My son is a priest. He went through psychological tests to become a priest. I for one do not have an issue if a seminarian's background is checked. In order for me to volunteer for a ministry at my parish(Food Bank) I have to go through ethics and integrity training through the parish and I have to civil rights training through the food bank. I don't want to see what happened in the past where priests were moved from parish to parish when misconduct occurred.
Even this database would still require SOMEONE to type in the deficits (including moral) of such candidates. Like vocations directors, this would become target assignments for the "boys". And the non-"boys" in those positions would be under pressure to avoid "exclusionary" information. Sorry to be cynical (I really am)
This seminary that finally accepted him - what did they do differently? what did they see (or not see) in his application? It seems like there might be something wrong with that seminary's admissions office/system if 45 seminaries saw something to reject and this one seminary missed it. (Unless he suddenly got better at lying?)
My son is a priest. He went through psychological tests to become a priest. I for one do not have an issue if a seminarian's background is checked. In order for me to volunteer for a ministry at my parish(Food Bank) I have to go through ethics and integrity training through the parish and I have to civil rights training through the food bank. I don't want to see what happened in the past where priests were moved from parish to parish when misconduct occurred.
What kinds of liability are they worried about? Unauthorized people accessing the database and seeing information they're not supposed to see?
Even this database would still require SOMEONE to type in the deficits (including moral) of such candidates. Like vocations directors, this would become target assignments for the "boys". And the non-"boys" in those positions would be under pressure to avoid "exclusionary" information. Sorry to be cynical (I really am)
This seminary that finally accepted him - what did they do differently? what did they see (or not see) in his application? It seems like there might be something wrong with that seminary's admissions office/system if 45 seminaries saw something to reject and this one seminary missed it. (Unless he suddenly got better at lying?)