Opinions On Mandatory Fingerprinting

[qfnol31]

My wife just reminded me that fingerprinting is common practice in our archdiocese for catechists (volunteers) and most of the office workers.

[Slappo]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1339127993' post='2442426']
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.
[/quote]

I don't think I'd require volunteer musicians at mass to be fingerprinted. Kinda ridiculous there I have to agree. Volunteer catechists, CCD teachers, youth group volunteers, etc - sure lets finger print them for added security & legal precautions.

[r2Dtoo]

I could see the need to fingerprint all these people if it actually did anything to help prevent, or even for that matter catch, pedophiles. I'm not seeing how this is going to help the police at all. This is just the Church trying to fix it's "image" here, and nothing more. Basically the Church is telling it members "We screwed up, so that means [b]your[/b] privacy needs to be crucified." Oh well. At least you guys get to give them "the finger" anyway.

Edited June 9, 2012 by r2Dtoo

[Groo the Wanderer]

yer a butt



get past the hate.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='r2Dtoo' timestamp='1339212177' post='2442806']
I could see the need to fingerprint all these people if it actually did anything to help prevent, or even for that matter catch, pedophiles. I'm not seeing how this is going to help the police at all. This is just the Church trying to fix it's "image" here, and nothing more. Basically the Church is telling it members "We screwed up, so that means [b]your[/b] privacy needs to be crucified." Oh well. At least you guys get to give them "the finger" anyway.
[/quote]The Diocese of Arlington does some fingerprinting (I don't know all the rules there). I think they use it: http://www.arlingtondiocese.org/news.php?id=338

[AnneLine]

[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]

Uh... one would think so... but the problem with this is when the person playing the organ is a person who is required to register as a sex offender... and who had formerly worked for a different parish. I know of a parish where this happened... the new parish didn't know when he was hired, and never asked. It was only when a lay member of the parish recognized him and said something to the pastor that they realized that he was scheduled to play at the family mass..... and he admitted it when questioned, and admitted that he had been told he could NOT work for any parish in the archdiocese. Sigh.

That is why this isn't always as simple as it looks.... Live scan fingerprinting isn't really that invasive. It is now the norm with EVERY social service and similar organization that even remotely works with children, families and /or individuals who could easily be victimized (i.e., frail elders, etc.) It's sad it has to be this way, but I think the Church has to do what it takes to back up that we are trying to do what we can to minimize the chances of abuse problems..... we can't change the past, but we can do what we can to keep it from happening again.....

Edited June 23, 2012 by AnneLine

[EmilyAnn]

I think the intention is probably in the right direction but perhaps the execution could be different. I don't know if you have a similar thing in the US but in the UK there is a system where people who work with children, disabled people, etc. have to have a criminal records check. My mom had to have it to work for the Brownies (UK version of Girl Scouts). To me, a system like that makes far more sense. Just taking fingerprints doesn't seem to achieve anything.

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='EmilyAnn' timestamp='1340447028' post='2447842']
I think the intention is probably in the right direction but perhaps the execution could be different. I don't know if you have a similar thing in the US but in the UK there is a system where people who work with children, disabled people, etc. have to have a criminal records check. My mom had to have it to work for the Brownies (UK version of Girl Scouts). To me, a system like that makes far more sense. Just taking fingerprints doesn't seem to achieve anything.
[/quote]

Yeah, we have background checks too, but the fingerprinting would be in addition to that.

I'm not sure how fingerprinting constitutes a true violation of privacy. Wiretapping, surveillance, sure. And although it might not be super relevant in every case of abuse or investigation, it seems like it's an easy variable to take care of just in case fingerprints are found. If anything, they can be used to eliminate volunteers and employees as suspects. And now scientists are figuring out better ways to actually lift fingerprints from (living) human skin using black powder ([url="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18051035"]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18051035[/url]).