Priest provides minimal support for his son!

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Nohome:

Pardon me for expecting more from God’s “one true church”.

Nohome

This has nothing to do with the Church.

This has to do with a man, a woman, and maybe (one can argue both ways) a religious order.

But I see you did not answer my query on what if this man was not a religious priest but a homeless man (who would then also have no property) would you still cry for his blood?

 

[AmyS]

Wow, she gets more money than I do in child support!

 

[stanley123]

From the article in the LA Times:

"After learning that she was pregnant, Collopy tried various methods to get Uribe or his superiors to provide adequate child support.

In 1992, she sued the Archdiocese of Portland and the Redemptorists for $200,000, alleging that Uribe breached his fiduciary duty as someone who “performed pastoral duties for the archdiocese.”

Under the direction of Portland’s archbishop at the time, William J. Levada, church attorneys tried to get the suit dismissed in 1994 on several grounds. In a motion, they argued that the “birth of the plaintiff’s child and the resultant expenses … are the result of the plaintiff’s own negligence” because she engaged in “unprotected intercourse.”

Levada, now in his final month as the archbishop of San Francisco, was recently named head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a Vatican position that makes him chief guardian of Roman Catholic doctrine worldwide. That position was previously held by Cardinal Joseph A. Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI."

What I was wondering about here was the change in Catholic teaching on birth control. Assuming that the article is correct, it looks like there has been an essential change in Catholic doctrine on this issue, as according to the article, the lawyer for the present head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a Vatican position that makes him chief guardian of Roman Catholic doctrine worldwide, has argued in Court that Ms. Collopy was negligent because she did not use artificial birth control when she was having sex with the Catholic priest (who was a seminarian at that time). I thought that Catholics were not supposed to use artificial birth control while having sex, even if they are having sex with a Catholic priest. However, now it looks like according the lawyer for the present head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a Vatican position that makes him chief guardian of Roman Catholic doctrine worldwide, you are negligent unless you use artificial birth control while you are having sex with a Catholic priest. What is not clear is whether this charge of negligence would apply only to situations where a Catholic is having sex with a Catholic priest or seminarian, or would it apply also in the cse of two unmarried lay Catholics?

 

[Ghosty]

stanley123: The point wasn’t that she SHOULD have used protection, but that she made a personal choice to not use it and is now bearing the natural results of sexual intercourse.

Keep in mind that the quote in question about “unprotected sex” comes from a legal motion by lawyers, not a Catholic teaching. Such is the language of law, because secular law recognizes the right and ability to use protection regardless of what the Church believes. The lawyers were simply using a secular argument in a secular Church, because a religious claim would not be likely to fly.

 

[Nohome]

Ghosty:

stanley123: The point wasn’t that she SHOULD have used protection, but that she made a personal choice to not use it and is now bearing the natural results of sexual intercourse.

Keep in mind that the quote in question about “unprotected sex” comes from a legal motion by lawyers, not a Catholic teaching. Such is the language of law, because secular law recognizes the right and ability to use protection regardless of what the Church believes. The lawyers were simply using a secular argument in a secular Church, because a religious claim would not be likely to fly.

Translation: the clergy didn’t have a leg to stand on so they were grabbing for straws.

Ghosty, you have got to be kidding.

Nohome

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Nohome:

Can someone help me understand this? If he fathered a child WHILE HE WAS A SEMINARIAN, why was he allowed to become a priest?

Sometimes I swear that the RCC is its own worst enemy.

Nohome

That’s no worse than the Irish priest who was ordained - although he was known to molest boys, and had done so shortly before being ordained​

It goes without saying that this little detail was not told to the parishioners of the parishes he was unloaded on.

The last pope did absolutely nothing to clean up clerical morals :banghead: :banghead: - if they look orthodox, or sound orthodox, they can be pimps, adulterers, and fornicators: nothing else matters. Result: the Church is turned into a cess-pit. Maybe the clergy should wear chastity belts - or even become “eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven” in good earnest ##

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Nohome:

Translation: the clergy didn’t have a leg to stand on so they were grabbing for straws.

Ghosty, you have got to be kidding.

Nohome

Actually they had much legal precedent to stand on as proven by the fact that the case did not go for the mother.

She really had no right to sue the Archdiocese or the Religious Order in this. That would be like sueing a man employer to get more child support.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

## That’s no worse than the Irish priest who was ordained - although he was known to molest boys, and had done so shortly before being ordained

It goes without saying that this little detail was not told to the parishioners of the parishes he was unloaded on.

The last pope did absolutely nothing to clean up clerical morals :banghead: :banghead: - if they look orthodox, or sound orthodox, they can be pimps, adulterers, and fornicators: nothing else matters. Result: the Church is turned into a cess-pit. Maybe the clergy should wear chastity belts - or even become “eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven” in good earnest ##

A big RED HERRING!

 

[Nohome]

ByzCath:

Actually they had much legal precedent to stand on as proven by the fact that the case did not go for the mother.

You might want to go back and read all three pages of the article. She was successful in court when the clergy used the “unprotected sex” defense. It was only her recent attempt to place her son on his health insurance that failed.

She obviously had every right in the world to sue, that is why she is collecting child support.

Nohome

 

[stanley123]

Ghosty:

Keep in mind that the quote in question about “unprotected sex” comes from a legal motion by lawyers, not a Catholic teaching…

True, these are lawyers for the present head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a Vatican position that makes him chief guardian of Roman Catholic doctrine worldwide.
According to these lawyers for the chief guardian of Catholic doctrine worldwide, a Catholic is negligent if she has sex with a Catholic priest and does not use artificial birth control???

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Nohome:

You might want to go back and read all three pages of the article. She was successful in court when the clergy used the “unprotected sex” defense. It was only her recent attempt to place her son on his health insurance that failed.

She obviously had every right in the world to sue, that is why she is collecting child support.

Nohome

I did read it. The child support comes from the religious order. The “unprotected sex” defense was from the archdiocese.

Also that case was not about child support, in that case she was suing for $200,000.

The excerpt posted does not tell the out come as it was posted in an attempt to denigrate the archbishop.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

stanley123:

True, these are lawyers for the present head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a Vatican position that makes him chief guardian of Roman Catholic doctrine worldwide.
According to these lawyers for the chief guardian of Catholic doctrine worldwide, a Catholic is negligent if she has sex with a Catholic priest and does not use artificial birth control???

Actually these lawyers were the lawyers for the Archdiocese of Portland in 1992. Yes the Archibishop who is now the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but he wasn’t then so bring that up smells very much like a RED HERRING.

 

[Ghosty]

True, these are lawyers for the present head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a Vatican position that makes him chief guardian of Roman Catholic doctrine worldwide.
According to these lawyers for the chief guardian of Catholic doctrine worldwide, a Catholic is negligent if she has sex with a Catholic priest and does not use artificial birth control???

As ByzCath stated, they were lawyers from a different time. Even if they weren’t, however, the U.S. legal system pretty much requires that you lay out ALL possible objections in a case. Regardless, the negligence wasn’t that she SHOULD have used birth control, but that she engaged in “unprotected sex” knowing what the possible outcome was. For the unmarried, that is indeed very negligent.

 

[Nohome]

Ghosty:

Regardless, the negligence wasn’t that she SHOULD have used birth control, but that she engaged in “unprotected sex” knowing what the possible outcome was. For the unmarried, that is indeed very negligent.

Surely you must be aware of the concept of “contributory negligence”. In this case the fact that the woman was incapable of becoming pregnant on her own means that someone else (the seminarian) contributed to her situation. Men are just as capable of sexual responsibility as women.

Nohome

 

[Nohome]

ByzCath:

I did read it. The child support comes from the religious order. The “unprotected sex” defense was from the archdiocese.

Hmmm, what ever happened to “one true Church”?

From the story:

In 1994, the archdiocese — headed by then-Archbishop of Portland William Joseph Levada, now a cardinal in the Vatican and advisor to Pope Benedict XVI — filed a motion to have Collopy’s suit thrown out.

The archdiocese said it had never directly employed Uribe. It further argued that “no one other than the parents are responsible for support of a minor child” and that the case had statute of limitations problems.

Finally, the archdiocese said the “birth of the plaintiff’s child and the resultant expenses … are the result of the plaintiff’s own negligence,” specifically because she engaged in “unprotected intercourse.”
Can you say HYPOCRACY?

ByzCath:

The excerpt posted does not tell the out come as it was posted in an attempt to denigrate the archbishop.

Again, from the story:

In exchange for Collopy dropping the suit and signing a confidentiality agreement, the Redemptorists agreed in 1994 to pay monthly support until Collopy’s son turned 21.

Soon after the agreement was signed, Uribe was ordained as a Redemptorist priest.

So there you have it the Church wanted to brush this one under the rug too. Hey ByzCath, is this a red herring too or can we agree that this guy should never have been ordained?

Nohome

 

[Ghosty]

Surely you must be aware of the concept of “contributory negligence”. In this case the fact that the woman was incapable of becoming pregnant on her own means that someone else (the seminarian) contributed to her situation. Men are just as capable of sexual responsibility as women.

You’re putting things to me that have nothing to do with what I said. I was addressing the implication that the Church was abusing its own teaching on birth control in the interest of this case. I’ve said nothing else regarding this case, so your moves against what I’ve said are baseless.

That being said, I will chime in on the issue now. The woman has a right to go after the father of her child, but she has no right to go after his religious order. The fact that the man has nothing to contribute financially to the child is not the responsibility of the archdiocese or the religious order. The Church isn’t trying to cover anything up; the order and archdiocese in question just argue, rightly IMO, that they aren’t financially responsible for the child.

If you sue a homeless person, you can not receive money from the shelter that he stays at. Likewise, if you sue a man who has taken a voluntary vow of poverty, you shouldn’t recieve money from the organization that provides him with the basic needs of life.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Nohome:

Hmmm, what ever happened to “one true Church”?

From the story:

In 1994, the archdiocese — headed by then-Archbishop of Portland William Joseph Levada, now a cardinal in the Vatican and advisor to Pope Benedict XVI — filed a motion to have Collopy’s suit thrown out.

The archdiocese said it had never directly employed Uribe. It further argued that “no one other than the parents are responsible for support of a minor child” and that the case had statute of limitations problems.

Finally, the archdiocese said the “birth of the plaintiff’s child and the resultant expenses … are the result of the plaintiff’s own negligence,” specifically because she engaged in “unprotected intercourse.”
Can you say HYPOCRACY?

No, I can not say hypocracy but I can say hypocrisy but this is not a case of hypocrisy so saying it means nothing.

I see you list yourself as a “former catholic” so can you say “Issues” which you seem to be airing here?

As pointed out by Ghosty, employers have no responsibility for their employees children and I will add that seeing that the Archdiocese was not even his employer that this was a frivolous lawsuit in regards to the Archdiocese. She saw big pockets and hoped to hit the jackpot.

Again, from the story:

In exchange for Collopy dropping the suit and signing a confidentiality agreement, the Redemptorists agreed in 1994 to pay monthly support until Collopy’s son turned 21.

Soon after the agreement was signed, Uribe was ordained as a Redemptorist priest.

So there you have it the Church wanted to brush this one under the rug too. Hey ByzCath, is this a red herring too or can we agree that this guy should never have been ordained?

Nohome

Well now, she is in contempt of court as she has violated the confidentiality agreement.

No I can not say that he should not have been ordained. He commited no crime. We are all sinful human beings. This was worked out to the satisfaction of his superior otherwise the superior would not have sponsored him to a bishop for ordination.

 

[stanley123]

ByzCath:

Actually these lawyers were the lawyers for the Archdiocese of Portland in 1992. Yes the Archibishop who is now the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but he wasn’t then so bring that up smells very much like a RED HERRING.

Well, let’s go over the details of what has happened:
First of all the lawyers for Archbishop Levada file documents in court according to which they assert that an individual is negligent if she does not use birth control while having sex with a Catholic seminarian. There is no indication that this assertion was ever retracted. Then later on, this individual is chosen to be the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a Vatican position that makes him chief guardian of Roman Catholic doctrine worldwide.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

stanley123:

Well, let’s go over the details of what has happened:
First of all the lawyers for Archbishop Levada file documents in court according to which they assert that an individual is negligent if she does not use birth control while having sex with a Catholic seminarian. There is no indication that this assertion was ever retracted. Then later on, this individual is chosen to be the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a Vatican position that makes him chief guardian of Roman Catholic doctrine worldwide.

Yes lets go over the details and get the correct which you fail to do from the start.

The lawyers are for the Archdiocese of Portland as it was the Archdiocese that was named in the lawsuit, not Archbishop Levada.

Then the documents, which have nothing to do with the Church or its Teachings, make a statement as to where the responsibility lies. Again which has nothing to do with Church Teachings.

And there is your RED HERRING.

What the archbishop is doing today has nothing to do with this discussion. It is just an attempt to paint him in an unfavorable light.

 

[Nohome]

ByzCath:

No, I can not say hypocracy but I can say hypocrisy but this is not a case of hypocrisy so saying it means nothing.

I must confess, I can’t spell. I really wish CAF had spell checking.

ByzCath:

I see you list yourself as a “former catholic” so can you say “Issues” which you seem to be airing here?

I’m not certain if I’m a former catholic or if I never was one. I grew up in the 60’s and 70’s and my catholic education (or should I say indoctrination) was minimal at best, but I digress.

If your church would quit providing fodder, I would gladly cease airing my issues.

ByzCath:

As pointed out by Ghosty, employers have no responsibility for their employees children.

An employer that requires a vow of poverty assumes the obligations of the applicant. Obviously her case had merit or they would not have settled.

ByzCath:

He commited no crime.

He fathered a child and pursued a life he knew would not allow him to meet his family obligations. Criminal? Not likely. Ethical? Hardly. Not what I would call priestly behavior.

Nohome