Church loses volunteers to policy aimed at protecting kids

Star Ledger ^ | 10.27.05 | JEFF DIAMANT

[Coleus]

Charlie Hughes is a volunteer's volunteer, collecting old cell phones for battered women, running clothing drives and gathering old bicycles for reuse around the world.

For more than two decades, the 74-year-old West Amwell man gave his time to St. John's Roman Catholic Church in Lambertville, most recently for the parish's Society of St. Vincent de Paul, which helps the poor.

But a dispute over a church program designed to prevent abuse of children has angered Hughes and dozens of other volunteers, largely depleting the society's membership.

At least 40 volunteers, lectors and eucharistic ministers have been dismissed or eliminated from rosters since last year because of their refusal to fully participate in the "Protecting God's Children" program, said Marlene Di Via, the society's former secretary and one of those dismissed.

The dispute stems from Monsignor Leon Kasprzyk's interpretation of a Metuchen diocese policy, borne from the clergy sex abuse scandal, that church workers with "direct contact with minors" take part in the program.

Kasprzyk decided the policy applied to all Vincent de Paul members even though most volunteers, like Hughes, said they do not work with children.

The program requires each person to be fingerprinted, undergo a criminal background check, attend a workshop on preventing sex abuse and sign a document releasing the diocese -- and anyone it contacts about the volunteer's background -- from liability.

It is the waiver that has been most controversial at St. John's, where many volunteers worry that signing it could work against them if someone files a false claim.

While the majority of people asked to sign the waiver have done so, most society members felt they should not have to since they don't work with children and that the waiver has less to do with protecting children than with protecting the diocese

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Just anopther lost freedom thanks to the left and the trial lawyers.

[stylin19a]

... borne from the clergy sex abuse scandal,

so fingerprint the lay volunteers. Must be working with the TSA.

[The Cuban]

Sad

[carumba]

Kasprzyk decided the policy applied to all Vincent de Paul members even though most volunteers, like Hughes, said they do not work with children.

That is one of the great benefits of being a volunteer. Your employer doesn't have a whole lotta leverage. If they dish out more than you want to take. Zoom, out of here, see ya, tiao, hasta la vista, sionara. And its not hard to find another volunteer position somewhere else. Civic, church, community, school, guys in orange suits on the freeway (oops! if it says county jail on the suit maybe volunteer isn't the correct term), pick one and serve until you are content.

[nmh]

"The program requires each person to be fingerprinted, undergo a criminal background check, attend a workshop on preventing sex abuse and sign a document releasing the diocese -- and anyone it contacts about the volunteer's background -- from liability."

I wouldn't allow that either and I'm not a molestor. It smacks of being guilty already of someting you would NEVER do. Meanwhile real perverts get light punishment, get off on technicalities and having a field day out there. As usual things are the reverse of what they should be.

This reminds me of a situation with Chemical Bank. It involved an account that my huband had before we were married. He had forgotten about it and it was not in pnt names. He gave me a check made payable to "cash". I had valid ID, his spouse and they REFUSED to give me the money UNLESS I submitted to giving them my fingerprints. I refused and we promplty closed the account and made sure they knew why.

I will NOT give out my fingerprints ANYONE.

[Screaming_Gerbil]

... borne from the clergy sex abuse scandal...

so fingerprint the lay volunteers...

At the end of the article:

"We all agree children need to be protected. The question is, is this a proper response?" said Robert Bernot, an attorney no longer allowed to be a lector or eucharistic minister because he didn't sign the waiver. "It wasn't laity sex abuse. The clergy sex abuse problem was a two-pronged problem: what was done by our priests and what the bishops did. So now we make the laity bear the cost?"

[Rocket1968]

My parish (in Maine) has a less restrictive policy, but does require anyone involved with minors to go to a class(s). My wife had taught childrens liturgy for years and she was put off by this. She was never alone with any of the children. The class was in a open room with other adults present. She no longer teaches the children. She felt that it was a matter of trust. I can see why the Church feels the need to do this, but sometimes it seems that the Church is cutting off its nose to spite its face. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. Some common sense should be applied.

[grjr21]

"Just anopther lost freedom thanks to the left and the trial lawyers."

With logic like that I suppose Monicagate was the fault of the Right and Ken Starr

[Mind-numbed Robot]

With logic like that I suppose Monicagate was the fault of the Right and Ken Starr

Forgive me but I don't see your logic either. My simple point is that the church is protecting itself against lawsuits and as a result of that many who were doing good work for the church will no longer have that opportunity.

And your point was.....?????

[mr_hammer]

Being a Catholic, I do not have time to complete the required class time and participate in the program I wish to take part in.

What most must realize is that these classes are to enable an individual the ability to recognize an abused child. My wife and I had to attend several to help out with a youth group, but this program requires ongoing participation. We only have so much time, very sad.

I don't understand the whole finger print thing for this?

I do have a Ohio CCW and was really rather reluctant to give up my prints then, did it anyhow.

Basically, between finger prints, cell phones, credit cards and loan request we gave up all our privacy years ago. Again, very sad.

[grjr21]

"And your point was.....?????"

Don't shoot the messenger.

"My simple point is that the church is protecting itself against lawsuits"

I believe the Church screwed up, to me it sounded like you were putting the blame on others others instead of where it belonged

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Well, I am glad we cleared that up. :-)

[Calpernia]

Maybe I need to read this again; but I'm confused.

I took this workshop "Protecting God's Children", sponsored by the Metuchen diocese. Same one mentioned above.

Why are they refusing to participate? Why are they saying the program is eliminiating them when they are eliminating themselves?

If they don't work with children 'as they claim' then why are they worried about 'false charges' being filed?

[Calpernia]

The diocese didn't get my prints, the FBI did.

[bigsigh]

What's the church supposed to do? They've had a long line of molested kids and now folks don't want to be screened. Wake up and smell the victims.

[ShadowDancer]

I had to go through this seminar last year but I was not required to give a fingerprint.

[Calpernia]

I'm with this same diocese mentioned in the article. The document, in essence, verified that I submitted to a background check and stated that the diocese did their part in investigating me. That is why they wouldn't be liable.

[Coleus]

Why are they refusing to participate? >>

they're old, been with the church for many years, had children, have grandchildren, never molested a child and don't want to be bothered by this course.

This course was designed mainly for those who are with youth frequently: priests, teachers, scout leaders, basketball and cheerleader coaches, youth ministry leaders, etc.