Are pat downs next for church volunteers?

Interesting article, thank you for writing!

Forgive me, but I have some disagreements to some of your points. While I agree that the refusal of a bishop (or anyone) to serve with women is short-sighted to say the least, I do think that church volunteers need to be screened. At least for some positions.

Wouldn't you want a volunteer who has been given the important task of transporting God's people to have a valid, verified driver's license and a record of driving competence (e.g. minimal speeding tickets or at-fault accidents)? If your kid was being driven around by a volunteer, wouldn't you want to know the volunteer has a clean criminal record and a safe driving history?

I filled out such a "volunteer packet" when first volunteering at my parish as a catechist for children. It was distributed by the then-DRE with respect, honesty, and good humor. We all knew it was for the sake of protection of children, not an intrusion on our personal privacy. At my parish, these packets are only asked of people who volunteer with children or are involved with ongoing direct contact with other marginalized groups (like, staying at the shelter with the guests, being a tutor or mentor to a person who is homeless or recently escaped the streets).

While yes, most of the public cases of sexual abuse of minors have involved priests, there are (sadly) many cases of youth directors and other volunteers, in Catholic and other faith communities, who abuse children. It is terribly sad.

These volunteer screening methods are nothing new. Over my life, I have volunteered at a variety of places, most of them being non-religious, and have had some sort of screening process for each. The screening tends to be more thorough if the volunteer position involves direct contact with children or other "vulnerable" groups such as those with disabilities. I completely support this process. Teachers undergo this. I underwent such a screening before starting my job as a scientist, in a lab, where my job involves oh-so-little contact with other human beings.. :)

I would rather be proactive in protecting God's people than get stuck in another abuse scandal that would leave so many souls wounded. Pat me down all you want.

Thank you,   Dr. Kennedy.
.
Abuse of any stripe (verbal,   physical,   psychological,   sexual) is always about a pathological and degrading display of power and control.
.
The abusers and enablers within the RCC clergy have succeeded in shifting responsibility and accountability away from themselves and onto laity — and that is just a further manifestation of their ongoing propensity as abusers and what indeed appears to be an auto-erotic misuse of power as their personal aphrodisiac.
.
I well remember the day that I learned of the members of the USCCB voting to exclude themselves from the provisions of their own Charter — all while elderly grandmothers were required to submit to intrusive investigations of their lives (even credit checks!) just to be able to volunteer to clean the parish church — and on that day,   I knew for a certainty that these men could never be trusted again,   and in no way were they true Icons of Christ and "chief shepherds" of our Lord's flock.
.
Thank you for continuing to point out that the emperor and his princes have no clothes.     Abusive behavior by clerics continues,   but their nakedness now has a fancy hat to wear.     The more feathers on that hat,   the faster the rise on the Vatican career ladder.
.

Wow. It's kinda like: My car's not running, I better fix the driveway.

can anybody spell Police State? My God.

These procedures did not originate, as Dr. Kennedy states, "from the bad legal advice given to bishops after the first revelation of the sex abuse scandal in 2002," but from the many cases of abuse by a wide variety of personnel (including abusive teachers and volunteers) in the public and private sector, and have been in place for decades. Insurance companies have long required that local churches -- Catholic, Protestant, or otherwise -- perform elaborate background checks and function as mandated reporters of anything that even hints at a crime. Information providers routinely require that background checkers hold them harmless as a condition of providing information. In other words, this diocese does what most public instutitions do to protect us against abuse.

It doesn't make sense to advocate for strict standards against abuse and then complain when such standards are applied.

The Diocese of Venice must be a wonderful place to pastor a Community Church, away from the bishop's control.

Have bishops of this mentality been screened by the same psychiatrists who allowed abuses to return to ministry? This guy is not my idea of a Christian!

If I lived in that diocese I would be joining the Lutherans

This is one of many reasons why the Women's Ordination Conference is gaining members. How self-righteous the bishop is in his misogyny and in his paranoia regarding further embarrassment in his diocese. How sad that so many road blocks are placed before willing individuals in their quest to be disciples. Canon law clearly states that the law should not be burdensome to those affected by it. I would call these multiple hoops through which to jump as an unnecessary burden. I suggest the bishop seek counseling so that he recognizes the good and the God in all of us, regardless of gender.

Doing corporal works of mercy is a good first step toward turning one's life around. It's not only for the continuously virtuous.

Refusing to let women participate in the foot washing liturgy on Holy Thursday is vicious. And it is claimed that misogyny is not behind the refusal to ordain women. Ha.

Thank you for blowing the whistle on Bishop Frank Dewane and calling attention to his victimization of innocent laity. The bishop is looking for scapegoats, and is using his power and male dominance in the church to target the men and women who feel called to ministry. The lay people who feel called to serve are responding to the Holy Spirit, and the abuse of their persons by these full soul scans is deplorable. Hopefully this is restricted to Venice, Florida and is not spreading to other parishes.

United Methodist churches participate in "Safe Sancturaries." I can't discern any significant difference between the Diocese of Venice's policies and the suggested "Safe Sanctuaries" policies used by United Methodist Churches (likely including those in and around Venice, FL). I am not familiar in detail with Lutheran policies, but I would guess that "anonymous" would find similar policies in place at Lutheran churches in the Venice area.

Lay volunteers (and non-ordained people employed by churches) have also been guilty of sexual abuse of children and youth in Protestant churches. I wouldn't be suprised to know that the same is true of Roman Catholic parishes.

This isn't local to Venice, Florida. A seemingly identical form is being used in the archdiocese of Minneapolis-St. Paul. My wife has to fill out this form to serve as a confirmation sponsor of our grandson. I served in a sponsor for the boy's brother last year and didn't have to fill out any form. Must be something new and, I'd guess, effective everywhere.

Let's be prophetic...

It won't be long before Benedict and his hierarchical princelings will demand that all lay Catholics will have to have a UPC bar code on their foreheads to be scanned and verified with Rome before receiving the Eucharist or any other sacraments. That is to insure that you are a bonafide card carrying Catholic who believes and follows blindly what Benedict believes all Catholics are to believe his way, and only his way.

Of course the bar code won't be needed for clergy. They are above all evil and all law. They protect themselves.

Have you ever taken basic logic.

1. Bishops are not doing enough to prevent abuse.
2. Bishops should not be screening applicants who will work on behalf of the Church.

Which do you want?

Although I applaud all that has been done in American dioceses to safeguard children from further abuse, I have found extreme irony in the fact that the burden of undergoing mandatory security checks has fallen on the volunteers, when the overwhelming majority of abuse cases involved clerics. This Bishop doesn't seem that far off from his U.S. cohorts.

While I understand the necessity for background checks on volunteers who work with our children (I was fingerprinted and had to attend training), I find the D of Venice to be overly intrusive. However, what I find most disturbing is Bishop Frank DeWane's attitude toward women. Would he have us take purification baths after menses before approaching the altar to receive the Body and Blood of Christ? Jesus washed the feet of His disciples; is Bishop DeWane so sure there weren't any women there; you know, like at the foot of the Cross? Finally,if the bishop believes women to be so lowly, so undeserving as to not be served by him, would they then not be considered, at least in his eyes, as 'the least of these' who he should be serving?

Honestly, and speaking strictly of the screening procedures outlined here, I can't see any problem with these stipulations. We say we want the Church to be vastly more cautious when hiring personnel and taking on volunteers, so why complain when that happens? The alternative (not screening), as we have all seen, is horrendous.

As a licensed mental health professional with some appreciation of the potential for harm in the behavior of unbalanced people (some of whom may well be volunteers), I have, over the years, been subject to pre-employment screenings, and I always understood that their purpose is to protect the public, which is also one of the goals of requiring licensure. I can't see that I have, in any way, been harmed by such screens. (On a related note, my perspective is that, if I have to choose between allowing someone to see what God gave me during a TSA screen or being one of a hundred or more people flown at cruise speed against our will into a skyscraper in a fully-fueled passenger jet, I'll gladly choose the former.)

Sorry, guys, but we live in a world where everything that is not in lawyerese and contains appropriate disclaimers is the object for litigation. Since dioceses are being bled, they need to protect themselves.

Dr. Kennedy, while it was mostly priests and religious who abused children and vulnerable adults, it was also lay employees and volunteers in various capacity. What you describe is a standard background check and is entirely appropriate...indeed mandatory given our understanding of how religious organizations have been the occasion of abuses.

It has nothing to do with whether the bishop is a raging arch-conservative clericalist or a Levis-clad, sandals-wearing, SOA-protesting pinko commie liberal.

It has EVERYTHING to do with knowing WHO is in contact with the most vulnerable among us and whether they have a history of using same for improper purposes.

It strikes me as cynical in the extreme that you would use such processes for which you know full well the need and the purpose to grind your axe for any agenda--- be it liberal or conservative. What you are doing is no better than those who use the abuse scandal as a means of furthering their own homophobia.

Here we go again! How very sad that Eugene Kennedy feels the need to continually bash Bishop Dewane and the Diocese of Venice with exaggerations, half-truths and out-right lies. To dismiss out-of-hand the actions of the U.S. Bishops, including our own, to protect our youngest and oldest is a form of abuse itself. Using his formula of slander and mis-representation, Kennedy has unbelievably managed to take a stand against the protection of children and vulnerable adults. No where in his tirade against our safe environment policy does Kennedy mention that the volunteer application, fingerprinting and background screening in the Diocese of Venice applies exclusively to those volunteers working with children and/or vulnerable adults. This is the norm for dioceses throughout the country. Florida is tied with Michigan at #3 for the number of resident convicted sexual predators and offenders according to statistics from the Florida Dept. of Law Enforcement. Not that facts bear much weight for Kennedy. But knowing the truth should certainly make the reader wonder why Kennedy continues to abuse the Diocese of Venice and question who or what Kennedy is protecting.

Dr. Keinlein, thanks so much for your reply- I did not take the time to look up the program/policies of Venice, but am glad to know it (like NYC, where I am) only applies to those working with the vulnerable. I don't see this as a categorical intrusion on the laity, I see it as responsible, careful policy.

Also, from what I heard, in NYC, clergy also have to go through these training and screening procedures.

Fr. Kennedy is right on. This is outrageous what is going on. I'm a pastor of a large parish, and I've had to put up with this for the last several years, in addition to "reeducation" videos that we have to show everyone in order to make the parish "safe for the children." I have a good idea to make the Church safe for the children - Fire all sitting bishops and cardinals, starting with the Roman Curia. Establish a commission, chaired by Fr. Hans Kung, to re-start the implementation of Vatican II. And then begin the work of reform of the the Church. Idealistic, I know. At any rate, the priests and religious need to unite and say "enough" to these hypocrytical, legalistic, fear-based processes that have taken over parish life. Sign me up. Pax vobiscum.

Many dioceses go beyond Venice. The Diocese of Charlotte North Carolina is enforcing a background check policy for ALL volunteers. I understand the purpose for such checks when volunteers are working with vulnerable populations; however, why does someone who occasionally teaches an adult ed class or Eucharistic minsters who do not visit homes, lectors, etc... need to have their privacy invaded. Such policies would be ruled overbroad CYA policies and would not pass constitutional muster in civil courts of law. Nevertheless, priests abuse and volunteers pay the price.
Dr. Kleinlein, all other considerations aside, Bishop Dewane deserves to be criticized. I have had first hand experience with his authority. I was banned from speaking in the diocese a week after I gave a presentation on The Nonviolence of Thomas Merton at the national Call to Action Conference (CTA). The bishop, without any due process or asking me what I believed, banned me 3 days before the retreat because CTA advocates the ordination of women which is against church teaching. He and his chancellor even went so far as to tell the group that they could not hold the meeting at a member's private residence because they were a church group--that is really an abuse of power. There are no half-lies here. As Joe Friday would say, "Just the facts, Maam."

TO ALL READERS: I CALLED BISHOP DEWANE's OFFICE..…here’s what happened:

(I apologize for the length but you deserve to know this)

When I read Mr. Kennedy's article was very disturbed to read that Bishop Dewane refused to serve on the altar with women.

So....being the nosy and curious person that I am, I Googled Bishop Dewane's Venice Diocese web site and then called Bishop Dewane's office. This was around 4:00pm and his secretary answered.

I relayed the allegations to her and asked if she knew if they were true. She did not know anything about the article but told me, in a very friendly voice, that she had seen many women - alter servers, Eucharistic ministers, readers, etc, - many times on the altar with the bishop. She also said that she would find out more and call me back. I gave her my number, thanked her and hung up, half expecting to never hear from her again because many people never call back when they say they will.

Well...at 5:30pm my home phone rang and to my surprise, it was Bishop Dewane, returning my call. I was very pleased that he was returning the call and impressed that he took the time to do so.

First, Bishop Dewane apologized for calling me at home. He had received my message that I was disturbed to read about him not allowing women on the altar and he very kindly told me that the allegations were completely untrue. He told that of course he allowed women readers, altar servers, etc. and he couldn't think of any reason why Mr. Kennedy would say such a thing. I asked him if he had ever washed the feet of women and yes, he had. He encouraged me to confirm that fact by asking anyone who was at that mass and saw him do so.

Bishop Dewane then offered to email me proof - pictures of himself during mass, on the altar next to women serving in liturgical roles. Twenty minutes after I hung up with him I checked my email and there they were - 6 pictures of Bishop Dewane saying mass surrounded by female altar servers, cantors, etc.

I then asked Bishop Dewane if Mr. Kennedy had ever personally contacted him or anyone from his staff before writing the article. No, he said, Mr. Kennedy never made contact with him nor anyone else from his staff. His secretary confirmed that with me as well when I asked her the same question.

When I asked the bishop about the background checks he told me that his area had a very high number of sex offenders living in it and it was his responsibility to protect those in his diocese, so why wouldn't a background check be required of all those working with children and the vulnerable? He said that he took his responsibility of protecting his people *very* seriously and that he beleive a background check was the best way to do so. Additionally, he pointed out that various diocese in other states require the same sort of check. His is not unusual.

Bottom line - Mr. Kennedy's anti-women accusations are flat out wrong. They are factually incorrect. They are falsehoods and his irresponsible journalism is shameful.

Also, I completely agree with the idea of background checks. In the light of the sex abuse scandal countless Catholics complain that the Church still does not do enough to protect its most vulnerable members. So why on God's green earth would anyone balk at the idea of background checks? Bishop Dewane told me that he also has been background checked and that his fingerprints are on file as well.

Mr. Kennedy, if you are reading this, you owe Bishop Dewane a public apology and a full retraction. You completely failed to check your "facts" and you never spoke with the bishop nor anyone on his staff before writing your article.

You have a right to your own opinion but you do *not*, sir, have the right to your own facts. The only thing any of us has in this world is our good name and you have no right to rob Bishop Dewane of his.

If you have any credible proof to support your anti-women allegations then you should produce it. If not, you should admit your mistake and apologize.

And here's the $64,000.00 question: If Bishop Dewane is so anti-women, as you claim, then why would he take the time to personally call me, a women, at home? He knew my name was Karen and couldn't have treated me with more respect and genuine kindness if he tried.

My only regret is that Bishop Dewane is not my bishop. I would be thrilled if he were.

I see nothing wrong with screening volunteers. But I think we should also screen teachers, priests and bishops... especially priests and bishops!

This behavior by Bishop De Wane is so clever, so nuanced, so carefully and apparently innocent that the pathology is very difficult to easily discern. Thank you for pointing it out.
One does not arrive at these nuanced skills of carrying out abuse while claiming goodness without a lot of practice, me thinks.

This looks to me like one of those cases where the bishop, simply because he is a bishop, is damned if he does and equally damned if he doesn't, at least in the eyes of his critics.

Okay, so DOV screening procedures are intrusive and annoying. But I'd bet if they were more lax, people would be hollering about bad shepherds abusing the public trust -- and they'd be right to do so. The guy's trying, so he gets a break from me.

Where is the public apology Kennedy and NCR???

It would certainly seem that Bishop Dewane, and we, the readers, need to hear sooner rather than later from the NCR and Eugene Kennedy. Your collective integrity and credibility is on the line here...

Kennedy, Ms. Frechette has proven that you are a liar. Apologize, go to confession. You know better.

I look forward to the normal readership of the NCR to now get on here and apologize for joining you in your unconscionable pilloring of an innocent man. Which pharisees of the left encouraged you Kennedy? Is that the jingle of 30 silver coins I hear for your betrayal of the innocent?

Dear Kennedy

You've been called a liar. Do we get a response? Silence is assent.

Your words: Bishop Frank DeWane of the diocese, who shared this year’s clericalism prize for, among other things, decreeing that no women could participate in any liturgy at which he would preside.

Her words: The bishop.....offered to email me photos of himself on the altar with women serving in liturgical roles, which he did.

This decree. Can you show it exists?

Calm down, you right wingers.

There is "no collective integrity and credibility on the line here."

These people support legal abortion. They are holocasut enablers. They have nothing to put on the line.

On the one hand, it is understandable why volunteers should be screened. It is good risk management. The Church has faced alot of lawsuits for pedophilia/molestation, etc., and people have screamed "bloody murder" about the risks to the young people.

However, at my own parish, our beloved pastor was charged with pedophilia crimes and removed from our church. It was very public, in all the media, and all parishioners were in great pain. The first contact we had from the Archdiocese was to ask that all volunteers working with children must attend a workshop called "Protecting God's Children." It looked, to those of us parents who are sending our children to Catholic schools, that it was the Archdiocese's way of deflecting from the fact that priests were involved, again and again in our Diocese, in molesting young boys and girls, and the Archdiocese was instead turning their finger on innocent laypeople as though WE (who were offering our children up to the Church for molestation) were actually the criminals.

For that reason, I never could bring myself to take the "Protecting God's Children" workshop. The timing was unfortunate, tone deaf to everyone's pain, not healing, and very accusatory, given what had just happened at our parish with our pastor.

My schoolchildren and I went to the local Catholic hospital to volunteer and we all were asked to submit to TB tests. The nurse who administers the test is only there one day a month during the school day. I refuse to take my children out of school, to have their attendance recorded "absent" so they can volunteer.

What is next, urinalysis and handwriting analysis tests? Shall we also submit to credit checks to give OUR TIME FOR FREE to charitable purposes?

It is now 8 days since Eugene Kennedy has been exposed as a liar, and the NCR as being editorially cowardly for not rectifying the slander done to bishop Dewane. Not surprising, that the agenda of these fifth columnists who inhabit the Church trumps truth, not surprising at all.

It is now 9 days since Eugene Kennedy has been exposed as a liar, and the NCR as being editorially cowardly for not rectifying the slander done to bishop Dewane. Not surprising, that the agenda of these fifth columnists who inhabit the Church trumps truth, not surprising at all.