Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Exceptions to diocese hiring process unacceptable

Re: Plan to change hiring at church is exemplary, editorial, Oct. 5.

I respectfully differ with your praise of Lady of Lourdes Catholic Church and Father Tom Madden, calling their responsive actions to the recent hiring of a man with a previous arrest record "exemplary."

I am both a parishioner and parent at Our Lady of Lourdes, and I have struggled with this entire matter since the onset. I applaud and commend the concerned parents who got involved in order to ensure such an incident is not repeated. These parents recognized that the current hiring process is of no value if not followed.

These were the same parents who called for a public meeting, only to have the meeting but not be permitted the opportunity to ask questions following Father Madden's apology. All questions were to be directed to Father Madden or the diocese in private. In my opinion, questions asked within a group have much more impact because it would have allowed parents to voice and hear each others' concerns as well as the responses from Father Madden and the diocese.

Regarding the hiring process, please note that according to the Catholic Diocese of St. Petersburg and the superintendent of Catholic Schools and Centers, Brother John L. Cummings, a multitiered application process including a background screening through an outside agency was initiated four years ago.

Despite the fact this process was in place and regardless of its findings, not to mention the heightened sensitivity about abuse of children by clergy throughout the Catholic Church at the time of Forte's hiring, Madden knowingly hired Forte. But Madden was not alone because the Catholic Diocese was also aware of Forte's arrest history involving minors. Granted, the diocese may have learned of Forte's arrest history after he was already hired, but they still did not intervene in order to rectify the problem. They, too, knowingly took a chance with our children by not dismissing Forte.

Although I agree with having parents and parishioners involved in the hiring of church candidates who interact with the children each day such as Forte, I have all the reason to believe the current multitiered process would have worked if adhered to.

In my opinion, the system did not fail us; Madden and the diocese failed the system as well as all those affected by the alleged suspect. As a parent, I can only hope that there are no others who were "exempt" from the current multitiered hiring process.

Therefore, the question remains as to why the hiring process was blatantly disregarded and our children's safety put at risk in order to hire Forte.

It also saddens me to hear some parents say that at least the alleged incident did not involve any of our children. All that matters is that it was alleged to have happened to a child. Any child is one too many. As parents, we should consider all children ours when it comes to protecting them; thus I can only hope that parents get involved and continue to ask questions rather than shying away out of fear of reprisal.

Although I agree that Madden cannot undo what was done, it is quite obvious that this should have never happened. There is a big difference between making a mistake and knowingly doing wrong. Any parent who takes the time to contact the Polk County Sheriff's Office in order to review Forte's previous arrest record will agree that he should have been immediately passed over regardless of his employment qualifications.

Yes, it is a sad fact that churches have to go to great lengths in hiring employees, but I think it is a sadder fact when the current hiring process, in place to prevent the problems we now face, is knowingly disregarded. Again, I ask, why?

Church hiring rules were set up for a reason

Re: Plan to change hiring at church is exemplary, editorial, Oct. 5.

If the pastor of this church had followed the rules and regulations set forth by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, which he was required to follow in the wake of the clergy abuse scandal, this would not have happened.

Surely, the bishops of Florida and the Florida Catholic Conference have something in place, don't they?

Pledge of Allegiance is a pledge, not a prayer

For all those recent letter writers and anyone else who thinks "under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional, maybe this dream I had of a class in school might help. Picture it, if you will:

Good morning, students. Please be seated. Now that we have recited the Pledge of Allegiance, let's talk about it. What is a pledge? Anybody? Yes, Tamara. Right. It's a promise ... to the flag. But, what on earth does that mean? Brittany? Yes. The flag "of the United States" represents our country and we are promising to be good citizens of our country, the republic for which the flag stands. Very good.

Now, tough one. What does "One nation under God" mean? Yes, Bret. Okay, 50 states make one nation, not 50. Excellent. But, "under God?" Zach. The writers of the pledge believed in God and "under" meant under God's protection from any enemies. Wow. Splendid. "Indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" is pretty obvious. Right? Good.

Are we expressing our belief in God with this pledge? Samantha? No, of course not. We are expressing our loyalty to our country. Correct. Anything else? Raquan. We are not forced to say "under God" if we don't believe in God. Good. Why? Because the First Amendment says that Congress can't make a law about religion. There is no law that says we have to believe in God. Bingo!

A judge in California said "under God" makes the pledge unconstitutional. Was he wrong? Eduardo. Yes. Why? Because the pledge is not a prayer. Terrific.

Last question. Where else does the word "God" appear that is not in violation of the First Amendment? Caitlin. On our money. When we take an oath. Fabulous. Wonderful.

Okay. Open up your math books.

Founding fathers weren't as religious as some think

Re: Religion has no place in our children's classrooms, letter, Sept. 28.

The writer states that "No one denies that our founding fathers were men of strong religious faith." I beg to differ.

John Adams: "This would be the best of all worlds if there were no religion in it."

James Madison: "What has been the fruit of religion? Pride and indolence in the clergy, ignorance in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

Thomas Paine: "I do not believe in the creed professed by any church that I know of. Each of these churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my part, I disbelieve them all."

George Washington: Never declared himself to be a Christian. On his deathbed, he uttered no words of a religious nature and did not want a clergyman in attendance.

Thomas Jefferson: "The day will come when a supreme being fathering a child in the womb of a virgin will be classed with Greek fables."

[Last modified October 10, 2005, 01:18:12]