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.

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.

It's been like this for a long time in a lot of places.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

As did we. The parish still hasn't fully healed.

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.

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.

This is definitely an important topic for music ministry.

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.

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.

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 --

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.

Stalkerish.

This is why I don't post here using my name.

>>not be a jerk.
if ONLY I had thought of this strategy sooner!