Post by andyf on Nov 15, 2010 15:51:01 GMT
Friends,
I would like to address the practice of the use of this instrument
of scandal by the church in it's recruitment policies.
The church in it's "no tolerance" policy now screens out everyone who happens to end up on the "list". It could if desired pursue a selective course which would achieve the same end, but instead clumps everyone into this one category has a threat to children.
Kenneth Overberg, S.J in his book Conscience in Conflict cautions in that decisions should come out of the proper practice of the weighing or discerning of basic goods. His context is a rape case where the framing of a black person whom is known to be innocent is set up has patsy in order to satiate the pressing demands of society, and prevent the prolonging of a search for the real criminal. I found the analogy quite appropriate for our purpose.
"Our discerning methodology would point out that there is no inherent connection between framing the innocent person and changing the minds of the rioting mob. The mob is free to change it's mind even without the framing of the innocent person."
Therefore, our discerning methodology would point out that there is no inherent connection between framing innocent non category offenders and the prevention of child abuse. Child abuse will not be diminished by framing the innocent.
Some churches realizing the wrong of such an action attempt a buck-pass and redirect any complaints to the civil judicial system who are most cooperative in applying the psychological "thumb screws" to anyone who has the audacity to complain, and who most eagerly convey the impression that such an act of dissent is yet one more attribute of a criminal mindset. In this case the method is to shunt requests for an ecclesiastical hearing by these unfortunates to one of a civil hearing. Here, the intent is to evade the inevitable stampede by innocent people who have paid their debt to society.
But this does not acquit since guilt by association is the end result.
Doctors of Ill Repute?
In an odd state of affairs this shotgun approach in principle also targets some prominent doctors of our church, and by these new promulgations effect to negate the first Pope's ability to assess who are virtuous candidates for the post of teaching in the new church. I can recall nowhere in scripture where Paul's criminal genocidic propensity raises any doubts by St. Peter as to Paul's threat to children. We will recall that Paul admits his crimes and appeals to the community to be trusted.
We can quite reasonably guess as to the type of reception he would receive today. His mention of his selection by Christ would be seen has a private revelation and while being escorted to the door would be patted on the back along with a suggestion that he apply for level 1 and 2 security work.
St. Augustine would fair even worse. His attempts to explain his bent to habitual sexual crimes while still a model of morality would net him a flat refusal.
Time would seem to exonerate these cases, but the lack of an ancient infrastructure to address vice through policing as well has the lack of an electronic record filing system does not prevent the long arm of today's judicial systems to reach back to label these for candidates for post sentencing. We have evidence of Neuremburg trials where even a sanctioning of their acts by their respective countries does not save them. In recent times that Bosnian or is it Serbian general who's name escapes me was hunted for his crime. The church recognizes intrinsic sins and correlates these to crimes against humanity. Lastly, our hearts and conscience tells us they are criminal acts.
Character of the Criminal Record.
How can we place this awkward element in the scheme of societal justice. First lets review.
Mathew 5,25-26 and 2 Cor 5,6 are a wealth of information that indicates the processes we are to emulate for the establishment of judicial systems in a society. They establish norms, indicate limitations and guide us in our attitudes toward each other.
Here in Mathew we have the primary elements of these lessons:
1/ Lose no time. Haste is emphasized.
2/ Settle. The victim and offender are obligated to cooperate in ensuring closure.
3/The procedure for reconciliation. Sentencing. The victim or his representative is to state what is appropriate compensation.
4/Paying the "last" penny. In other words, last = closure.
So how do we explain a criminal record in the haste,cooperation,sentencing,closure sequence just mentioned? We can't, because it is disguised has something else. It can be nothing but a list of added sentences not mentioned in front of the presiding celestial Judge who requires it be mentioned. As we can see immediately that this use imposes a disruption in God's plan for a true system.
1/It attempts to trick God, has the judge stated what is adequate compensation.
2/For cases where a criminal record is never expunged, closure is never realized. (Actually expungement doesn't remove the record.)
3/Unless all items in the file are also known to the offender, he doesn't know ALL what is required to realize closure.
4/If the record element is kept from the victim, he is unable to access if the offender has paid back more than what was to be compensated.
5/It prevents closure, impedes haste, and allows perpetual sentencing.
6/It portrays a false impression to society,the human rights commission and other nations has it makes it impossible for them to determine what constitutes cruel and unusual in a cumulative sense for a given case.
In 2 Cor 2,5-6 Paul in an unusual turn targets society rather than individuals and it's use of the common good in the treatment of offenders. He imposes the closure condition for implementing the common good in judicial cases. The common good involving offenders is only to be applied if it can foresee closure for the individual has it's end.
We can see that the criminal record file is an intrinsic evil and exists in direct opposition to Paul's instructions. It is, or has become an instrument in scandal, since it infects after a person has paid his debt to society and is now a restored citizen. It tempts other entities to it's delectable banquet. It forces individuals to publicly defend their rights. At sentencing ALL that will befall an individual must be publicly stated. This includes loss of rights to the military, government,etc. These are know sentences that are hypocritically withheld at trial and from the eyes of God.
Church Conduct and Alternatives
It goes without saying that we need policies to prevent harm to our children. New technologies are not negative things has they are special gifts of God to assist us. They can become negative if we abuse their use.
So what is the Church's responsibility, or that of it's partner by association, in the use of the criminal record? Even if it could find some element of good in it's use, the least it should do in consideration of individual rights is to be selective. If the Church is seeking threats to children, obviously someone with a cheque passing charge is not a threat to children, nor does a fisticuffs by young men that is a 40 year old singular case constitute a threat to children. Such a person who is advanced in age is obviously not an imminent threat to anything.
This immense data base could present a banquet of delectable cases for scandal. It would take self restraint by an individual or institution to remain focused on the need at hand and to select only those morsels pertaining to child abuse. So why the One-size-fits-all approach in these cases? The late Cardinal Avery Dulles,S.J. addressing the case of deviant priests, but all the same the faithful collectively, has this to say.:
"Even a single offense, committed many decades ago, no matter what the mitigating circumstances, was sufficient to debar priests for life from the exercise of his ministry. Having been so severely criticized for exercising poor judgment in the past, the bishops apparently wanted to avoid having to make judgments in these cases. The "Essential Norms" do not distinguish among different degrees of gravity. Pope John Paul II, however, has insisted on this distinction."
Before the Church adopts or contracts any judicial policies involving a nation, it should absolutely procure for it's faithful a definition of what constitutes "payment of debt to society". If this is passed up it is unconscionable. How else is it to determine if this society/entity has any idea of the principles of restorative justice.
If their is no definition, then we are not restricted in applying the right of the universal judicial precept of "consideration to the least advantaged" (Rawls,Theory of Justice). The Church should refuse to adopt it's policies, and indeed according to Sirach 13,15-16 at least take the opportunity to teach(MATER ET MAGISTRA) by being a reluctant party to abusive policies.
It should visually side with those in the community that try to take opportunities to evangelize, even those who's teachings dare to threaten politically correct alliances. It should side with those ex-offenders who find themselves at the front lines for the church.
For community events where a police service is required it should insist on recruiting only those who are Catholic and have at least minimal knowledge to catechismal teaching. They should be capable of reading people and should not take offense, and be able to recognize conscientious objection, even when they know it applies to their own principles.
Andy Fletcher
I would like to address the practice of the use of this instrument
of scandal by the church in it's recruitment policies.
The church in it's "no tolerance" policy now screens out everyone who happens to end up on the "list". It could if desired pursue a selective course which would achieve the same end, but instead clumps everyone into this one category has a threat to children.
Kenneth Overberg, S.J in his book Conscience in Conflict cautions in that decisions should come out of the proper practice of the weighing or discerning of basic goods. His context is a rape case where the framing of a black person whom is known to be innocent is set up has patsy in order to satiate the pressing demands of society, and prevent the prolonging of a search for the real criminal. I found the analogy quite appropriate for our purpose.
"Our discerning methodology would point out that there is no inherent connection between framing the innocent person and changing the minds of the rioting mob. The mob is free to change it's mind even without the framing of the innocent person."
Therefore, our discerning methodology would point out that there is no inherent connection between framing innocent non category offenders and the prevention of child abuse. Child abuse will not be diminished by framing the innocent.
Some churches realizing the wrong of such an action attempt a buck-pass and redirect any complaints to the civil judicial system who are most cooperative in applying the psychological "thumb screws" to anyone who has the audacity to complain, and who most eagerly convey the impression that such an act of dissent is yet one more attribute of a criminal mindset. In this case the method is to shunt requests for an ecclesiastical hearing by these unfortunates to one of a civil hearing. Here, the intent is to evade the inevitable stampede by innocent people who have paid their debt to society.
But this does not acquit since guilt by association is the end result.
Doctors of Ill Repute?
In an odd state of affairs this shotgun approach in principle also targets some prominent doctors of our church, and by these new promulgations effect to negate the first Pope's ability to assess who are virtuous candidates for the post of teaching in the new church. I can recall nowhere in scripture where Paul's criminal genocidic propensity raises any doubts by St. Peter as to Paul's threat to children. We will recall that Paul admits his crimes and appeals to the community to be trusted.
We can quite reasonably guess as to the type of reception he would receive today. His mention of his selection by Christ would be seen has a private revelation and while being escorted to the door would be patted on the back along with a suggestion that he apply for level 1 and 2 security work.
St. Augustine would fair even worse. His attempts to explain his bent to habitual sexual crimes while still a model of morality would net him a flat refusal.
Time would seem to exonerate these cases, but the lack of an ancient infrastructure to address vice through policing as well has the lack of an electronic record filing system does not prevent the long arm of today's judicial systems to reach back to label these for candidates for post sentencing. We have evidence of Neuremburg trials where even a sanctioning of their acts by their respective countries does not save them. In recent times that Bosnian or is it Serbian general who's name escapes me was hunted for his crime. The church recognizes intrinsic sins and correlates these to crimes against humanity. Lastly, our hearts and conscience tells us they are criminal acts.
Character of the Criminal Record.
How can we place this awkward element in the scheme of societal justice. First lets review.
Mathew 5,25-26 and 2 Cor 5,6 are a wealth of information that indicates the processes we are to emulate for the establishment of judicial systems in a society. They establish norms, indicate limitations and guide us in our attitudes toward each other.
Here in Mathew we have the primary elements of these lessons:
1/ Lose no time. Haste is emphasized.
2/ Settle. The victim and offender are obligated to cooperate in ensuring closure.
3/The procedure for reconciliation. Sentencing. The victim or his representative is to state what is appropriate compensation.
4/Paying the "last" penny. In other words, last = closure.
So how do we explain a criminal record in the haste,cooperation,sentencing,closure sequence just mentioned? We can't, because it is disguised has something else. It can be nothing but a list of added sentences not mentioned in front of the presiding celestial Judge who requires it be mentioned. As we can see immediately that this use imposes a disruption in God's plan for a true system.
1/It attempts to trick God, has the judge stated what is adequate compensation.
2/For cases where a criminal record is never expunged, closure is never realized. (Actually expungement doesn't remove the record.)
3/Unless all items in the file are also known to the offender, he doesn't know ALL what is required to realize closure.
4/If the record element is kept from the victim, he is unable to access if the offender has paid back more than what was to be compensated.
5/It prevents closure, impedes haste, and allows perpetual sentencing.
6/It portrays a false impression to society,the human rights commission and other nations has it makes it impossible for them to determine what constitutes cruel and unusual in a cumulative sense for a given case.
In 2 Cor 2,5-6 Paul in an unusual turn targets society rather than individuals and it's use of the common good in the treatment of offenders. He imposes the closure condition for implementing the common good in judicial cases. The common good involving offenders is only to be applied if it can foresee closure for the individual has it's end.
We can see that the criminal record file is an intrinsic evil and exists in direct opposition to Paul's instructions. It is, or has become an instrument in scandal, since it infects after a person has paid his debt to society and is now a restored citizen. It tempts other entities to it's delectable banquet. It forces individuals to publicly defend their rights. At sentencing ALL that will befall an individual must be publicly stated. This includes loss of rights to the military, government,etc. These are know sentences that are hypocritically withheld at trial and from the eyes of God.
Church Conduct and Alternatives
It goes without saying that we need policies to prevent harm to our children. New technologies are not negative things has they are special gifts of God to assist us. They can become negative if we abuse their use.
So what is the Church's responsibility, or that of it's partner by association, in the use of the criminal record? Even if it could find some element of good in it's use, the least it should do in consideration of individual rights is to be selective. If the Church is seeking threats to children, obviously someone with a cheque passing charge is not a threat to children, nor does a fisticuffs by young men that is a 40 year old singular case constitute a threat to children. Such a person who is advanced in age is obviously not an imminent threat to anything.
This immense data base could present a banquet of delectable cases for scandal. It would take self restraint by an individual or institution to remain focused on the need at hand and to select only those morsels pertaining to child abuse. So why the One-size-fits-all approach in these cases? The late Cardinal Avery Dulles,S.J. addressing the case of deviant priests, but all the same the faithful collectively, has this to say.:
"Even a single offense, committed many decades ago, no matter what the mitigating circumstances, was sufficient to debar priests for life from the exercise of his ministry. Having been so severely criticized for exercising poor judgment in the past, the bishops apparently wanted to avoid having to make judgments in these cases. The "Essential Norms" do not distinguish among different degrees of gravity. Pope John Paul II, however, has insisted on this distinction."
Before the Church adopts or contracts any judicial policies involving a nation, it should absolutely procure for it's faithful a definition of what constitutes "payment of debt to society". If this is passed up it is unconscionable. How else is it to determine if this society/entity has any idea of the principles of restorative justice.
If their is no definition, then we are not restricted in applying the right of the universal judicial precept of "consideration to the least advantaged" (Rawls,Theory of Justice). The Church should refuse to adopt it's policies, and indeed according to Sirach 13,15-16 at least take the opportunity to teach(MATER ET MAGISTRA) by being a reluctant party to abusive policies.
It should visually side with those in the community that try to take opportunities to evangelize, even those who's teachings dare to threaten politically correct alliances. It should side with those ex-offenders who find themselves at the front lines for the church.
For community events where a police service is required it should insist on recruiting only those who are Catholic and have at least minimal knowledge to catechismal teaching. They should be capable of reading people and should not take offense, and be able to recognize conscientious objection, even when they know it applies to their own principles.
Andy Fletcher