Errant priests’ secret children to sue church

[Just_Lurking]

Scenario: Person A has a million dollars, and wrongfully injures person B. In order to avoid paying, person A uses his million dollars to buy a piece of chewing gum from person C. Now, person A’s entire assets consist of a piece of chewing gum. Person B sues person A, and obtains a judgment for a million dollars.

Question: Is it morally or legally right that person B should be able to go after the million dollars that person C got from person A in order to collect on the judgment, or is person B out of luck because person A successfully managed to divest his assets?

My answer: Because the transaction between person A and person C was not a fair business transaction, the unfair gain that person C realized from the transaction is subject to seizure in order to satisfy person A’s obligations.

Application: Because the diocese pays the priest less than the fair market value of his services, they become liable for his legal and financial obligations to the extent that they have benefited from underpaying the priest.

 

[Santi2]

Because the diocese pays the priest less than the fair market value of his services, they become liable for his legal and financial obligations to the extent that they have benefited from underpaying the priest

That’s well and good if the Church is just another employer and the priest is just another employee, which they are not. There is also a matter to consider in some cases where the priest is not salaried but monies received is a stipend because like us, they also have got to eat…amongst other things. Another issue to consider is that monies that dioceses have are not earmarked for errors of their priests in these cases but, for the work that dioceses do.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

That’s well and good if the Church is just another employer and the priest is just another employee, which they are not. There is also a matter to consider in some cases where the priest is not salaried but monies received is a stipend because like us, they also have got to eat…amongst other things. Another issue to consider is that monies that dioceses have are not earmarked for errors of their priests in these cases but, for the work that dioceses do.

Well, let’s be a little real world here. A child has to eat every day and a non-custodial parent is required by law to contribute to that support. If the parent has no income, that person is required to look for a job and demonstrate each month where he or she has searched. A ‘baby daddy’ cannot just sit back and say he has no job.

Now, in the present case the father is a member of an order which supports his needs. So, its not a great leap to figure the order may have to pay for the member’s responsibilities, too. It happens to be the right thing to do.

 

[Santi2]

Well, let’s be a little real world here. A child has to eat every day and a non-custodial parent is required by law to contribute to that support. If the parent has no income, that person is required to look for a job and demonstrate each month where he or she has searched. A ‘baby daddy’ cannot just sit back and say he has no job.

We are in perfect agreement on that basis.

Now, in the present case the father is a member of an order which supports his needs. So, its not a great leap to figure the order may have to pay for the member’s responsibilities, too. It happens to be the right thing to do.

If the diocese and/or religious order has not dismissed the priest then they would most definitely be bound to provide financial support, by virtue of charity, to the child whose welfare must be of paramount concern. However, I still have reservations in finding legal obligation because I doubt whether the same would bind where the priest was dismissed

 

[ChadS]

This article contains a lot more information about Willenborg and the child he fathered. It’s a little long but goes into a great bit of detail on this one particular case.

nytimes.com/2009/10/16/us/16priest.html?ref=us

From my reading of the article it seems that the Franciscans have given more money to this woman and her son than they ever would’ve received from an absent father. It appears the Franciscans gave well past his 18th birthday, when a father’s legal obligations would’ve ended, and helped to finance his education. They also paid half of his college tuition and gave a stipend of over $500 a month. Once their son became ill the Franciscans continued to pay for his medical expenses and only balked when they said she wasn’t properly accounting for various expenses and as it is in cases like this, she said she was properly accounting her expenses.

ChadS

 

[Santi2]

This article contains a lot more information about Willenborg and the child he fathered. It’s a little long but goes into a great bit of detail on this one particular case.

nytimes.com/2009/10/16/us…st.html?ref=us

From my reading of the article it seems that the Franciscans have given more money to this woman and her son than they ever would’ve received from an absent father. It appears the Franciscans gave well past his 18th birthday, when a father’s legal obligations would’ve ended, and helped to finance his education. They also paid half of his college tuition and gave a stipend of over $500 a month. Once their son became ill the Franciscans continued to pay for his medical expenses and only balked when they said she wasn’t properly accounting for various expenses and as it is in cases like this, she said she was properly accounting her expenses.

ChadS

Yes, it seems to be the case that the Franciscans have not been amiss with financial help for Nathan. What surprises me though is that she now raises the issue that they “protected a philandering priest”.

 

[Benadam]

Ms. Bond, meanwhile, got help from a support group for women and priests involved in relationships. The group, Good Tidings, was founded by Cait Finnegan and her husband, a former Catholic priest, originally with the idea that they would help priests who had fallen in love to discern whether to leave the priesthood and marry, or remain in the priesthood and end the relationship.

This kind of thing should be developed and run from within the Church. If a Priest is violating his vows, a thorough process of discernment should be required, to either prevent the possibility of this kind of suffering or to answer to the needs that prevents this kind of suffering by means of vocational adjustments proper to the consequences of these kinds of vocational choices.

“We were naïve,” Mrs. Finnegan said. “We quickly discovered that many of these priests were playboys. They weren’t looking for any discernment, they were simply staying and playing.

The Priests who are not discerning simply remain in a state of dicipline that fosters vocational discernment so that they can make a more singular vocation out of the duplicity they have caused or be removed from clerical duties to focus solely on the life required of them as lay persons.

I’m sure I’m being a bit naiive and simplistic. Take it as my:twocents:

 

[Benadam]

Yes, it seems to be the case that the Franciscans have not been amiss with financial help for Nathan. What surprises me though is that she now raises the issue that they “protected a philandering priest”.

I don’t believe that they chose to do that. It seems to me they did what they thought was best. Unfortunately these kinds of circumstances require the kind of decisiveness most people find too difficult if they find it at all.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

From my reading of the article it seems that the Franciscans have given more money to this woman and her son than they ever would’ve received from an absent father. It appears the Franciscans gave well past his 18th birthday, when a father’s legal obligations would’ve ended, and helped to finance his education.

Child support ends at 18 (or high school graduation). After that a father is required to contribute to educational expenses. So the Franciscans did no more than what was required by law of a father.

 

[Sabda]

Yes, it seems to be the case that the Franciscans have not been amiss with financial help for Nathan. What surprises me though is that she now raises the issue that they “protected a philandering priest”.

So what was she doing? “Protecting a philandering priest?” Sorry but this lady will not get my sympathy.

Sounds to me like she was a VERY willing participant in all of this. After all she loved being with him even though she realized it was wrong. That’s in the Time’s article. She also very willingly left her husband for this priest.

It also sounds like she is doing nothing more than leeching off the Friars.

BTW, there’s no mention of any child support she was getting from the husband. So she was getting child support from both the husband and the Friars? With 3 kids from the marriage that had to be quite a bit of money. OUCH on the part of the husband.

So let’s recap.

She was having trouble in her marriage. Goes to a marriage retreat for women held by the Church. Good for her. :yup:

At the retreat the priest kisses her and she obviously enjoys it. After all she left the husband shortly afterward. :nope: She should have slapped that priest for kissing her and reported him right then and there! :sad_yes:

She then goes on to live with the priest in a “pretend” marriage and has children with him even though she realizes it’s wrong. :nope:

Spends her child’s whole life milking these Friars out of money. Again why am I supposed to feel sorry for her?

For the record I’m not defending the priest here, but the tone in both of those articles make these women sound like innocent victims.

 

[catharina]

So what was she doing? “Protecting a philandering priest?” Sorry but this lady will not get my sympathy.

Sounds to me like she was a VERY willing participant in all of this. After all she loved being with him even though she realized it was wrong. That’s in the Time’s article. She also very willingly left her husband for this priest.

It also sounds like she is doing nothing more than leeching off the Friars.

BTW, there’s no mention of any child support she was getting from the husband. So she was getting child support from both the husband and the Friars? With 3 kids from the marriage that had to be quite a bit of money. OUCH on the part of the husband.

So let’s recap.

She was having trouble in her marriage. Goes to a marriage retreat for women held by the Church. Good for her. :yup:

At the retreat the priest kisses her and she obviously enjoys it. After all she left the husband shortly afterward. :nope: She should have slapped that priest for kissing her and reported him right then and there! :sad_yes:

She then goes on to live with the priest in a “pretend” marriage and has children with him even though she realizes it’s wrong. :nope:

Spends her child’s whole life milking these Friars out of money. Again why am I supposed to feel sorry for her?

For the record I’m not defending the priest here, but the tone in both of those articles make these women sound like innocent victims.

Repeating my words from Post # 32:

**Yet (I’ve hesitated to point this out) if one party is a priest then he can be seen to be guilty of “an abuse of power.” In fact, this is the common claimwhen a priest fails to live up to his priestly obligations and instead makews use of his position to gain sexual contact. The claim is used as justifiably against doctors and therapists too. So - in this sense - we are NOT talking about a meeting between two equals. **

 

[Sabda]

Repeating my words from Post # 32:

**Yet (I’ve hesitated to point this out) if one party is a priest then he can be seen to be guilty of “an abuse of power.” In fact, this is the common claimwhen a priest fails to live up to his priestly obligations and instead makews use of his position to gain sexual contact. The claim is used as justifiably against doctors and therapists too. So - in this sense - we are NOT talking about a meeting between two equals. **

The woman still had the power and in fact obligation to say no and chose not too. No where in those articles does it state that she claims to have been forced. She herself admits she liked it and stayed because she wanted to. She also admits that she knew it was wrong.

As I stated above I’m not defending the priest. His actions where very wrong.

 

[Benadam]

The woman still had the power and in fact obligation to say no and chose not too. No where in those articles does it state that she claims to have been forced. She herself admits she liked it and stayed because she wanted to. She also admits that she knew it was wrong.

As I stated above I’m not defending the priest. His actions where very wrong.

The psychological dynamics within the counseling environment, especially marriage counseling, makes the patient extremely vulnerable to the counselor. The patient’s construct of reality becomes maleable in the hands of the counselor. Tranference is a powerfull psychological dynamic. The Priest wasn’t too worried about rejection if he was bold eneough that his first move towards physical intimacy was a passionate kiss. That confidence is imo a response to the vulerability of a patients state of dependence on the counselor due to the psychological dynamics peculiar to a therapist patient relationship. Judgeing from her marital history she was probably in a state of theraputic codependence that makes it difficult to discern that her counselor could do wrong.

 

[catharina]

The woman still had the power and in fact obligation to say no and chose not too. No where in those articles does it state that she claims to have been forced. She herself admits she liked it and stayed because she wanted to. She also admits that she knew it was wrong.

As I stated above I’m not defending the priest. His actions where very wrong.

Sorry you don’t seem to understand what I’m saying.
The legal principle involved is simply “abuse of power” and while state laws vary,
many states do recognize this principle as a way to hold one party (clergy) as culpable
and the other party (often a female parishoner) as the victimized.
It’s a matter of who has the ACTUAL power in this sort of ‘relationship.’

 

[catharina]

The psychological dynamics within the counseling environment, especially marriage counseling, makes the patient extremely vulnerable to the counselor. The patient’s construct of reality becomes maleable in the hands of the counselor. Tranference is a powerfull psychological dynamic. The Priest wasn’t too worried about rejection if he was bold eneough that his first move towards physical intimacy was a passionate kiss. That confidence is imo a response to the vulerability of a patients state of dependence on the counselor due to the psychological dynamics peculiar to a therapist patient relationship. Judgeing from her marital history she was probably in a state of theraputic codependence that makes it difficult to discern that her counselor could do wrong.

Thanks for jumping in here.
What you’ve said makes perfect sense to me.
Hope your words help the other poster.
Bless you.

 

[Sabda]

The psychological dynamics within the counseling environment, especially marriage counseling, makes the patient extremely vulnerable to the counselor. The patient’s construct of reality becomes maleable in the hands of the counselor. Tranference is a powerfull psychological dynamic. The Priest wasn’t too worried about rejection if he was bold eneough that his first move towards physical intimacy was a passionate kiss. That confidence is imo a response to the vulerability of a patients state of dependence on the counselor due to the psychological dynamics peculiar to a therapist patient relationship. Judgeing from her marital history she was probably in a state of theraputic codependence that makes it difficult to discern that her counselor could do wrong.

She admits that she knew it was wrong. Like I said I’m not defending the priest.

 

[Santi2]

I don’t believe that they chose to do that. It seems to me they did what they thought was best. Unfortunately these kinds of circumstances require the kind of decisiveness most people find too difficult if they find it at all.

Yes, I agree with you. I think she is wrongly-advised to play the “protecting a philandering priest” card because I do not think his dismissal by the Franciscans would have provided support for the child.

Sorry but this lady will not get my sympathy.

Sounds to me like she was a VERY willing participant in all of this. After all she loved being with him even though she realized it was wrong. That’s in the Time’s article. She also very willingly left her husband for this priest.

It also sounds like she is doing nothing more than leeching off the Friars.

She may have contributed to her state of affairs and may have the background one could perhaps raise against her. However, while I do not agree with her decision against the Franciscans now, I do find compassion for her because I am a mother. It is from that shared position that one tries to understand Ms Bond’s circumstances because it is not her story anymore. The whole affair centres on a very sick child now. Whether she “milked” the Franciscans is irrelevant to me. She seemed to have kept within her obligations under the agreement…until her son got sick. If it were the case that Ms Bond and her son lived in the UK where medical treatment is free, I doubt whether she would have breached her agreement with the Franciscans. But, where finances is crucial to medical treatment for her son, I suppose Ms Bond is bent on alternative source because she has nothing to lose but, much to gain…her son. The difficulty in this situation is that she has fallen away from the Church. When that happens, any hardship becomes such a burden because one clutches straws and leaving everything to God in respect of her son’s medical condition becomes a strained affair.

 

[pnewton]

From a legal standpoint I will be curiout how the argue they were damaged to the tune of 10 million. That would be a remarkable and unique price for having a child out of wedlock. I can’t stand greed.