.  In fact, I'm not aware of any defense of natural law that would require that civil or religious society acquiesce to an individual any specific position.  There is no right to political office, no right to Holy Orders, no right to being a lector or a clerk or a teacher.

The ex offender applies to community service posting for the same reason the others do. What he can expect is the right not be discriminated against, and so do his competitors. He also has the right to non-conflicted occult compensation if he is the target of this prejudice. The prisoner needs to be informed that this is a recourse he could take in his offense, if he should find himself prejudiced
on release and registered in a new parish.

These are facts we already know as they are policy with no preconditions. Therefore it should be included in the prison evangelical mandate.

I have had various opinions from clerics on my point of view. An elderly priest thought that the screening policy was rushed and not well thought out. Another attributes the suffering the vulnerable are made to suffer to bad clerics.
Reply
#16
(07-05-2015, 12:45 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: I still don't see how you are excommunicated. Supposedly you were forgiven your sins at Penance and you are able to participate in communion. When one is excommunicated one is outside the Church. That is clearly not the case when one is simply rejected to be a volunteer worker on some parish.

I don't remember Augustine committing “civil crimes”, except the episode with the pears.
Also, just to take one example, I wouldn't see how it would be prudent to place sex offenders to work with children. Even if he has done his penance and even if he claims he is ridden of his desires, I still don't see how it would be prudent. Would it be wise for an ex-alcoholic to work as bartender?
But you go even further saying it would not only not be wise but it would be an actual sin to refuse to employ certain persons. Would it be a sin (not only not wise or not virtuous, but actually a breaking of God's law and a separation from God) to not hire a convicted pedophile as baby sitter?
Should the pedophile/ephebphiles/hebephiles priests who destroyed many innocent (mostly pious) souls stay as parishioners as if nothing had happened?

Also, you have this constant motif that civil law is fallible and whatnot. But you seem to hold that once a person fulfills the civil penance he or she requires no further penance. So, basically, send everyone to prison for a while and get out of purgatory?

The definition of crime is not bounded by time. Augustine and Paul committed crimes, even if they are against humanity. God expected them to consider it criminal even though the government(decadent as it was) didn't apply it.

The sex offenders could be placed doing other safe tasks. That's not the case according to my studies. It is what the church wants everyone to believe. I have found that the church bypasses it's loophole by classifying all tasks as high risk. Also, patronage appointments have suddenly increased. By these no one knows why so-and-so got the position and when.  I found that burial service is high risk, and one other rediculous and obvious position also, can't remember.

The canon law covers excommunication because of delict. In general, the law states that if a person is convicted of civil criminal activity then the church feels obligated to apply punitive measures because the faithful are part of the greater community(I think, but I would guess it is along those lines). Nevertheless, the church picks up where the civil courts left off and does it's thing also. I think you can find a lot of this stuff in medieval times and earlier,  and when the church was pretty much the civil authority also. Probably has it's source in that era.
Reply
#17
(07-06-2015, 06:43 PM)Spence Wrote:
(07-06-2015, 06:38 PM)Spence Wrote:
(07-06-2015, 09:55 AM)dcmaccabees Wrote: Spence, I don't think that it's particularly unjust to deny a specific position to an individual based upon their past behaviour.  In fact, I'm not aware of any defense of natural law that would require that civil or religious society acquiesce to an individual any specific position.  There is no right to political office, no right to Holy Orders, no right to being a lector or a clerk or a teacher.

The ex offender applies to community service posting for the same reason the others do. What he can expect is the right not be discriminated against, and so do his competitors. He also has the right to non-conflicted occult compensation if he is the target of this prejudice. The prisoner needs to be informed that this is a recourse he could take in his offense, if he should find himself prejudiced
on release and registered in a new parish.

These are facts we already know as they are policy with no preconditions. Therefore it should be included in the prison evangelical mandate.

I have had various opinions from clerics on my point of view. An elderly priest thought that the screening policy was rushed and not well thought out. Another attributes the suffering the vulnerable are made to suffer to bad clerics.
[/quote]
Reply
#18
Spence:

It may the case in your particular parish or diocese, but it is (emphatically) not the case in the Diocese of Phoenix that those who are convicted of non-sexual misdemeanors are banned from parish life.  I know, personally, of over a dozen ex-offenders (including felons) who volunteer across the Diocese.  True, there are some positions that some of them are not eligible for due to the nature of their past offenses, but none are denied across the board.
Reply
#19
I think that there is a difference between the welcome that we offer to all the people who come into the Church and who the church is going to have as employees. 
Reply
#20
(07-06-2015, 08:48 PM)dcmaccabees Wrote: Spence:

It may the case in your particular parish or diocese, but it is (emphatically) not the case in the Diocese of Phoenix that those who are convicted of non-sexual misdemeanors are banned from parish life.  I know, personally, of over a dozen ex-offenders (including felons) who volunteer across the Diocese.  True, there are some positions that some of them are not eligible for due to the nature of their past offenses, but none are denied across the board.

We have many in my vicinity who do the peripheral services such as SVP and these ex offenders are model catholics in their everyday lives. They have even grown into the community and raised law abiding loyal children. I know of one family that had to move on because of scandal. It would appear that some 'cloaked' catholics in disguise know nothing of true catholicism and burying the past.

But I speak mainly of liturgical ministries and internal administration. They have a hard go at obtaining employment in these. However it would seem your diocese is at least trying to address these problems. Not satisfied with keeping our candles under baskets, and while we still need to speak the phrase, "it may be the case in your diocese", it remains then to correct other dioceses and encourage them to adopt your practices in keeping with our emulation of Christ.

But all the same, accolades all around for a job well done.  :)


Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)