Catholic priest who fathered child is suspended

[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

I understand how living in a religious order works. Ours was a contemplative order so we supported ourselves by manual labor etc.As individuals we owned nothing because of our vow of poverty.
You did not however answer mu question.How often do members of your order father children?
As for the elderly in a religious order producing no income. Even when they are unable to participate in manual labor, they contribute financially by turning over their old age security cheque each month. Some orders have hundreds of seniors who do just that… but I digress.
Back to the original question if we may. NLM
PS: The order I belonged to, had no policies to deal with such matters I assure you.I suppose being semi-cloistered removed opportunities for such things to occur…but not completely.

 

[JReducation]

I understand how living in a religious order works. Ours was a contemplative order so we supported ourselves by manual labor etc.As individuals we owned nothing because of our vow of poverty.
You did not however answer mu question.How often do members of your order father children?
As for the elderly in a religious order producing no income. Even when they are unable to participate in manual labor, they contribute financially by turning over their old age security cheque each month. Some orders have hundreds of seniors who do just that… but I digress.
Back to the original question if we may. NLM
PS: The order I belonged to, had no policies to deal with such matters I assure you.I suppose being semi-cloistered removed opportunities for such things to occur…but not completely.

I’m sorry. I didn’t understand that you were asking how often this happened. I thought you were confirming if we have policies in place.

1. Yes we have policies.
2. It does not happen often. Thank God. But it has happened more than it would in an enclosded community. If I were to guess, I would say that less than 1%.
3. By the way, the only Franciscans that get retirement checks are those who have done work for the government, because the government requires that you take it. The constitutions do not allow us to pay FICA or Soc Sec. Therefore we have no retirement plans. We are not allowed to take the retirement plan offered by the diocese where we work. We work for diocese and get a stipend. We support our elderly from begging and from campaign funds that we run every year.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[nlm]

I’m sorry. I didn’t understand that you were asking how often this happened. I thought you were confirming if we have policies in place.

1. Yes we have policies.
2. It does not happen often. Thank God. But it has happened more than it would in an enclosded community. If I were to guess, I would say that less than 1%.
3. By the way, the only Franciscans that get retirement checks are those who have done work for the government, because the government requires that you take it. The constitutions do not allow us to pay FICA or Soc Sec. Therefore we have no retirement plans. We are not allowed to take the retirement plan offered by the diocese where we work. We work for diocese and get a stipend. We support our elderly from begging and from campaign funds that we run every year.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I will ask the question more clearly. What I am asking is how often do members of the Franciscans father children? I don’t understand what you mean by less than 1%.NLM

 

[JReducation]

I will ask the question more clearly. What I am asking is how often do members of the Franciscans father children? I don’t understand what you mean by less than 1%.NLM

Very very rarely. If you take less than 1% of 1.7 million Franciscans in 124 countries around the world.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[nlm]

Very very rarely. If you take less than 1% of 1.7 million Franciscans in 124 countries around the world.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thank you for your honesty. God Bless and Good night. NLM

 

[recidite_plbs]

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.

While I have a natural tendency to agree with the sentiments of your post, you have to remember that this is an issue between 2 adults who consented to a relationship. I think that the church would prefer we all perceive that their clergy are all free of blemish, but we all know that’s far from the truth and any pretence otherwise would be ridiculous. I suspect that the fact that there were covenants in place to prevent either party disclosing the past is more rooted in the fact that lawyers were involved (and anyone having been through any family proceeding where lawyers are involved will likely know that they can wreck the most amicable of agreements by creating an adversarial situation), and there was an over-riding need to progtect the child. The woman herself may have wanted a binding agreement of confidentiality for herself and it was a 2-way agreement to bind both parties.

What we are not talking about here is a priest caught with his trousers down interefering with a minor. Any attempt at a cover-up in those circumstanmces would be entirely wrong. I can see circumstances where the mother, child, and friar would all benefit from handling the dissolution of a long term, child bearing relationship sensitively. Also, it would be wrong to presume too much on behalf of the mother. After 5 years together she may well have not wanted the friar to give up his vows and get a job to support them.

 

[Just_Lurking]

The NY Times article (see here) gives more details:
Eventually they had a son, setting off a series of legal battles as Ms. Bond repeatedly petitioned the church for child support. The Franciscans acquiesced, with the stipulation that she sign a confidentiality agreement. It is now an agreement she is willing to break as both she and her child, Nathan Halbach, 22, are battling cancer.

… Ms. Bond’s case offers a rare look at how the church goes to great lengths to silence these women, to avoid large settlements and to keep the priests in active ministry. She has 23 years of documents, depositions, correspondence, receipts and photographs relating to her case, which she has kept in meticulous files.

Those files reveal that the church was tightfisted with her as she tried to care for her son, particularly as his cancer treatments grew more costly. But they also show that Father Willenborg suffered virtually no punishment, continuing to serve in a variety of church posts.

…

He [Willenborg] said he did not want to talk about the situation, and pointed out that Ms. Bond had more to lose than he did because she had signed a confidentiality agreement that, if broken, requires her to pay a penalty.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

I am very familiar with the case of 2 young men. One disappeared for lengthy periods. Location unknown. The other was a convert.
The convert (from Anglican, although a RCC for 10 years) on being discovered as such was silenced and dismissed (told had it been known at the outset he never would have gained entry).
To read of the other young man being visited at the Religious House by a young woman with a baby in her arms a few months later.
This young man was “cautioned”.

There is a well-known case of a priest living in France with a mistress. He was so revered by the local community the Church feared taking action.

 

[baylee]

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.

And I can guarantee you that if this occurred in some other Church, we wouldn’t have even heard about it…lol. I am taking a hiatus from a secular forum to get away from the anti-Catholic Church sentiments…I guess it’s here as well.

 

[Lucyabe]

After reading all this, and not knowing much about the story at all, but learning that the woman had married and happily raised her son… I wonder if SHE did not want to marry HIM, and he was sorry and reconciled with his bride The Church? The Order even helped support the boy. And I am wondering why 22 years later this is all being thrown in his face and he is being dragged down and suspended now.

Of course, I don’t know the whole story, but I am puzzled after reading what I have just read…

 

[Just_Lurking]

I wonder if SHE did not want to marry HIM, and he was sorry and reconciled with his bride The Church?

From the NY Times article:
End to an idyll

For eight months, Father Willenborg continued to visit Ms. Bond’s home at night. She said he would go right to the crib, pick up the baby and bring him to the bed to cuddle with them.

An unexpected turn of events brought their idyll to an end. A young woman showed up at Ms. Bond’s house in a rage. She told Ms. Bond that she had been in a sexual relationship with Father Willenborg for years, since she was in high school. (Reached by phone last week, the woman confirmed the relationship, and said it had caused her a lifetime of pain. She asked to remain anonymous.) Immediately, the Franciscans sent Father Willenborg to a treatment center in New Mexico run by a religious order, for priests with sexual disorders and substance addictions.

Ms. Bond says that after that, they had sex together only once more: immediately after he returned from seven months at the center. She still has the receipt from the hotel room.

 

[JReducation]

There are two things that are happening in this case and they really have nothing to do with each other.

1. This friar had a child with this woman. Obviously there was no emotional or romantic attachment on either part. He did not want to leave the religious life to marry her or anyone else. She was not interested in marrying him either. There may have been some kind of chemistry or they would not have had a child.
2. The order has an obligation to the friar and the friar, as a father, has an obligation to his child. The order has an obligation to help the friar discern how he can best fulfill his religious vows. If he can’t ,then he has to ask for a dispensation, which may or many not be granted. Franciscans make solemn vows. Solemn vows are not easy to get dispensed with. It can happen, but it does not happen easily. The Holy See is the only one who dispenses a Franciscan from vows.
3. The order agreed to pay for child support. This is part of the order’s obligation to the friar. It is not about covering up. It is about the fact that friars make up the order. When we say order, what do we mean? We mean friars. If a friar incurrs such a financial oblgiation as child support, the order has to pay. Friars own nothing.
4. As in every other paternity case, you pay child support until the child reaches legal adulthood. That is, until the child is no longer a dependant.
5. This is where this gets blurred. In most cases in the real world, if an adult gets sick, such as this young man, do the parents have a legal obligation to pick up the bill? This woman and her lawyer are insisting that this is the case. But this child is now 22. It begs the question, why does this father have a legal obligation that other fathers in this country do not have?
6. In justice and charity, this father and every other father, who has the means, has to extend a helping hand to his children and parents in such cases. But that’s a moral issue, not a civil issue. This is what is making the Franciscans angry. The lawyers are making this a civil issue, when it would not be so if this were a father who is remarried and has another family etc.

END OF PROBLEM NUMBER ONE

BEGIN PROBLEM NUMBER TWO

1. In this law suit or whatever it’s called in civil law, closets have been opened and it seems that this friar has committed other indiscretions that are not related to this case. But they do not cease to be indiscretions and may even be serious sins. I’m not privy to the details. He’s not part of my branch of the Franciscan family and if he were, I would not share those details anyway.
2. Apparently, his superiors were unaware of these other indiscretions. I really don’t know how many or when.
3. In any case this comes to light, because the skeleton is out of the closet.
4. He is suspended, not because the skeleton is out of the closet. But the other way around. Had the skeleton remained in the closet, his superiors would have never known.
5. Because they do know, canon law and the constitutions of the order require that there be an investigation of the allegations. While there is an investigation he is suspended. This means that he cannot do any ministry, priestly or other.
6. While a friar is suspended, he remains a member of the Franciscan order and he is bound to live by the vows and by the rules of the order. He is also bound by obedience to his superiors and to his brothers. He is still bound to observe poverty and chastity. He is bound to pray and to live the interior life of every Franciscan. A suspension affects his ministry, not his daily life. That he must fulfill.
7. Since this friar is also ordained, he remains a priest, but his superior has the authority to take away his faculties to celebrate the sacraments, except in case of emergency. Emergency is very subjective. Unfortuantely, canon law does not really define the word emergency. It’s really up the the Major Superior and the Holy Father what they consider an emergency.
8. If he is fond guilty of certain sins, a proceeding can begin to dismiss him from the clerical state. That means that he would never again be allowed fo function as a priest. But he does remain a friar until death.
9. If and when the man is dismissed from the clerical state, then and onlly then, can the Major Superior begin the process to dismiss him from religious life. But you may never dismiss someone from religous life until they have been dismissed from the clerical state first.
10. If the Vatican does not approve the dismissal from the clerical state, the Franciscan Order cannot dismiss him. He reamins within the order, but his is suspended. The individual and the Major Superior have to workout a life plan for him.
11. If the Vatican approves the dismissal from the clerical state, there is still the matter of the religious vows. If his Major Superior does not succeed in getting him dismissed from the religoius life, he is stuck with him and the man is stuck in the Order as a friar. He will have all the rights and duties of any friar. His activities are regulated by his superior and his brothers.
12. Usually, if there is ground to dismiss you from the cliercal state, those same grounds can be used to dimiss you from the religious life.

Where is this case right now? I have no idea. This information is not allowed to be shared. The Major Superiors can be excommunicated for sharing that information. They can only say that someone has been suspended or that someone has been dismissed. But they cannot share anything that is not already known in public. This is done in justice to the sinner. Just like the priest in the confessional cannot share, the Church cannot discuss the status of someone’s soul or someon’s sin.

I hope this helps at least a little.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

The 2 young men I discussed in my last entry - one became a father & one dismissed. The first was a Novice, the second a Postulant.
Leaving me to suggest (at least the Franciscan rules) are flexible.

The Order decided to financially support the mother & child.

 

[JReducation]

The 2 young men I discussed in my last entry - one became a father & one dismissed. The first was a Novice, the second a Postulant.
Leaving me to suggest (at least the Franciscan rules) are flexible.

The Order decided to financially support the mother & child.

Actually, the rules are not that flexible once you make solemn vows. I’m not sure what you mean by “became a father”. Do you mean a Dad or a priest?

Postulants are not religious. They can be dismissed without any due process. Novices are religious. They have a right to due process according the constitutions and canon law.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Actually, the rules are not that flexible once you make solemn vows. I’m not sure what you mean by “became a father”. Do you mean a Dad or a priest?

Postulants are not religious. They can be dismissed without any due process. Novices are religious. They have a right to due process according the constitutions and canon law.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Dear Brother, I mean ‘Dad’. And thank you for (once again) clarifying proceedings.
Regardless (personally) I think this a little unfair - implication being, once admitted and accepted to make vows, one is shielded from scandal; figuratively speaking a wall goes up and wrongdoing becomes an internal matter.

 

[JReducation]

Dear Brother, I mean ‘Dad’. And thank you for (once again) clarifying proceedings.
Regardless (personally) I think this a little unfair - implication being, once admitted and accepted to make vows, one is shielded from scandal; figuratively speaking a wall goes up and wrongdoing becomes an internal matter.

I can understand why that would look unfair. But one must also understand the sacredness of the vows. There is an unfortunate side here. Once a man is in a religious order, it is very difficult to get rid of him. This is not a walk in the park for the order either. I have been a superior. I have never had a case like this. Our community is very young. Thank God. But I’ve had to run a house with some difficult people and difficult situations. It is a real penance for the superior and for the other brothers when such tragedy strikes.

But this is also an example of our strong faith in our vows. We believe in the power of the bond, despite sin. We believe in the power of God, despite sin. In other words, sin cannot undo what God has done. Looked at from this perspective, it speaks about the faith fo the Church in the Sacrament of Baptissm. The vows are an extension of the Sacrament of Baptism. Just like you cannot undo a Baptism, you cannot undo its natural entension, which is religious vows. That why in the process of dismissal what is put before the council is the validity of the profession of the vows. You’re not asking to dismiss with the vows. You’re asking that a person be dismissed because he had no intention of living the vows or was unable to live the vows when he made them, thus rendering the act null and void.

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Lucyabe]

I can understand why that would look unfair. But one must also understand the sacredness of the vows. There is an unfortunate side here. Once a man is in a religious order, it is very difficult to get rid of him. This is not a walk in the park for the order either. I have been a superior. I have never had a case like this. Our community is very young. Thank God. But I’ve had to run a house with some difficult people and difficult situations. It is a real penance for the superior and for the other brothers when such tragedy strikes.

But this is also an example of our strong faith in our vows. We believe in the power of the bond, despite sin. We believe in the power of God, despite sin. In other words, sin cannot undo what God has done. Looked at from this perspective, it speaks about the faith fo the Church in the Sacrament of Baptissm. The vows are an extension of the Sacrament of Baptism. Just like you cannot undo a Baptism, you cannot undo its natural entension, which is religious vows. That why in the process of dismissal what is put before the council is the validity of the profession of the vows. You’re not asking to dismiss with the vows. You’re asking that a person be dismissed because he had no intention of living the vows or was unable to live the vows when he made them, thus rendering the act null and void.

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Lucyabe]

I can understand why that would look unfair. But one must also understand the sacredness of the vows. There is an unfortunate side here. Once a man is in a religious order, it is very difficult to get rid of him. This is not a walk in the park for the order either. I have been a superior. I have never had a case like this. Our community is very young. Thank God. But I’ve had to run a house with some difficult people and difficult situations. It is a real penance for the superior and for the other brothers when such tragedy strikes.

But this is also an example of our strong faith in our vows. We believe in the power of the bond, despite sin. We believe in the power of God, despite sin. In other words, sin cannot undo what God has done. Looked at from this perspective, it speaks about the faith fo the Church in the Sacrament of Baptissm. The vows are an extension of the Sacrament of Baptism. Just like you cannot undo a Baptism, you cannot undo its natural entension, which is religious vows. That why in the process of dismissal what is put before the council is the validity of the profession of the vows. You’re not asking to dismiss with the vows. You’re asking that a person be dismissed because he had no intention of living the vows or was unable to live the vows when he made them, thus rendering the act null and void.

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

OFF THE SUBEJCT A BIT, I am wondering about sacredness of vows taken by Brothers and Sisters - are they as difficult to “undo” as the priestly religious vows? I thought not, but maybe I am mistaken. And Br JR, OSF, are you a brother or a priest?? - you say you’ve been a superior, and I figure it would need to be a priest – yet, you have BR. prefix.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Dear Brother,
You sound very human! A Superior and very human. The Lord moves in mysterious ways. Your thoughts give very reasonable and sound advice.
I’ll enter you into my analogue of those to pray for.

If it is not beyond grounds of discretion,tell us a little more of the Order of which are a member - you whet our appetite for more.

 

[JReducation]

OFF THE SUBEJCT A BIT, I am wondering about sacredness of vows taken by Brothers and Sisters - are they as difficult to “undo” as the priestly religious vows? I thought not, but maybe I am mistaken. And Br JR, OSF, are you a brother or a priest?? - you say you’ve been a superior, and I figure it would need to be a priest – yet, you have BR. prefix.

All of us make the same vows.: chastity, poverty and obedience. Some religious communities have additional vows. If a priest is a diocesan priest, he does not make any vows. Only men and women who belong to religious orders make vows, whether they are ordained or not.

Yes, in my community we all use the title Brother. No one is allowed to use the title Father. The reason is that when we were founded the founders wanted to return to the primitive spirit of St. Francis. St. Francis did not allow anyone to use call anyone Father, except him. Though he himself was never a priest. He has always been Father Francis, because he is the founder and the first superior general. But he was a lay man in vows. There were many priests who joined the order from 1209 to today. Not all of the brothers are priests.

I am not a priest. But I am a brother. Yes, any member of the order who is in solemn vows can be elected superior. He can be the local superior, the provincial (regional) superior or the general superior. Each superior is elected for three years and can be re-elected for another three. Then he must step down. He may be elected again, in the future. But no one may hold the position for more than two consecutive terms. In the Franciscan tradition, being a superior is a little different from other traditions. In the Franciscan tradtion, the superior owes obedience to the brothers. He must submit to what the brothers command. They get together every month for a meeting that we call a chapter. At that meeting decisions are made and the superior must enforce them or execute them. When he gives an order, he is ordering in the name of the brotherhood. No superior can make unilateral decisions, except in emergencies. Then he must report to the brothers as quckly as possible. A superior is a servant, not a father. Only Francis was our Father.

In a clerical order such as the Carmelites, the superior must always be a priest. But Franciscans are not a clerical order, neither are Benedictines. The Abbot may be a lay man.

Does this help?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF