It does to me. I sue folks for child support. Ponder this: What if a family-owned business said it was paying their son minimum wage so the kid’s child support obligation (to that woman they never liked) would be low? That happens.So, the argument is, since the priests or religious brothers work for the catholic church, and the catholic church “deprives” them of a real salary, it is the church’s responsibility to pay child support. That makes no sense to me.
But that is different. The parents are trying to get around the system. Religious brothers willingly choose their vows of poverty, so the courts should have to go off of their salaries rather than the church’s. I mean, isn’t child support supposed to be based on the parent’s salary? I’m not very familiar with child support laws and all that, but it’s not like the Church is purposely lowering the brothers or priests wages to try and cheat the system. That’s the salary all of them receive.It does to me. I sue folks for child support. Ponder this: What if a family-owned business said it was paying their son minimum wage so the kid’s child support obligation (to that woman they never liked) would be low? That happens.
So children that are adults now can go back and sue businesses, corporation, or family businesses for child support that was not received when they were children? Ponder how many deadbeat dads that has not paid child support and is dead and gone but the business, corporation, or family business still exist? If it can be proved that they were the employer at one time or the other? IMO an interesting concept.It does to me. I sue folks for child support. Ponder this: What if a family-owned business said it was paying their son minimum wage so the kid’s child support obligation (to that woman they never liked) would be low? That happens.
Oh, wow.But that is different. The parents are trying to get around the system. Religious brothers willingly choose their vows of poverty, so the courts should have to go off of their salaries rather than the church’s. I mean, isn’t child support supposed to be based on the parent’s salary? I’m not very familiar with child support laws and all that, but it’s not like the Church is purposely lowering the brothers or priests wages to try and cheat the system. That’s the salary all of them receive.
No. It’s based on the ‘reasonable needs of the child’. This usually expressed as a percentage of the father’s income. But for very high income earners (like professional athletes) and very low income earners we exclusively use the standard of what the child needs.I mean, isn’t child support supposed to be based on the parent’s salary?
It was (and is) very common for women to have an affair with the priest who was acting as marriage counselor. One can say that it was up to the woman to know better, but you know, it takes TWO. He should have known better too.And the most legitimate family possible would have been an adoptive one - an option the mother refused.
I have no sympathy for these women who get themselves sexually and emotionally involved with men that they know are priests.
No matter how naive a woman is, she knows not to have sex out of marriage. The article says she went to the priest for marriage counseling. So, she was married and too naive to know that sex with someone not her husband wasn’t a “no-no”??? Give me a break!
Generally no.So children that are adults now can go back and sue businesses, corporation, or family businesses for child support that was not received when they were children?
Let’s assume the story is true for argument’s sake. In the first case we have a priest urging an abortion and then getting her pregnant again.
I hope he was fired. He had no right to remain a priest.
The honorable thing would have been for him to be sacked, marry the woman and get a job outside the church, and support her and the child.
As a former Protestant, I’m getting a bit fed up with what appears to be a Catholic tradition of covering up.
**It was (and is) very common for women to have an affair with the priest who was acting as marriage counselor. ** When you make such a statement it’s reasonable that other posters expect to see sources, not simply two anecdotes known to you. So, please, your sources (documentaion) for your conclusion.
One can say that it was up to the woman to know better, but you know, it takes TWO. He should have known better too.
My step-father was divorced for the same reason before he met my mom: His wife and he went to the Church for a marriage counselor, the parish sent out a priest (not sure if he was the pastor himself). It took a while for step-dad to figure out that his wife was sleeping with the priest. When he did, he divorced her. The priest left the priesthood and married her. Priest and wife lived happily ever after in the house that step-dad built for his family and seven children.
When my mom went to Italy for her honeymoon in my dad’s native town, there was a pretty blue bow on the door of the parish. When she remarked how pretty to bow was and asked about it, she was hushed. Later she was told that parishioners put a pink or blue bow on the door of the parish when a priest fathered a child.
Guys this is old news. Priests are just men, like everyone else. They fall into sin, like everyone else. The difference here in this case is that this is between two consenting adults. I realize they’re held to a higher standard, but people are the same no matter where you go.
As to the Church trying to cover it up, what do you expect? As to the cover ups, it’s consistent isn’t it? At least, as I said, it was among consenting adults. Pick your battles. I don’t mean to be uncharitable, but that’s what you get for sleeping around, and then again, with a priest. The fact is, until women demand a higher standard before sleeping with someone, this will always happen no matter what hat the lover is wearing.
Then the number’s $0. Religious don’t see any money. Any money they get for work they do goes directly to their order.What is relevant is how much the non-custodial parent earns, since that is how we come to a figure for child support amounts. If I were suing someone who worked for a religious organization, I’d laugh about any statement concerning a vow of poverty.
Religious don’t make anything. No salary whatsoever. From what I’ve heard from Brother JR here on CAF (who is a Franciscan), first thing they do is sign a legal document disowning any current and future assets. All their needs (so say food, shelter, etc) are met by their Order. They have nothing of their own.The organization has so much control over how much the person makes, that just taking a percentage of the father’s earnings is inappropriate. It not like the father has negotiated his salary.
So, if the order is basically their piggy bank or subsidizer, as a lawyer I’d look to the order to meet any member’s financial obligations. That’s pretty basic law.All their needs (so say food, shelter, etc) are met by their Order. They have nothing of their own.
A reality check so to speak. I think this is a healthy way of looking at it. If it’s true about the payment, that is, it was to keep the Priest’s sin a secret, then the Catholic administrators who resolved this situation this way need that reality check.Guys this is old news. Priests are just men, like everyone else. They fall into sin, like everyone else. The difference here in this case is that this is between two consenting adults. I realize they’re held to a higher standard, but people are the same no matter where you go.
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.A reality check so to speak. I think this is a healthy way of looking at it. If it’s true about the payment, that is, it was to keep the Priest’s sin a secret, then the Catholic administrators who resolved this situation this way need that reality check.
oops, there it is. That’s what makes this woman a victim. I wonder if that is the charge the payment was meant to avoid. That opens up other possibilities as to how this situation unfolded.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.
I don’t know if I’ve said it already, but I’m not a lawyer. I’m just pointing out some facts. Maybe that is the law, I don’t know.So, if the order is basically their piggy bank or subsidizer, as a lawyer I’d look to the order to meet any member’s financial obligations. That’s pretty basic law.
From what I understand about religious life, first they would have to request permission from their superior to sue someone (forgive me if I’m off in left field here, but I couldn’t see it happening), but if they did, then yes the Order would get the money.If a Franciscan sued for getting hit by a car or dying in a plane crash, wouldn’t the order get the money?
Well, candidly, I don’t know if an order could sue for wrongful death (its like the problem with gay folks in hospitals, where’s the legal relation?) but if a member got hit by a car the member could sue for damages. That money (particularly if the member could not work for a period) would be based on the injury and* income* and the funds would go to the order, particularly if the members owned nothing.From what I understand about religious life, first they would have to request permission from their superior to sue someone (forgive me if I’m off in left field here, but I couldn’t see it happening), but if they did, then yes the Order would get the money.
When the group is financially responsible for the miscreant or was negligent as to his or her act toward a third party.By what legal rule or doctrine and in which jurisdiction, can a third party not-quite-an-employer actually be sued for child support? .
So, the argument is, since the priests or religious brothers work for the catholic church, and the catholic church “deprives” them of a real salary, it is the church’s responsibility to pay child support. That makes no sense to me.
By what legal rule or doctrine and in which jurisdiction, can a third party not-quite-an-employer actually be sued for child support?
How would the Church or religious orders be found negligent in these cases? Many of these affairs would not have been known to them until it is reported to the priest’s superiors.**When the group is financially responsible for the miscreant or was negligent as to his or her act toward a third party. **