Background checks for choir members?
  • Jeffrey Quick
    Posts: 2,086
    At the FSSP church that I'm attending for the summer, this appeared in the bulletin:
    We are in the process of organizing a new Choir which will not be limited to just adults age 18 years and older but will be open to younger members of the parish. ... One of the requirements for being an adult member (18 years or older) of the new Parish Choir is to comply with the Children Protection Policies of the Diocese of Youngstown, to include background check etc.


    OK, kudos for getting younger people involved (how young?). When I last sang there (over a year ago), it was an all-volunteer group with a fairly low literacy level and semi-trained direction, but on the things they knew, they sounded pretty good. I didn't recognize the name of the person organizing this, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's new; he could just be new to me.

    But...background checks?

    I understand the diocesan CYA, even though we haven't to the best of my knowledge had scandals here. And I could understand the director having a background check. But are adults going to be alone with these kids? And if not, why shouldn't there be checks for being a parishioner, given the same opportunity (or more) for mischief? Will this discourage adult participation? (It would make me think twice, though I don't imagine I'd have problems passing). Who will pay for these background checks? If they were to hire ringers, would they need one?

    Do any of you have such a policy in your diocese? If so, how do you work with/around it? I imagine having a separate children's choir would be much easier. It's horrible that it's come to this.
  • JQ
    I suppose such a topic was inevitable.
    For all the just rationales, it yet seems a manufactured and convenient way to perpetuate a divide and conquer agenda of our institutional constitutions. Whose agenda? You make the call.
    How's it gonna play out?
    Dunno, how're they doing over in Ireland?
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,968
    There is a Virtus program in my diocese, and we have had to do the same. It is ridiculous. There is nothing in that Virtus program that would stop a real child abuser. It is strictly a CYA thing for the diocese. I assumed that if they were ever sued, they could pull this out as a defense that they tried to do something to prevent child abuse. I don't know how much money we are wasting on this, but I could find many better things to spend it on. After the background checks, the people in the choir who had positive feelings toward the diocesan bureaucracy have now pretty much lost them.
    Thanked by 1Gavin
  • marajoymarajoy
    Posts: 781
    If I remember correctly, for my last diocese, the requirement for volunteers who volunteered LESS than 4 hours a week and had NO contact with minors, I'm pretty sure they didn't have to do any of the Virtus training/background check.

    That is odd enough that I would check with the diocesan Virtus coordinater (or whatever they call the program in your diocese) on the *exact* requirements for volunteers with no contact with children.

    ETA: never mind... I missed that part where you said there might be children in the choir. I still think that's odd though, and I would still try to find out if that's true.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,968
    That 4 hour limit used to be the rule here, as well. Now, the Virtus training is for every volunteer in any capacity. Used to, if you didn't work with children no one required Virtus. That has all changed.
  • I personally know of a parish that has a registered sex offender in the choir. I presume he could not be involved in that if there were minors in the choir. He served his sentence, and is fully compliant with the restrictions placed on him by the state. I think it would be wrong to keep him away just because of a mistake he made when he was younger.

    In our parish, any parishoner who has any contact with minors is required to take the virtus program, though background checks are only performed on employes as far as I know. While our choir advertises that anyone high school or older is welcome to join, we've not had a member that age since before the program was started. I guess we would just have a special session offered in lieu of choir rehearsal one week.
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,064
    It's been like this for a long time in a lot of places.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,968
    We had a registered sex offender in our choir, but encouraged him to attend a rival parish. :-)
  • PaixGioiaAmorPaixGioiaAmor
    Posts: 1,473
    I would never allow a registered sex offender to be in the choir, paid or unpaid, although I did have one who had felony record (mortgage fraud). I got permission from the diocese to use her, and they said it was alright as long as she didn't handle money. I stopped using her, actually, because she tended to come unprepared and not knowing her music, although she had a good vocal pedigree.

    But a sex offender I would immediately show the door.
  • There is a Virtus program in my diocese, and we have had to do the same. It is ridiculous. There is nothing in that Virtus program that would stop a real child abuser.

    The purpose of the VIRTUS program is not so much to weed out or bar child abusers, but to teach others what to look for, what to be careful about, and how to report them. The idea is that you eliminate "Wow, I guess in retrospect the signs should have been obvious" and "I kinda thought so, but I didn't say anything to anybody because I wasn't sure" as reasons why nothing is done.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,968
    I will accept that Virtus will demonstrate what to look for - assuming you didn't already know what to look for. However, I would like to own stock in the money-making enterprise behind it. Obviously, no one in their right mind could defend sex abuse. But sex abuse has provided large salaries and benefits to any number of folks who work in the "prevention" industry. When something becomes an industry like this, it tends to get over-hyped and a bit hysterical.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,198
    Some dioceses require it for choir members even when the choir does not include children. The background checks are paid by the parish, at least here.
  • Jeffrey Quick
    Posts: 2,086
    PGA -- any sex offender? It seems to me that 18 on 16 is a different issue than 40 on <13. Pedophiles : definitely don't want to be around. Reformed garden variety horndogs? There but for the grace of God... It's a matter for risk-benefit analysis, with the understanding that some risks may be too great for any benefit.<br />
    Clearly, there's more of an anti-abuse infrastructure in place than this convert had any notion of.
    Thanked by 1expeditus1
  • I would argue that restricting membership to the choir that way would be lacking in charity.
  • Carl DCarl D
    Posts: 992
    I've taken the training (in connection with RCIA) and I believe it's a good investment. Most adults have never had any teaching or training on the subject, but it's an important one. It's impractical to give the training to the entire parish, so why not start with those who might have some kind of official role with children?

    If it saves one child from abuse, it's worth it. Might be yourkid.
  • WendiWendi
    Posts: 638
    While I think Virtus training has some merit, I have always considered it MY responsibility as a parent to protect my children.
  • Dittos to Marc. That doesn't endorse any implication or policy that tolerates lack of vigilence or compliance with specific laws and restrictions.
    But as a priestly people, we have to allow for the possibility of a truly redeemed soul who must contend with legal restrictions, the social vulnerbilities and the oft-prejudicial and reationary shunning for such folks who have not only "paid their debt" but are still entitled to access to the practice of religion, which in our true Church is happily obligtory towards that soul's salvivic journey.
    I've known and been aware of the presence of such souls. They ought not to be "classified" into a lumped demon-graphic (the typo was kept, Freudian I suppose.) Those I've known give every impression of self-imposed discretion and interdiction so that their transparency is also self-evident. This isn't a "Polyanna" observtion, it is like watching a daily miracle unfold. And it's not unlike the "one day at a time" discipline of Twelve Steppers who seem to enjoy a less stringent system of protocols. But lapsed DUI 12 step drunks can do grave damage, yes. So can unrepentant deviants, heck all sinners who backslide. But much damage is inflicted towards them by the keystroke of a computer and a whispered mention of a name to some parish power broker.
    Keep your friends close, let your "enemies" keep closer and be vigilant.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,968
    Jeffrey Quick, you bring up a good point. Kids do stupid things. It's part of being a kid and usually a learning experience. I have found that most kids who get into trouble, do so because they are not adequately supervised. I really question the current tendency to criminalize every dumb thing teenagers do.
  • Here in Baltimore we have "STAND" training that we must all endure... when I began as choir director I was only 17 so the entire choir had to endure the STAND training all because the director was under age 18. It was quite an interesting battle when the Archdiocese decided that all Parish ministry leaders must be STAND trained yet as I was only 17 at the time I was ineligible to qualify for the training. I still do not know what was decided at the Archdiocesan level. I guess they just waited until I turned 18 to admit I was in charge.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,968
    That is too funny! Typical bureaucrats.
  • PaixGioiaAmorPaixGioiaAmor
    Posts: 1,473
    Jeff, I really think so. We've been through the years of "gray areas," which got us the abuse crisis in 2002. Remember when the prevailing thought was that offending priests could be sent to older parishes with very few or no young families with children? Where did that get us? It's "not good for business" to have a registered sex offender singing with the choir, regardless of circumstances.

    Besides, in this state the old "18 year old dating a 16 year old" scenario really doesn't exist. There has to be at least a four year age difference to prosecute - and 16 is the age of consent here. So basically, there is usually a lot more to the circumstances than someone is admitting when they say that they got arrested because they were 18 and had a 17 year old girlfriend.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,968
    PGA, the four year age difference exists here, but the legal age is 18. I think 16 is more reasonable. I have taught for years, and my own observation is that when those kids get to be 16, they pretty much do as they please.

    The priest sex abuse thing hits a raw nerve here, since we had a rather high profile case of it not long ago.
  • Carl DCarl D
    Posts: 992
    As did we. The parish still hasn't fully healed.
  • Virtus and such programs are money-makers insisted upon by the insurance companies.
  • Jeffrey Quick
    Posts: 2,086
    I dunno, PGA; whenever I've gotten notices of an offender moving in, it's almost never been a pedophilia case, but a couple of high schoolers. "Kids do stupid things," but in this culture that sort of stupidity is normal. Collecting taxes for the Romans was a normal and stupid thing to do ca. 30 AD too. Shacking up is also normal and stupid; is that a "grey area" that we should eliminate for our choristers? If I'd ever been judged not holy or Catholic enough to sing in a church choir, I might never have made it into the Church.

    Granted, I'm not in a position of responsibility, and you are; that's going to change risk assessment. My point is that risk assessment is the issue. Having a zero tolerance policy is not assessment.
    Thanked by 1Charles in CenCA
  • I would argue that restricting membership to the choir that way would be lacking in charity.

    Well, Pius X's view was that only people (men, actually, but that's a different issue) "of known piety and probity of life" ought to be admitted to a church choir.
    Thanked by 1chonak
  • What C said below...





  • What C said below...

  • .
    This thread has no bearing on the advancement of true Musica Sacra, and obviously has provided a "red herring" soap box of conjecture.
    I'm outta here on this.
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    On the contrary, I think it's a valuable issue to discuss. There's difficult decisions to be made. They affect real people.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,503
    This is definitely an important topic for music ministry.
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • expeditus1
    Posts: 483
    True personal story: On the Feast of the Assumption, I drove 2 1/2 hrs. to play the organ for a Mass that our priest was saying for a boys' summer camp. Two of my own boys and some of their friends whom I had invited, were attending the camp. How was I to know that on the eve of the Feast Day, this same priest who had previously preached beautiful sermons about having avoided pornography as a boy himself, and the importance of keeping purity intact, had actually molested one of my invitees. I would not find this out until much later. The fallout for this boy and his family was immense. In total ignorance, I had taken my position on the organ bench the morning following the molestation, giving my best to God. A couple years later, this same priest was sitting in jail (a short stint) for crimes committed against other boys. This incident taught me that the slickest ones are still amongst us, with nary a warning sign being exhibited.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,466
    Both background checks and some form of "Safe Environment Training" are important and helpful. Yes they are a hassle. No they don't solve every problem. But they are not too much of a hassle, considering the risks they occasionally mitigate. Those who grouse about them too loudly, or suggest these things are primarily money-making scams, give the unfortunate appearance of being on the very wrong side of child safety.
  • Charles in Cen Ca is right....there are no decisions to make by Musica Sacra or its people, this is all in the hands of the diocese.
    Thanked by 1E_A_Fulhorst
  • Jeffrey Quick
    Posts: 2,086
    OK, excuse my naivete. When I was a kid, we just went in and sang. In those days though we were generally singing with a parent. And my questions were (I thought) narrowly tailored to church-music concerns. Granted, I got my own whacks in re Christian charity vs. CYA. The big question is, "How the HELL did this problem develop in CHURCH?" But that's beyond the scope of discussion here.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,503
    Administering any program in a parish includes dealing with these concerns.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,968
    I have decided that I am not the Virtus police. I relayed the information to the choir, and I have no way of knowing who has the training and who doesn't. No one gives that information to me. I don't intend to mention it to the choir again.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,466
    I recently received an message from a fellow poster here suggesting my note above was overly accusatory in a McCarthyist sort of way. (Anyone who disagrees with the whatever is a clearly a something.)

    I understand his concern. What I actually said was:
    >>give the unfortunate appearance

    I think most everyone here knows that I am hardly ever in favor of keeping one's mouth shut just because one's opinion is unpopular, dangerous, or (usually) could be considered so.

    However, given the nature of the topic at hand, my friendly suggestion is as it was above: voicing complaint about it is likely a bad idea. (And I can tell you from PERSONAL experience- things said here on this forum CAN AND DO make it back to our employers and congregations.)

    My statement above was in no way intended to accuse anyone of anything, or to express how anyone appeared to me. It was simply a Public Service Announcement.
  • Adam --

    I suppose the up-side to your experience is that it means that the congregation and clergy are reading Musica Sacra.

    My tuppence on the subject of Virtus/background checks....

    1) Virtus protects no one. I had to sit through a diocesan-mandated training some years ago. During the entire presentation to a captive audience employed by the diocese, NOT A SINGLE TIME, until I raised it, did the word "sin" enter the conversation. If, in such a situation, a clearly Catholic understanding of the evil can not be described, the program merely wishes to give the appearance of accomplishing some good. Instead, it is an expensive sham.


    2) It tells us something about the collapse of a healthy culture (Catholic or otherwise) that we need to be taught that molesting a child is a bad thing, that it is better not to give a child a hug than to be thought guilty of unspeakable evil, and that being "of known piety and probity of life" is a sign of being rigid, evil, and more prone to committing unspeakable acts.

    Thanked by 2Gavin CharlesW
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,466
    >>I suppose the up-side to your experience is that it means that the congregation and clergy are reading Musica Sacra.

    No. They were Googling me.
  • PaixGioiaAmorPaixGioiaAmor
    Posts: 1,473
    Stalkerish.

    This is why I don't post here using my name.
  • I can understand that, PGA.

    I take the opposite stance: posting under my real name gives me strong incentive to not be a jerk.

    As far as programs like VIRTUS go: they stink, but they're a necessity. We may not like the fact that our adult-child relationships have been reduced to this, but they have. Consider it part and parcel of the far-reaching effects of sin.

    The purpose of VIRTUS isn't to dissect the theological rationale or factors of why we have abusers among us. The program simply teaches warning signs: how to recognize a child that is being abused and an adult that may be committing said abuse.

    Is it a perfect program? The fact that there are still any abusers out there demonstrates that it is not, but by that logic we can eliminate all law enforcement, too.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,466
    >>not be a jerk.
    if ONLY I had thought of this strategy sooner!
    Thanked by 1DougS
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    Andrew is so right! With my personality, I would be very quick to slip up and frankly be a jerk during a heated discussion, were it not tied to my real name.