Opinions On Mandatory Fingerprinting

[Vincent Vega]

The bishop of the diocese of the church in which I play has apparently decided that all people on staff - clergy, lay employees, and volunteers - now must give fingerprints to continue to fulfill their roles, or surrender them. These fingerprints are sent to the FBI and, I would presume, are kept in there records thereafter.
Although I obviously have never committed a federal offense, nor do I plan to in the near future, but this does not sit well with me, and I don't appreciate the presumption of ill-doing. I'm tempted to dig in my heels and fight this.

Do we have opinions floating around out there?

[Slappo]

It really isn't unreasonable.

Many employers require background checks to work for them, and many business are required by law to require background checks (see licensed childcare facilities). Every employee that works in a education facility (at least in Alaska) is required by law to be fingerprinted.

[Vincent Vega]

I've been background-checked. I understand that. That's certainly within the bounds of sanity.

Checking my fingerprints with the FBI goes a bridge too far for me. I like this article on the matter:
[url="http://www.catholicmediacoalition.org/6_reasons_against_fingerprinting.htm"]http://www.catholicmediacoalition.org/6_reasons_against_fingerprinting.htm[/url]
Particularly points four and six.

[cmaD2006]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1339099925' post='2442260']
The bishop of the diocese of the church in which I play has apparently decided that all people on staff - clergy, lay employees, and volunteers - now must give fingerprints to continue to fulfill their roles, or surrender them. These fingerprints are sent to the FBI and, I would presume, are kept in there records thereafter.
Although I obviously have never committed a federal offense, nor do I plan to in the near future, but this does not sit well with me, and I don't appreciate the presumption of ill-doing. I'm tempted to dig in my heels and fight this.

Do we have opinions floating around out there?
[/quote]

I'm required to give fingerprints for my position (outside of the Church). I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing. Considering everything that has happened in the Church, sure.

BTW my diocese requires fingerprints for those who work with youth and elderly, paid or unpaid.

Edited June 7, 2012 by cmariadiaz

[Socrates]

There was actually a huge brouhaha over this very issue at my former parish in Virginia when this same decision was made by the local diocese that all CCD teachers and other persons working with children would have to undergo mandatory fingerprinting. Many of the CCD teachers at the parish, including the head of the CCD program, quit rather than be fingerprinted, and I actually volunteered to be fingerprinted to teach CCD, though I ended up not being needed as a teacher. There was a major outcry by local rightwing firebrands that this was an outrageous assault on liberty amounting to CCD teachers being assumed guilty, and was denounced as a way to distract attention from the priestly pederasty scandals, as well as rumors that it was part of some sinister government plot to crack down on Catholics.

Personally, while I think its regrettable that it's come down to this, I think the outrage is far overblown, paranoid, and silly. As was often pointed out, the measures simply require that diocesan education programs conform to the same security standards as public schools, in which all teachers, coaches, and other personnel must undergo fingerprinting before being employed. Also, all government employees, military servicemen, police officers, etc., etc. must be fingerprinted. In addition to being fingerprinted for the aforementioned job, I've been fingerprinted twice, for military service and for working as a Census enumerator.

While no doubt, some anarchisty types will decry the entire business of fingerprinting as evil statism, I certainly don't think requiring people to be fingerprinted amounts to a presumption of guilt or a form of persecution. I don't think it presumes guilt among CCD teachers anymore than it presumes all soldiers, cops, and public school teachers guilty.

Ironically, the pastor of my current (very conservative) FSSP parish, strongly and actively supports the diocesan "safe child" program requirements.

[Slappo]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1339101428' post='2442266']
I've been background-checked. I understand that. That's certainly within the bounds of sanity.

Checking my fingerprints with the FBI goes a bridge too far for me. I like this article on the matter:
[url="http://www.catholicmediacoalition.org/6_reasons_against_fingerprinting.htm"]http://www.catholicm...gerprinting.htm[/url]
Particularly points four and six.
[/quote]

I find both points 4 and 6 to be pretty ridiculous.

4: Finterprinting implies secular authority over the Church:
How so? Just because feds have a copy of your fingerprints now doesn't mean they have any extra authority over you. Because the Church chooses to use a database that the feds have already set up in order to run a more thorough background check on their employees does not mean the feds now have authority.

6. So the church is not supposed to have rules procedures and action plans? Sounds like a "faith not reason" argument to me. We just spread the love of Jesus, we don't want to be [b]organized [/b]or anything like that!

[homeschoolmom]

I'd rather submit my fingerprints than my SSN (which I usually omit).

[MissScripture]

I can see it for anyone who is working with kids or something like that. But it's a bit much to require the person playing the organ to submit fingerprints. If they really want them, they can just wait until you're done playing and dust the organ.

[cmaD2006]

[quote name='MissScripture' timestamp='1339119759' post='2442376']
I can see it for anyone who is working with kids or something like that. But it's a bit much to require the person playing the organ to submit fingerprints. If they really want them, they can just wait until you're done playing and dust the organ.
[/quote]

I'm sure that anyone can get a really good thumbprint from the back of my guitar (at the top of the neck close to the 1st fret).

[kujo]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1339105596' post='2442283']
...I actually volunteered to be fingerprinted to teach CCD, though I ended up [s]not being needed[/s] [b]being rejected[/b] as a teacher. [/quote]

fxd 4 u

[quote]I think the outrage is far overblown, paranoid, and silly.
[/quote]

And Soc knows a thing or two about silly outrage and paranoia

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1339105596' post='2442283']
There was actually a huge brouhaha over this very issue at my former parish in Virginia when this same decision was made by the local diocese that all CCD teachers and other persons working with children would have to undergo mandatory fingerprinting. Many of the CCD teachers at the parish, including the head of the CCD program, quit rather than be fingerprinted, and I actually volunteered to be fingerprinted to teach CCD, though I ended up not being needed as a teacher. There was a major outcry by local rightwing firebrands that this was an outrageous assault on liberty amounting to CCD teachers being assumed guilty, and was denounced as a way to distract attention from the priestly pederasty scandals, as well as rumors that it was part of some sinister government plot to crack down on Catholics.

Personally, while I think its regrettable that it's come down to this, I think the outrage is far overblown, paranoid, and silly. As was often pointed out, the measures simply require that diocesan education programs conform to the same security standards as public schools, in which all teachers, coaches, and other personnel must undergo fingerprinting before being employed. Also, all government employees, military servicemen, police officers, etc., etc. must be fingerprinted. In addition to being fingerprinted for the aforementioned job, I've been fingerprinted twice, for military service and for working as a Census enumerator.

While no doubt, some anarchisty types will decry the entire business of fingerprinting as evil statism, I certainly don't think requiring people to be fingerprinted amounts to a presumption of guilt or a form of persecution. I don't think it presumes guilt among CCD teachers anymore than it presumes all soldiers, cops, and public school teachers guilty.

Ironically, the pastor of my current (very conservative) FSSP parish, strongly and actively supports the diocesan "safe child" program requirements.
[/quote]
You make compelling points, Soc. The common thread I notice among examples you give, though, are that they are all careers in the public arena which are funded/run by the government. Naturally, what happened to some children over the past fifty or so years was an awful thing, and so maybe I can see the diocese making people entrusted with the care of children submit these fingerprints, but me? I show up an hour before adoration, "rehearse" stuff with my "choir" of women (who are all 60+), play for adoration and Mass, and get my butt back to where I live. If I had any less contact with the children of the parish, I wouldn't be there at all. Where does it stop? Should the government fingerprint everyone at the parish who [i]might[/i] have contact with the children? Should they just go ahead and fingerprint the whole congregation to be safe?
It seems like overkill to me.

[Vincent Vega]

derble perst

Edited June 8, 2012 by USAirwaysIHS

[Amppax]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1339128038' post='2442427']
derble perst
[/quote]

You speak German too?

[Vincent Vega]

Na klar!

[qfnol31]

I've been fingerprinted on multiple occasions, though not for work thus far. I think it's becoming fairly standard practice for a variety of reasons. Now why I've been fingerprinted more than once, I'm not sure. I haven't burned off my prints...

This decision might be a way to weed out people that the bishop suspects of having hidden their history without calling those people out explicitly. It's fairly common in a problematic place (or even in a workplace that's not problematic) to issue such declarations to confirm suspicions without "discriminating" against a particular person. I wonder if the bishop has some people he wants to push out or if he has suspicions about certain people throughout the diocese and he doesn't want to draw attention to them in case he's wrong.

Another reason why I could see a diocese doing this is to protect their tushes. If someone brings up a lawsuit against the diocese, the diocese has two lines of defense.

1) For present, pending, or threatening lawsuits the diocese might be implementing a strategy to keep a party from suing further.
2) For any possible future lawsuits (for actions that haven't happened yet), the diocese is protected against the accusation that they didn't do enough to prevent the action in the first place.

If I had to guess, this last reason is probably what's behind the bishops actions.