Good for him. He’s standing up and saying that a bishop is sovereign in his diocese concerning these sorts of things and that no one can order him to do something immoral. The bishop does leave something ambiguous. He says: “In the diocese, we have indicated that such training must be made available to all children under our supervision in our Catholic schools but have not taken on the nearly impossible task of assuming responsibility for every child in the diocese.” If the programs are a problem for children, are they going to stop it in the schools? He leaves that unanswered, but based on his objections it would be very inconsistent if he didn’t.
Anyway, here is what he says:
Are such programs effective? Do such programs impose an unduly burdensome responsibility on very young children to protect themselves rather than insisting that parents take such training and take on the primary responsibility for protecting their children? Where do these programs come from? Is it true that Planned Parenthood has a hand or at least huge influence on many of them? Is it true that other groups, actively promoting early sexual activity for children, promote these programs in association with their own perverse agendas? Do such programs involve, even tangentially, the sexualization of children, which is precisely a part of the societal evil we are striving to combat? Does such a program invade the Church-guaranteed-right of parents over the education of their children in sexual matters? Do I have the right to mandate such programs and demand that parents sign a document proving that they choose to exercise their right not to have their child involved? Do such programs introduce children to sex-related issues at age-inappropriate times? Would such programs generate a fruitful spiritual harvest? Would unsatisfactory answers to any of the questions above give sufficient reason to resist such programs?
Sounds familiar, even like the very same questions that I and others have brought up about the programs, including Talking about Touching.
And so, Bishop Vasa is willing to risk the public relations hit of being called “Not in Compliance” by the USCCBureaucrats and being issued a “Required Action.” He obviously understands that leadership, especially Christian leadership, means doing the right thing when it’s not popular and when there’s a personal cost.
Dom, I might suggest that you encourage people to send the Bishop a little note of support. Granted a leader, a Bishop, shouldn’t need support to do the right thing, but when he does the right thing we Catholics in filial love ought to let him know we are praying for him, espeacially when he sticks his neck out.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 10/9/05 at 01:40 PM
Following Diogenes’ ‘hint’ on CWN I sent him (Bp. Vasa) a Thank You EMail. His EMail address is:
vasa .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 10/9/05 at 04:37 PM
That didn’t come out right. The vasa (space) should be part of the address also…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 10/9/05 at 04:39 PM
Bishpo Vasa is one of my heroes. He already has a strong program for weeding out sex offenders. He also requires that every diocesan volunteer & employee swear a Mandatum.
Here in the Diocese of Arlington, they require the VIRTUS program of *every* volunteer and employee. Every week, my pastor whines in the bulletin about people not volunteering for the parish, and then two pages later there’s a note that if you volunteer, you’ll be treated like a criminal and subjected to a detailed lesson on sexual abuse.
Gee—I wonder why people aren’t volunteering?
People aren’t just not volunteering, they’re quitting ministries, too. In Boston they now require new criminal background checks every year and ask all kinds of intrusive questions (height, weight, social security number). People are starting to say, “The heck with it” and quitting ministries like lector and Eucharistic minister.
(And why do we need to run criminal background checks on them? Standing at the ambo or at the head of the aisle at Mass seems to be an unlikely position in which one can abuse a child.)
GodsGadfly writes: “if you volunteer, you’ll be treated like a criminal and subjected to a detailed lesson on sexual abuse.”
Until I went through a security clearance at work, it seemed as though I’d feel like a criminal during the process - but it was a surprisingly standardized, non-judgemental procedure - with strict rules in place for confidentiality - made all the more so in the post-911 world.
Dom writes: “And why do we need to run criminal background checks on them? Standing at the ambo or at the head of the aisle at Mass seems to be an unlikely position in which one can abuse a child.”
I believe it’s gotten to this point throught the all-or-nothing thinking that’s most expedient to those overseeing the policy of guaranteeing safety in the post-child abuse scandal era we have now. It would take too much time and effort (cost) to try fine-tuning the criteria for screening - which is always a subjective determination (the degree of interaction with youth, for example), thus exposing the Church to even more scandals and lawsuits. So that when all’s said and done, crossing every ‘t’ and dotting every ‘i’ seems to be the rule of the day.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 10/10/05 at 03:18 AM
What I think is silly is how you have to have a background check (CORI) at schools and at parishes. Probably at libraries and the YMCA too. It would be nice if there was a common data bank and you only had to go through that process once… less red tape, too.
Maybe there’s a reason the resources aren’t pooled?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 10/10/05 at 07:27 AM
Tom2: So that when all’s said and done, crossing every ‘t’ and dotting every ‘i’ seems to be the rule of the day.
And meanwhile we drive all the volunteers away because they don’t like being made to feel like criminals or have to give up so much personal information.
Colleen: Maybe there’s a reason the resources aren’t pooled?
Privacy laws. If they pooled information, there’s a greater chance of the violation of your privacy.
By the way, the huge loophole that background checks ignore is the guy (and it’s always a guy) who hasn’t been arrested. I think that’s a bigger danger than the elderly lady who washes the chalices and altar linens.
It is not only church settings, but other volunteer programs have a bureaucratic element as well.
It is easier and just as fulfilling to help an elderly neighbor, etc. than to get involve in a big production.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 10/10/05 at 09:37 AM
I don’t mind criminal background checks for employees. I’m taking issue with the volunteer thing.
(Actually, as far as liturgical volunteers, Bishop Vasa *does* contend that they should be held up to the highest standards of both behavior and doctrine).
Meanwhile someone somewhere is getting a nice database on dedicated Catholics. Which of course may never be used for anything at all. But then again it could be used if someone somewhere comes up with a reason that the courts would buy… Under the circumstances, I wouldn’t volunteer because in my diocese VIRTUS is required.
Dom: And meanwhile we drive all the volunteers away because they don’t like being made to feel like criminals or have to give up so much personal information.
Colleen brings up the very point - how centralized are the databanks that gather all the various background checks requirements today. I know that the process I’ve been through relies heavily on reference interviews to see how credible one’s profile really is (allows for possible reinforcement or contradiction in facts, behavior patterns, character and allegiance attribution, etc.). To your point though, I think our Social Security #s, IRS returns, legal filings, education and occupational databases, and many others sources are already accessible to any who wish to know that info - so that a CORI or such is not exposing that much more in general - from what I’ve gathered by the many articles and editorials that have been written about identification theft, etc. in the last few years especially.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 10/10/05 at 02:48 PM
Whether such things are readily available or not may be beside the point. Most people don’t know that it is, but feel like they’re giving up something in the CORI that isn’t available elsewhere.
I agree with you Dom - which is why the whole matter has gotten out of hand, like a shark feeding frenzy. There’s no reason why rational judgement cannot be used to distinguish between a shady, bearded man with shades on versus a respectable-looking senior citizen with a cane in deciding which is a better screening candidate in a security line at the airport, for examaple. And everyone knows this to be true - and offended people constantly write letters to the editor to voice their outrage, or to convey some of the most ludicrous anecdotal accounts of security-gone-awry. Yet nothing can be done about it because the decisions are so centralized that there’s no wiggle room for deviating from the stated policies ... so that a certain number of people will suffer from the obstinate rules until they are ever-so-slowly modified to include sanity in the equation. Forgive my verbosity here ... I once again agree with your point that we all end up paying for the growing lack of volunteers - where even a lady who washes chalises is subjected to thorough screenings beyond any threat level that she could ever pose under normal circumstances. Do you know whether it’s a Church requirement or a government one to impose such strict clearances upon everyone doint anything?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 10/10/05 at 04:53 PM
The requirement, at least in most places, is entirely Church driven, or I should say, lawyer driven.
Alas - the lawyers have taken over the Church as well. Time to take the LSATs ... Cheers, Tom
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 10/11/05 at 12:41 AM
Kinda late for a reply now but…
Thanks Dom regarding the privacy laws but does that make much sense? Since we are all tapping into the same ‘database’ and getting the same info, what privacy could be violated?
And I am in mind of the juvenile in my area who abused several little girls his mother babysat for (upper middle class families all) from the time he was 12 or 13. Finnally caught at 16, no record at all. Wonder if this would show on a CORI or background check when/if he volunteers to teach CCD at his parish or works with kids at the Y, etc.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 10/11/05 at 06:49 AM
But the database is a government database supposedly protected by police, etc. When a CORI is submitted, all that the submitting agency gets back is a green light or red light under the criteria they submit.
They aren’t told what’s in the record.
Obviously different agencies have different criteria, so for them to share the database, they’d have to know what was in the records.
As for the 16 year old, you can’t CORI someone under 18 so that’s another whole ball of wax. If a 17 year old wants to teach CCD, they have to have an adult present in the classroom.
I will say that my now 16 yo daughter teaches CCD w/o an adult present (same last year except she was 15) it is an ‘open classroom’ atmosphere - large parish hall separated into small rooms with moveable walls.
FWIW and off topic, there has never been any talk of TaT in my parish although we volunteers and the paid employees did have to take the VIRTUS course a few years ago. Any new volunteers since then have not taken the VIRTUS course (like my daughter). We are south of Boston - horrible CCD program (silver burdett’s ‘blessed are we’) w/ a liberal nun DRE but I don’t think they want to touch TaT with a ten foot pole.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 10/11/05 at 08:39 AM
“And meanwhile we drive all the volunteers away because they don’t like being made to feel like criminals or have to give up so much personal information.”
I took the suggestion above and wrote short email of support to Bishop Vasa and he actually wrote a note back thanking me that included this: “Pastors, religious educators, and parents who raise concerns about the imposition of these programs are sometimes made to feel like outlaws in their own local Church. —(Quote from Leon Suprenaut)”
Seems there are a lot of people out there being made to feel like criminals.
Comments are being moderated. After you submit your comment it could take up to a couple hours, but usually only a few minutes, before it will appear. Thank you for your patience. If you have any questions, you may contact Domenico Bettinelli.
Kudos to Bishop Vasa
It looks like Bishop Robert Vasa of Bend, Oregon, is not going to let some USCCBureaucrat tell him what he must or must not do in his own diocese. The good bishop has decided that the “safe environment sex education” programs mandated by Teresa Kettelkamp in the Office of Child and Youth Protection leave some disturbing questions unanswered and so he’s not going to implement them, even at the risk of getting a “Non-Compliance” rating in his diocese’s audit.
Good for him. He’s standing up and saying that a bishop is sovereign in his diocese concerning these sorts of things and that no one can order him to do something immoral. The bishop does leave something ambiguous. He says: “In the diocese, we have indicated that such training must be made available to all children under our supervision in our Catholic schools but have not taken on the nearly impossible task of assuming responsibility for every child in the diocese.” If the programs are a problem for children, are they going to stop it in the schools? He leaves that unanswered, but based on his objections it would be very inconsistent if he didn’t.
Anyway, here is what he says:
Sounds familiar, even like the very same questions that I and others have brought up about the programs, including Talking about Touching.
And so, Bishop Vasa is willing to risk the public relations hit of being called “Not in Compliance” by the USCCBureaucrats and being issued a “Required Action.” He obviously understands that leadership, especially Christian leadership, means doing the right thing when it’s not popular and when there’s a personal cost.
Posted by Domenico Bettinelli on 10/9/05 at 08:01 AM •
COMMENTS
Dom, I might suggest that you encourage people to send the Bishop a little note of support. Granted a leader, a Bishop, shouldn’t need support to do the right thing, but when he does the right thing we Catholics in filial love ought to let him know we are praying for him, espeacially when he sticks his neck out.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 10/9/05 at 01:40 PM
Contact info from the diocese’s website…
PASTORAL OFFICE
911 SE Armour St.
Bend 97702
Mailing address: P.O. Box 5999
Bend 97708
(541) 388-4004
Fax: (541) 388-2566
Posted by Lynne on 10/9/05 at 04:27 PM
Following Diogenes’ ‘hint’ on CWN I sent him (Bp. Vasa) a Thank You EMail. His EMail address is:
vasa .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 10/9/05 at 04:37 PM
That didn’t come out right. The vasa (space) should be part of the address also…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 10/9/05 at 04:39 PM
Bishpo Vasa is one of my heroes. He already has a strong program for weeding out sex offenders. He also requires that every diocesan volunteer & employee swear a Mandatum.
Here in the Diocese of Arlington, they require the VIRTUS program of *every* volunteer and employee. Every week, my pastor whines in the bulletin about people not volunteering for the parish, and then two pages later there’s a note that if you volunteer, you’ll be treated like a criminal and subjected to a detailed lesson on sexual abuse.
Gee—I wonder why people aren’t volunteering?
Posted by GodsGadfly on 10/9/05 at 08:22 PM
People aren’t just not volunteering, they’re quitting ministries, too. In Boston they now require new criminal background checks every year and ask all kinds of intrusive questions (height, weight, social security number). People are starting to say, “The heck with it” and quitting ministries like lector and Eucharistic minister.
(And why do we need to run criminal background checks on them? Standing at the ambo or at the head of the aisle at Mass seems to be an unlikely position in which one can abuse a child.)
Posted by Domenico Bettinelli on 10/9/05 at 08:38 PM
GodsGadfly writes: “if you volunteer, you’ll be treated like a criminal and subjected to a detailed lesson on sexual abuse.”
Until I went through a security clearance at work, it seemed as though I’d feel like a criminal during the process - but it was a surprisingly standardized, non-judgemental procedure - with strict rules in place for confidentiality - made all the more so in the post-911 world.
Dom writes: “And why do we need to run criminal background checks on them? Standing at the ambo or at the head of the aisle at Mass seems to be an unlikely position in which one can abuse a child.”
I believe it’s gotten to this point throught the all-or-nothing thinking that’s most expedient to those overseeing the policy of guaranteeing safety in the post-child abuse scandal era we have now. It would take too much time and effort (cost) to try fine-tuning the criteria for screening - which is always a subjective determination (the degree of interaction with youth, for example), thus exposing the Church to even more scandals and lawsuits. So that when all’s said and done, crossing every ‘t’ and dotting every ‘i’ seems to be the rule of the day.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 10/10/05 at 03:18 AM
What I think is silly is how you have to have a background check (CORI) at schools and at parishes. Probably at libraries and the YMCA too. It would be nice if there was a common data bank and you only had to go through that process once… less red tape, too.
Maybe there’s a reason the resources aren’t pooled?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 10/10/05 at 07:27 AM
Tom2: So that when all’s said and done, crossing every ‘t’ and dotting every ‘i’ seems to be the rule of the day.
And meanwhile we drive all the volunteers away because they don’t like being made to feel like criminals or have to give up so much personal information.
Colleen: Maybe there’s a reason the resources aren’t pooled?
Privacy laws. If they pooled information, there’s a greater chance of the violation of your privacy.
By the way, the huge loophole that background checks ignore is the guy (and it’s always a guy) who hasn’t been arrested. I think that’s a bigger danger than the elderly lady who washes the chalices and altar linens.
Posted by Domenico Bettinelli on 10/10/05 at 08:47 AM
It is not only church settings, but other volunteer programs have a bureaucratic element as well.
It is easier and just as fulfilling to help an elderly neighbor, etc. than to get involve in a big production.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 10/10/05 at 09:37 AM
I don’t mind criminal background checks for employees. I’m taking issue with the volunteer thing.
(Actually, as far as liturgical volunteers, Bishop Vasa *does* contend that they should be held up to the highest standards of both behavior and doctrine).
Posted by GodsGadfly on 10/10/05 at 11:46 AM
Meanwhile someone somewhere is getting a nice database on dedicated Catholics. Which of course may never be used for anything at all. But then again it could be used if someone somewhere comes up with a reason that the courts would buy… Under the circumstances, I wouldn’t volunteer because in my diocese VIRTUS is required.
Posted by Carrie on 10/10/05 at 12:16 PM
Dom: And meanwhile we drive all the volunteers away because they don’t like being made to feel like criminals or have to give up so much personal information.
Colleen brings up the very point - how centralized are the databanks that gather all the various background checks requirements today. I know that the process I’ve been through relies heavily on reference interviews to see how credible one’s profile really is (allows for possible reinforcement or contradiction in facts, behavior patterns, character and allegiance attribution, etc.). To your point though, I think our Social Security #s, IRS returns, legal filings, education and occupational databases, and many others sources are already accessible to any who wish to know that info - so that a CORI or such is not exposing that much more in general - from what I’ve gathered by the many articles and editorials that have been written about identification theft, etc. in the last few years especially.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 10/10/05 at 02:48 PM
Whether such things are readily available or not may be beside the point. Most people don’t know that it is, but feel like they’re giving up something in the CORI that isn’t available elsewhere.
Posted by Domenico Bettinelli on 10/10/05 at 02:59 PM
I agree with you Dom - which is why the whole matter has gotten out of hand, like a shark feeding frenzy. There’s no reason why rational judgement cannot be used to distinguish between a shady, bearded man with shades on versus a respectable-looking senior citizen with a cane in deciding which is a better screening candidate in a security line at the airport, for examaple. And everyone knows this to be true - and offended people constantly write letters to the editor to voice their outrage, or to convey some of the most ludicrous anecdotal accounts of security-gone-awry. Yet nothing can be done about it because the decisions are so centralized that there’s no wiggle room for deviating from the stated policies ... so that a certain number of people will suffer from the obstinate rules until they are ever-so-slowly modified to include sanity in the equation. Forgive my verbosity here ... I once again agree with your point that we all end up paying for the growing lack of volunteers - where even a lady who washes chalises is subjected to thorough screenings beyond any threat level that she could ever pose under normal circumstances. Do you know whether it’s a Church requirement or a government one to impose such strict clearances upon everyone doint anything?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 10/10/05 at 04:53 PM
The requirement, at least in most places, is entirely Church driven, or I should say, lawyer driven.
Posted by Domenico Bettinelli on 10/10/05 at 05:33 PM
Alas - the lawyers have taken over the Church as well. Time to take the LSATs ...
Cheers, Tom
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 10/11/05 at 12:41 AM
Kinda late for a reply now but…
Thanks Dom regarding the privacy laws but does that make much sense? Since we are all tapping into the same ‘database’ and getting the same info, what privacy could be violated?
And I am in mind of the juvenile in my area who abused several little girls his mother babysat for (upper middle class families all) from the time he was 12 or 13. Finnally caught at 16, no record at all. Wonder if this would show on a CORI or background check when/if he volunteers to teach CCD at his parish or works with kids at the Y, etc.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 10/11/05 at 06:49 AM
But the database is a government database supposedly protected by police, etc. When a CORI is submitted, all that the submitting agency gets back is a green light or red light under the criteria they submit.
They aren’t told what’s in the record.
Obviously different agencies have different criteria, so for them to share the database, they’d have to know what was in the records.
As for the 16 year old, you can’t CORI someone under 18 so that’s another whole ball of wax. If a 17 year old wants to teach CCD, they have to have an adult present in the classroom.
Posted by Domenico Bettinelli on 10/11/05 at 07:48 AM
Wow, thanks Dom.
I will say that my now 16 yo daughter teaches CCD w/o an adult present (same last year except she was 15) it is an ‘open classroom’ atmosphere - large parish hall separated into small rooms with moveable walls.
FWIW and off topic, there has never been any talk of TaT in my parish although we volunteers and the paid employees did have to take the VIRTUS course a few years ago. Any new volunteers since then have not taken the VIRTUS course (like my daughter). We are south of Boston - horrible CCD program (silver burdett’s ‘blessed are we’) w/ a liberal nun DRE but I don’t think they want to touch TaT with a ten foot pole.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 10/11/05 at 08:39 AM
“And meanwhile we drive all the volunteers away because they don’t like being made to feel like criminals or have to give up so much personal information.”
I took the suggestion above and wrote short email of support to Bishop Vasa and he actually wrote a note back thanking me that included this: “Pastors, religious educators, and parents who raise concerns about the imposition of these programs are sometimes made to feel like outlaws in their own local Church. —(Quote from Leon Suprenaut)”
Seems there are a lot of people out there being made to feel like criminals.
Posted by John Cunniff on 10/12/05 at 03:54 AM
Comments are being moderated. After you submit your comment it could take up to a couple hours, but usually only a few minutes, before it will appear. Thank you for your patience. If you have any questions, you may contact Domenico Bettinelli.