Catholic priest who fathered child is suspended

[Holly3278]

ST. LOUIS — A Wisconsin diocese late Friday suspended a Roman Catholic priest who fathered a child during a five-year relationship in Illinois and may have been involved separately with a minor.

The Catholic Diocese of Superior said the Rev. Henry Willenborg has been suspended with pay.

The Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests called for the move earlier Friday in St. Louis. The national support group for those hurt by religious authorities also said it wants church officials in Missouri and Wisconsin to help the mother and son, now 22, who has terminal cancer.

google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hWP4T1EWiteFCKXZgbBoMwbUI60QD9BCG8TG1

 

[PAboy57]

We should pray for a priest in trouble as well as those needing help. Thanks for letting me know.

HAIL HOLY QUEEN
Hail, holy Queen, Mother of mercy! Hail, our life, our sweetness, and our hope! To you do we cry, poor banished children of Eve. To you do we send up our sighs, mourning, and weeping in this valley of tears. Turn then, most gracious advocate, your eyes of mercy toward us; and after this, our exile, show unto us the blessed fruit of your womb, Jesus. O clement , O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary! Amen.

 

[Just_Lurking]

I would have been better if they had suspended him when it happened 22 years ago, instead of covering it up and only suspending him when the cover up failed.

 

[rossum]

I would have been better if they had suspended him when it happened 22 years ago, instead of covering it up and only suspending him when the cover up failed.

Agreed. People, including priests, do fail sometimes. The real problems come for the organisation that tries to cover-up the original failure. It is usually better to admit things up front rather than try to cover things up.

rossum

 

[JReducation]

The issue is that apparently the two adults involved, the priest and the woman, had separated and she had married. He had apparent become reconciled with the order. As far as everyone thought, everything was OK. The woman had moved on to a new marriage. The order paid the child support and the priest kept the distance that he has promised to keep.

According to the Rule of St. Francis, (this is a Franciscan Friar), no friar can be penalized if he repents. Before he can be penalized he must receive three verbal warnings, three visits by his Minister, three written warnings. The current suspension counts as one written warning. He still cannot be dismissed from the order, because over and above being a priest, he is a religious in solemn vows. Solemn vows are not violable. The person remains in solemn vows, even when he sins and those orders that have solemn vows cannot dismiss their members without the consent of the Superior General, the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Religious Life and Societies of Apostolic Life and the Holy See.

Now that he is suspended, he can’t celebrate the sacraments in public. But he remains a member of the Franciscan Order and must live as a friar unless his Provincial Minister grants him a leave of absence. This is only good for one year and then he must be returned to this religious community. In the meantime, while he is outside of the community, he must live as a friar. If he fails to do so, he will receive a second written warning.

The issue why this came up so suddenly is because of a new allegation that had never come out 22-years ago. There was no alleged cover-up. The order did what St. Francis commands in the rule. The order does ot have the authority to change the rule. Only a pope can change a rule and that’s a process that takes almost three-years to do. The Franciscan Rule has not been changed since 1223 because Pope Honorius placed a Papal Bull on it, freezing it for all time until such time as another pope ordered a General Chapter to rewrite it. That is the process that takes three-years.

This question came up in 1978. Pope Paul VI said that it need not be changed. It came up in April 2009 and Pope Benedict said that it need not be changed. The rule stands as it is and no friar can be dismissed from the order without going through the process that St. Francis set up.

Every religious order with solemn vows has the same rights. these are the ones who follow the following rules: Benedictine, Carmelite, Franciscan, Augustinian and Basilian… These are exempt religious orders. They govern themselves under the authority of the Holy Father. A bishop can suspend one of their priests from functioning in his diocese, but not in the religious houses or institutions that belong to the order. Only the successor of St. Francis or successor of the founder of the particular order can do that, as described in their constitution and their statutes.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Just_Lurking]

There was no alleged cover-up.

I disagree. Paying someone to keep quiet is a cover-up. The article states, “The settlements were reached after legal battles on the condition she not disclose them publicly.”

 

[JReducation]

I disagree. Paying someone to keep quiet is a cover-up. The article states, “The settlements were reached after legal battles on the condition she not disclose them publicly.”

Ok, now try to look at this from a Catholic angle. If the two adults are consenting adults. No one has been raped or abused. She has a child. He becomes reconciled with God, with the Church and with the Order, what other power does the Order have? They cannot dismiss him and they cannot put him out to the dogs to feed on him. According to the rules of religious orders in solemn vows, they have a primary rule to protect their brothers, even if it is a sinful brother, as long as he is reconciled. That is not cover-up. That’s protecting your brother and doing justice toward the mother and child. It is also obeying founder, over whom no one has authority to dispute, for the reasons that were explained before.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Agreed. People, including priests, do fail sometimes. The real problems come for the organisation that tries to cover-up the original failure. It is usually better to admit things up front rather than try to cover things up.

rossum

LOL - this is the RCC we’re talking about; it doesn’t operate like that - to do as you suggest, would mean losing face; and it’s obsessed with controlling everything & everyone; as well as terrified of losing face. Which merely guarantees all the more trouble for it when the “extra-curricular activities” of its personnnel are exposed: as, eventually, they are.​

I can guarantee you, that if this had occurred in some other Church, we would have heard nothing about people sometimes failing; the excuse is used by Catholics for Catholics, & for no one else.

 

[Brickmaker]

The issue is that apparently the two adults involved, the priest and the woman, had separated and she had married. He had apparent become reconciled with the order. As far as everyone thought, everything was OK. The woman had moved on to a new marriage. The order paid the child support and the priest kept the distance that he has promised to keep.

According to the Rule of St. Francis, (this is a Franciscan Friar), no friar can be penalized if he repents. Before he can be penalized he must receive three verbal warnings, three visits by his Minister, three written warnings. The current suspension counts as one written warning. He still cannot be dismissed from the order, because over and above being a priest, he is a religious in solemn vows. Solemn vows are not violable. The person remains in solemn vows, even when he sins and those orders that have solemn vows cannot dismiss their members without the consent of the Superior General, the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Religious Life and Societies of Apostolic Life and the Holy See.

Now that he is suspended, he can’t celebrate the sacraments in public. But he remains a member of the Franciscan Order and must live as a friar unless his Provincial Minister grants him a leave of absence. This is only good for one year and then he must be returned to this religious community. In the meantime, while he is outside of the community, he must live as a friar. If he fails to do so, he will receive a second written warning.

The issue why this came up so suddenly is because of a new allegation that had never come out 22-years ago. There was no alleged cover-up. The order did what St. Francis commands in the rule. The order does ot have the authority to change the rule. Only a pope can change a rule and that’s a process that takes almost three-years to do. The Franciscan Rule has not been changed since 1223 because Pope Honorius placed a Papal Bull on it, freezing it for all time until such time as another pope ordered a General Chapter to rewrite it. That is the process that takes three-years.

This question came up in 1978. Pope Paul VI said that it need not be changed. It came up in April 2009 and Pope Benedict said that it need not be changed. The rule stands as it is and no friar can be dismissed from the order without going through the process that St. Francis set up.

Every religious order with solemn vows has the same rights. these are the ones who follow the following rules: Benedictine, Carmelite, Franciscan, Augustinian and Basilian… These are exempt religious orders. They govern themselves under the authority of the Holy Father. A bishop can suspend one of their priests from functioning in his diocese, but not in the religious houses or institutions that belong to the order. Only the successor of St. Francis or successor of the founder of the particular order can do that, as described in their constitution and their statutes.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I understand your explanation, Brother. What I don’t understand is why Henry Willenborg wasn’t man enough to apply for laicization, get a job and accept personal responsibility for the upkeep of his child. The whole thing sounds like he abused the Rule of St Francis in order to avoid that responsibility.

 

[JReducation]

LOL - this is the RCC we’re talking about; it doesn’t operate like that - to do as you suggest, would mean losing face; and it’s obsessed with controlling everything & everyone; as well as terrified of losing face. Which merely guarantees all the more trouble for it when the “extra-curricular activities” of its personnnel are exposed: as, eventually, they are.​

I can guarantee you, that if this had occurred in some other Church, we would have heard nothing about people sometimes failing; the excuse is used by Catholics for Catholics, & for no one else.

The problem is that too many Catholics pay attention to this stuff. They forget that in a community of over 2 billion, these things are going to happen. I can’t imagine this not happening in the USA, which has only 350 million.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

I understand your explanation, Brother. What I don’t understand is why Henry Willenborg wasn’t man enough to apply for laicization, get a job and accept personal responsibility for the upkeep of his child. The whole thing sounds like he abused the Rule of St Francis in order to avoid that responsibility.

The rule does not allow this. The moment the friar asks for forgiveness and goes to confession to his superior and his confessor, the case is closed. No dispensation is allowed. You can’t laicize a religious in solemn vows. That’s why they’re called solemn vows. Most religious make simple vows. They get secularized. A solemn vow has to be fulfilled.

Now, if these new allegations are true and there is obstinancy, then there is nothig that the any order in solemn vows can do for an individual in a state of obstinancy. The vows must be fulfilled, but if the person does not intend to fulfill them, then they can proceed to the next step, to request dismissal from both states of life: religious and clerical. But I give you fair warning. A religious order can dismiss a friar or a monk from the order and he has to be picked up by a bishop in a diocese, before he sets foot outside the door of his religious house. If no bishop wants to pickh him up, only then can it go to the Vatican for dismissal from the clerical state. The only way that someone can be dismissed from both solemn vows and the clerical state is if there is child sexual abuse, rape or a proven crime.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Brickmaker]

You can’t laicize a religious in solemn vows.

Not even at his own request? Then how come there’s a guy who attends our parish, former Franciscan priest, who found himself in a similar situation to Henry Willenborg but asked to be laicized, was laicized and is now validly married to the mother of his child (who is now an adult with children of her own)? Rule or no Rule, looks like he found a way to accept his responsibility.

 

[JReducation]

Not even at his own request? Then how come there’s a guy who attends our parish, former Franciscan priest, who found himself in a similar situation to Henry Willenborg but asked to be laicized, was laicized and is now validly married to the mother of his child (who is now an adult with children of her own)? Rule or no Rule, looks like he found a way to accept his responsibility.

If you remember, I said that if the person goes to confession and asks forgiveness of his superior and his confessor, he cannot be secularized and laicized. A Franciscan needs both. If you’re friend did not go through those steps, instead he said that he did not want to be reconciled with either the Church or the order or he left on his own and later applied, then this is called obstinancy. In obstinancy, there is nothing that the order or the Church can do to help the person other than grant the dispensations to save his soul. However, the order can place conditions on the dispensation. They can require that if she dies before he does and he has no dependent children, he must return to living the vows under the rule until his death.

Getting out of a religious order in solemn vows is not easy. It’s like riskly surgery.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Brickmaker]

If you remember, I said that if the person goes to confession and asks forgiveness of his superior and his confessor, he cannot be secularized and laicized. A Franciscan needs both. If you’re friend did not go through those steps, instead he said that he did not want to be reconciled with either the Church or the order or he left on his own and later applied, then this is called obstinancy. In obstinancy, there is nothing that the order or the Church can do to help the person other than grant the dispensations to save his soul. However, the order can place conditions on the dispensation. They can require that if she dies before he does and he has no dependent children, he must return to living the vows under the rule until his death.

Getting out of a religious order in solemn vows is not easy. It’s like riskly surgery.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

So it IS possible. I’ve always admired my friend for his courage and integrity in taking responsibility for his child. Now that I realize what he had to go through to do so, I admire him even more.

 

[nlm]

Not even at his own request? Then how come there’s a guy who attends our parish, former Franciscan priest, who found himself in a similar situation to Henry Willenborg but asked to be laicized, was laicized and is now validly married to the mother of his child (who is now an adult with children of her own)? Rule or no Rule, looks like he found a way to accept his responsibility.

When circumstance require certain actions ,all things are possible.When I was a monk in a Cistercian monastery, we had a situation where one of our priests decided he had had enough. I will not go into details because they are not important to this post.We lived by the Rule of Saint Benedict. The Abbot tried to reason with him but he was determined to walk away from his solem vows. I one day, permission had been granted, by telephone, as these were pre- fax days, from the Vatican. His vows were annulled and he walked away as a lay person that same day.In this case, our fellow monk did the right thing and insisted on being freed from his vows.I would suggest this priest could have done the same.Going to confession may settle things with God but settles nothing with this women and her child.This same priest would have advised a lay person to buck up and accept his responsabilities following his actions had he been counselling someone as a priest.He needed to do likewise in my opinion.God Bless. NLM

 

[JReducation]

So it IS possible. I’ve always admired my friend for his courage and integrity in taking responsibility for his child. Now that I realize what he had to go through to do so, I admire him even more.

I’m not sure if admiration is what I would feel, but I would be glad that the issue is over and settled. You have to remember several other things.

1. A solemn vow of chastity invalidates all possibility of marriage. That’s how serious the Church takes it. Whether the religious is a priest, brother or nun. As long as there is a solemn vow, any attempt to get married, even for the supposedly right reason, is considered the wrong reason by the Church. The vow trumps marriage. Therefore the marriage is invalid and the person excommunicated, until the Church says so.
2. The Church does not encourage marriage because someone is pregnant. This raises a question about the validity of the marriage. Whether the person is a former religious or not. Marriage cannot be used as means to provide for a child, not in the Catholic Church. The marriage must be valid. Getting married because you’re going to hae a child, when there is no love between the couple, is not a valid marriage. So you are leaving religious life, which is a valid commitment to enter into a non valid commitment. That’s why the Church hesitates on imposing this.
3. The friars, monks and nuns (not sisters), have a moral obligation to their order over everything else. That’s why the order takes care of their children, because those. I can’t speak for other orders, but Franciscans consider those children part of their family. Even though it’s a very sad situation for parents and children, but we take our responsibility seriously and provide for such children as best as our resources can stretch. They are not abandoned. Depending on the Minister Provincial’s judgment and the desire of the parents, there may be opportunities for visitation. But support is always there.
4. In this case, there does not seem to have been much love as a couple. The friar opted to remain in the order and the mother opted to remarry for a third time. My sympathies are more with the boy. The mother has been in four relationships, three marriages and one with a friar. The friar now may turn out to be a loose canon. That’s probably another good reason that God kept this couple apart. Just my guess. Don’t take it to the bank. I’m a lousy gambler.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Brickmaker]

1. The Church does not encourage marriage because someone is pregnant. This raises a question about the validity of the marriage. Whether the person is a former religious or not. Marriage cannot be used as means to provide for a child, not in the Catholic Church. The marriage must be valid. Getting married because you’re going to hae a child, when there is no love between the couple, is not a valid marriage.

My grandparents ‘had’ to get married, they were expecting my uncle at the time and the priest insisted on it. As I remember them, there was no love lost between them but it didn’t stop them having five kids. And I bet they’d be very surprised to hear that “getting married because you’re going to hae a child, when there is no love between the couple, is not a valid marriage”. Must tell my dad

 

[nlm]

I’m not sure if admiration is what I would feel, but I would be glad that the issue is over and settled. You have to remember several other things.

1. A solemn vow of chastity invalidates all possibility of marriage. That’s how serious the Church takes it. Whether the religious is a priest, brother or nun. As long as there is a solemn vow, any attempt to get married, even for the supposedly right reason, is considered the wrong reason by the Church. The vow trumps marriage. Therefore the marriage is invalid and the person excommunicated, until the Church says so.
2. The Church does not encourage marriage because someone is pregnant. This raises a question about the validity of the marriage. Whether the person is a former religious or not. Marriage cannot be used as means to provide for a child, not in the Catholic Church. The marriage must be valid. Getting married because you’re going to hae a child, when there is no love between the couple, is not a valid marriage. So you are leaving religious life, which is a valid commitment to enter into a non valid commitment. That’s why the Church hesitates on imposing this.
3. The friars, monks and nuns (not sisters), have a moral obligation to their order over everything else. That’s why the order takes care of their children, because those. I can’t speak for other orders, but Franciscans consider those children part of their family. Even though it’s a very sad situation for parents and children, but we take our responsibility seriously and provide for such children as best as our resources can stretch. They are not abandoned. Depending on the Minister Provincial’s judgment and the desire of the parents, there may be opportunities for visitation. But support is always there.
4. In this case, there does not seem to have been much love as a couple. The friar opted to remain in the order and the mother opted to remarry for a third time. My sympathies are more with the boy. The mother has been in four relationships, three marriages and one with a friar. The friar now may turn out to be a loose canon. That’s probably another good reason that God kept this couple apart. Just my guess. Don’t take it to the bank. I’m a lousy gambler.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

May I ask a quick question? You say support is ALWAYS there. How often does this happen? It sounds as though your order has policies in place to deal with this type of issue when it happens. Is this indeed the case? NLM

 

[JReducation]

May I ask a quick question? You say support is ALWAYS there. How often does this happen? It sounds as though your order has policies in place to deal with this type of issue when it happens. Is this indeed the case? NLM

I can’t speak for other orders. Every religious order with solemn vows has three documents that govern them: the holy rule, the constitutions and the statutes. The statutes are legal documents that deal with civil issues such as money, property and so forth. In our family, we have included such things in the statutes.

Because we take a solemn vow of poverty, we get no salaries. Our community is paid for the work that we do outside of our own institutions. With that money the community supports us all. The question of justice has come up. What do you do in case there is such a situation?

In justice, if the friar complies with the rule and Church law, you can’t dismiss him. In justice, if thee is a child, you can’t dismiss him either. In justice, since the friar has no income and is entitled to none, then someone has to provide for the child.

The statutes are going to be different from country to country. What can provide for a child in Africa for a year can’t cover a week in the USA. It is also fair to assume that the order provides what a typical working class father can provide, not what Donal Trump can provide. This is where people get misled. People look at religious orders such as Franciscans, because we are so huge and assume that there is all that money for them to tap into and sue. They forget that in justice that money belongs to an entire religious family that has students to support and elderly friars to care for. These two extremes produce no income, but are entitled to live. If you divide the assets of most religious communities by the number of members and their needs, they don’t have much more than the averge lower income family, per person.

I don’t know how other communities do their numbers and manage their situations. Even in my reliigious family, we have differences between branches of the order and geographical locations, as well as resources. I’m telling you how most handle this.
Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

My grandparents ‘had’ to get married, they were expecting my uncle at the time and the priest insisted on it. As I remember them, there was no love lost between them but it didn’t stop them having five kids. And I bet they’d be very surprised to hear that “getting married because you’re going to hae a child, when there is no love between the couple, is not a valid marriage”. Must tell my dad

Check the requirements for marriage in the CCC or in canon law. But remember, a couple can grow in love with the passing of time and the marriage is validated. Just because they fight does mean that they do not love each other. I have an uncle and aunt who are angry when they’re not figfhting. They have been doing this for over 50 years. Happiest little pigs in the pen.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF