Background Checks?

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, Gray said:

Ideally they wouldn't be allowed to step foot in any chapel.

Statistics show that the harder you make life for a sex offender and the more you isolate them, the more likely they are to re-offend.  Banishment from church for a sex-offender would not be the ideal for anyone.  

[Robert D. Crockett]

49 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The Church would contract with a background check agency.

I'd love to know that the Church has run a background check against me.  I probably would die of embarrassment.  

Really, so easy for you to demand a background check as a precondition to somebody seeking redemption.  

 

[sjdawg]

Just now, Robert D. Crockett said:

I'd love to know that the Church has run a background check against me.  I probably would die of embarrassment.  

 

 

I willing to sacrifice anyone's personal embarrassment to prevent abuse of children.  If you don't want the church to run the background check then don't accept the calling and don't consent to the report. It seems pretty simple to me. 

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Statistics show that the harder you make life for a sex offender and the more you isolate them, the more likely they are to re-offend.

Do you have a source for this?  I'm interested in reading what you're referring to here (thanks!).

[Gray]

26 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Guards at the door?

No, but if they come to church they could be asked to leave. If they refuse the police could be called.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Robert D. Crockett said:

I represent many schools and religions in childhood sexual abuse cases.  In every single one, the perpetrator would have passed a background check if one had been done.  Background checks do not contain accusations.  They contain convictions. 

Every single case...except this one. 

 

[Gray]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Statistics show that the harder you make life for a sex offender and the more you isolate them, the more likely they are to re-offend.  Banishment from church for a sex-offender would not be the ideal for anyone.  

Churches are filled with children. If they don't belong in a grade school they don't belong in church either.

[MiserereNobis]

21 minutes ago, Robert D. Crockett said:

Religions have no legal duty to protect a member from another felonious member.

I can tell you from the terrible experience of my own church that this statement is false.

[JulieM]

29 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I think we should focus on the source of the evil, and not get distracted by things to make us feel better without helping the problem.

What do you believe “the source of the evil” is?

[Gray]

20 minutes ago, Robert D. Crockett said:

 If you don't want to be affiliated with the low life dregs of the world, and people who have done despicable things, then stay out of church meetings. 

Opposite, low life dregs who have done despicable things shouldn't be seated next to young children.

[MiserereNobis]

28 minutes ago, Robert D. Crockett said:

Religion isn't like a day care.  All sorts of folk come to church to seek redemption. What happens when they know we do background checks?  Then, not only the bishop, but everybody involved in the background check comes to know. 

In my diocese, anyone who wants to work with children is required to do a background check and a weekend training program. The program informs of the diocesan rules (no adult can be alone with a child, etc), but it also teaches you how to identify predatory grooming behavior and how to report such things.

I don't think any of us have thought about this as negative, or keeping people away from the sacraments of the church. I see it as something clearly needed.

Edited April 9, 2019 by MiserereNobis

[MiserereNobis]

18 minutes ago, Robert D. Crockett said:

I'd love to know that the Church has run a background check against me.  I probably would die of embarrassment. 

Why? I've had background checks done on me multiple times for various reasons, including my employment. I'm not embarrassed that they ran them.

[ALarson]

19 minutes ago, Robert D. Crockett said:

I'd love to know that the Church has run a background check against me.  I probably would die of embarrassment.  

Yikes.  What have you done???

I'd say "have at it, I'm an open book with nothing to hide".....

[sjdawg]

3 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

In my diocese, anyone who wants to work with children is required to do a background check and a weekend training program. The program informs of the diocesan rules (no adult can be alone with a child, etc), but it also teaches you how to identify predatory grooming behavior and how to report such things.

I don't think any of us have thought about this as negative, or keeping people away from the sacraments of the church. I see it as something clearly needed.

I think a similar program would be a great start.

[Gray]

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Yikes.  What have you done???

I'd say "have at it, I'm an open book with nothing to hide".....

I've had one run on me twice for scouting callings. It's no big thing.

[The Nehor]

11 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Yikes.  What have you done???

I'd say "have at it, I'm an open book with nothing to hide".....

Opening up old wounds can be quite traumatic even if they are forgiven. Having a clean background check is like having a clean credit score. It is good when you have a good pass on them but we are creating a tiered social order. Gotta have -ites I guess.

Many here seem to feel that some sins are unforgivable and salvation should be denied to some perpetrators in the name of safety.

[MiserereNobis]

I'll also add that the diocese has a program for children (k-12) enrolled in Catholic schools to teach them, age appropriate of course, what abuse is, what grooming is, etc, and how to report it. 

[sjdawg]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Opening up old wounds can be quite traumatic even if they are forgiven. Having a clean background check is like having a clean credit score. It is good when you have a good pass on them but we are creating a tiered social order. Gotta have -ites I guess.

Many here seem to feel that some sins are unforgivable and salvation should be denied to some perpetrators in the name of safety.

I'm perfectly fine denying people who have previous abuse convictions access to my children or anyone else's children in the name of safety. I don't think that is unreasonable

Edited April 9, 2019 by sjdawg

[bluebell]

27 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Do you have a source for this?  I'm interested in reading what you're referring to here (thanks!).

If you google the topic you'll find it repeated in different articles, but here is one.  I believe it was published in the American Journal of Public Health (I think that's what the letters stand for).  

Sexual Offender Laws and Prevention of Sexual Violence or Recidivism

We mean well, but often our human desire for vengeance and wanting to make the sinner suffer, plus our penchant for thinking it's more emotionally superior to only care about the victim and ignore the assailant, cause more problems than they solve.  

[MiserereNobis]

Just now, The Nehor said:

Many here seem to feel that some sins are unforgivable and salvation should be denied to some perpetrators in the name of safety.

I'm guessing you're referring to those who do not want to allow sex offenders to even go to church. In that case, I agree with you. The mercy of God is for all and they should not be denied entry into church. However, salvation and working with children are separate and not related. If someone wants to work with children, they should undergo a background check and training. This doesn't mess with salvation at all -- working with children isn't required for salvation. If someone has something on their background check that would exclude them from working with children, then they shouldn't want to do it in the first place.

I'm honestly confused about the pushback here. I've not heard a single person complain about it in my diocese (doesn't mean it hasn't happened, of course). I've only heard praise for the programs that have been instituted to protect children.

Maybe it's because your church hasn't been rocked by scandal yet. I'd recommend getting ahead of the curve on this issue.

[pogi]

30 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

In my diocese, anyone who wants to work with children is required to do a background check and a weekend training program. The program informs of the diocesan rules (no adult can be alone with a child, etc), but it also teaches you how to identify predatory grooming behavior and how to report such things.

I don't think any of us have thought about this as negative, or keeping people away from the sacraments of the church. I see it as something clearly needed.

I think it would be wise for us to be taking notes from the Catholic church in this regard.  If we don't, are we not setting ourselves up to follow in their footsteps by learning the hard way - no offense! 

Either we take these steps preemptively, or we will eventually be forced to through severe embarrassment.  Unfortunately, we are already to late for this poor youth victim.

Edited April 9, 2019 by pogi

[bluebell]

28 minutes ago, Gray said:

No, but if they come to church they could be asked to leave. If they refuse the police could be called.

"All are welcome, except people who commit really bad sins. Christ has no use for you"

 

[sjdawg]

Just now, MiserereNobis said:

 

I'm honestly confused about the pushback here.

I'm glad I'm not the only one.  To me it seems like a complete no-brainer so I'm surprised so many are against it.

[The Nehor]

45 minutes ago, sjdawg said:

I'm open to alternative suggestions to help prevent abuse however I'm not ok with doing nothing.  How do you suggest the church proceeds?

The idea that something bad happened so now we HAVE to do something even if it is ineffective or unlikely to help is misdirecting outrage. Every time something goes wrong there is not some golden solution that will make it not happen again. I like the system as it is. There is a method for tracking those guilty of sex crimes against children that bishops can add. Bishops can see it and the Church method for putting people into callings will literally not let you assign a calling dealing with the youth to that person. Only the First Presidency can remove the annotation.

I think a reminder to bishops to remember to use the system when one of their members is convicted of such a crime would be useful but yeah, I do not want reports pulled on every member every time they get called as a Primary teacher Complete with the legal forms required by the person to agree to it. People will refuse even if there is nothing related to the requirements of the calling in the report (just out of pique at being asked or they have offenses in their past that do not disqualify them but would be humiliating for a bishop to see).

[clarkgoble]

49 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

To get into the temple I answer a few verbal questions. To be a youth Sunday School teacher you have to fill out out an old college blue book?

Another problem with background checks is who reviews them? The bishop? People will refuse callings left and right because they have an embarrassing non-sex offender incident in their past such as a drunk and disorderly, a dui, even just a bankruptcy they do not want the bishop to know about. I see this causing more problems then it would solve.

Presumably it'd be handled the way it currently is for Scouts which really isn't this huge burden as you are portraying. You give your name, address and soc sec number. They then do the query.

It's not perfect of course. It'll have problem with non-citizens for instance. But ideally you'd have the Church do it not the local leader. That way you'd control what information is released. Just like in Scouts some former arrest for mild vandalism while young isn't going to sabotage working for them. Nor would anyone else know.

I think people are trying to make this far more onerous than it really is. Honestly from my perspective the biggest problem would be people assuming other people are safe simply because they passed a background check.