Priest provides minimal support for his son!

[Nohome]

Ghosty:

I’ve said nothing else regarding this case, so your moves against what I’ve said are baseless.

Sorry you felt I was moving against you. I meant to counter the legal merits of your points.

Ghosty:

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.

I would agree except for the fact that the order requires a vow of poverty and they knew about the child before he became a priest. They should have either assumed full responsibility for the child or refused to ordain him (and suggest that he get a job and try to be the best father possible).

Nohome

 

[stanley123]

ByzCath:

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.

I look at it somehat differently. I would be interested to know if the following three points are correct or in error.

1. When Archbishop Levada was head of that diocese, lawyers for the archdiocese filed sworn documents in court according to which a Catholic who had sex with a Catholic seminarian, who is now a priest, was asserted to have been negligent because she did not use artificial birth control during the time that she was having sex with the seminarian.
2. The charge of negligence was never retracted by either the Archbishop or the Archdiocese.
3. The Archbishop, later on, after these sworn documents were filed in US Court asserting negligence for not using artificial birth control, was 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.

The above three points are given as a question as to whether or not they are correctly stated.

 

[Jodi]

This man is ignoring a VERY important calling. His calling as a father. Forget the money that boy needs a FATHER!!! It is that priests responsiblity to make sure he has one. I don’t care if he has to become homeless and sleep in an alley two blocks from his child. He needs to be in his sons life. To do anything other is a blot on his order. Having children is a serious responsibility and he is ignoring his role. I can promise you no matter where my children were I would be, regardless of the personal sacrifices. I am very disapointed that his order hasn’t prioritized his responsibilities correctly, but I know that they are human and have erred. I will pray that they see the light.

 

[stanley123]

Jodi:

This man is ignoring a VERY important calling. His calling as a father. Forget the money that boy needs a FATHER!!!.

This is very true, and sad.

 

[Ghosty]

I would agree except for the fact that the order requires a vow of poverty and they knew about the child before he became a priest. They should have either assumed full responsibility for the child or refused to ordain him (and suggest that he get a job and try to be the best father possible).

That’s a different issue, to be sure. Honestly, I’m not sure what responsibility the order has for this case. Could they have refused him? Certainly. Should they have? I’m not so sure. Having a child out of wedlock is not automatically grounds for refusing someone into the priesthood. Furthermore, it appears that the Order is actually paying MORE money to the woman than Uribe is legally obligated to pay. It seems that the fact is that the woman is getting more money by him being in the order than she would otherwise.

We don’t know what kind of penances or restrictions are being put on Uribe due to this, so I can’t comment on whether or not he’s “getting off scott free”. All I can say is that the woman is making more money than she would otherwise, and Uribe is accountable to God for his actions. Sounds like the limits of justice in this world is being borne out, unfortunately.

 

[stanley123]

Ghosty:

All I can say is that the woman is making more money than she would otherwise, and Uribe is accountable to God for his actions. .

I see it as a bit more than a matter of money. We have here a child, a human being, whose father has been absent (except for money). I would be inclined to say that a boy needs the love and understanding and companionship of his father, and should not be deprived of that.
Also, I believe it is wrong for a boy to grow up with the understnading that he was brought into the world because of negligence. At least that is what the lawyers for the archdioces which was under the leadership of the present head of of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a Vatican position that makes him chief guardian of Roman Catholic doctrine worldwide, have to say. According to sworn statements by these lawyers of this Catholic archdiocese, the boy was brought into the world because of negligence on the part of his mother who did not use artificial birth control. I believe that this is not a good thing to tell a boy, especially in a case where the father is absent and not giving the boy support and love.

 

[Karin]

:clapping:

stanley123:

I see it as a bit more than a matter of money. We have here a child, a human being, whose father has been absent (except for money). I would be inclined to say that a boy needs the love and understanding and companionship of his father, and should not be deprived of that.
Also, I believe it is wrong for a boy to grow up with the understnading that he was brought into the world because of negligence. At least that is what the lawyers for the archdioces which was under the leadership of the present head of of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a Vatican position that makes him chief guardian of Roman Catholic doctrine worldwide, have to say. According to sworn statements by these lawyers of this Catholic archdiocese, the boy was brought into the world because of negligence on the part of his mother who did not use artificial birth control. I believe that this is not a good thing to tell a boy, especially in a case where the father is absent and not giving the boy support and love.

 

[Ghosty]

According to sworn statements by these lawyers of this Catholic archdiocese, the boy was brought into the world because of negligence on the part of his mother who did not use artificial birth control.

Now, now, there’s no negligence in not using birth control. I’m not using birth control right now as I type this. The negligence was in having sex at all with a seminarian. The “without birth control” is simply added to prevent a legal issue in a system that does not recognize using birth control as a problem at all.

That being said, I agree the boy deserves a father. All the lawsuits in the world won’t give him that, though.

 

[Karin]

Ghosty:

Now, now, there’s no negligence in not using birth control. I’m not using birth control right now as I type this. The negligence was in having sex at all with a seminarian. Uh, last time I checked the sexual act that produces a child requires TWO people…he is equally to blame for having sex.Lets not pin all the blame on the mother! The “without birth control” is simply added to prevent a legal issue in a system that does not recognize using birth control as a problem at all.

That being said, I agree the boy deserves a father. All the lawsuits in the world won’t give him that, though.It seems that all the lawsuites do is provide a meager amount of support for the child…the priest never wanted to be a “father” as his actions have proved! Who does this hurt not the mother or the priest but the child! My question is how can he be a father to his parishioners when he refuses to be a “father” to his own flesh and blood???

 

[severinus]

Why, oh why, did a religious order keep a man who already had an obligation to a child? Why was he allowed to continue as a seminarian? Did I miss a papal document that allowed seminarians to engage in illicit sex and father children? Nobody sat this man down and said, “The seminary is a place of discernment; you have made your decision, son.”

That might seem like water under the bridge, but prudent judgment and action at the time by the man’s superiors would have avoided this entire disgusting mess. He made his choice and he should have been made to live with its consequences.

 

[contemplative]

http://photobucket.com/albums/y188/ginnyroc/th_stress.jpg

This article and thread is another perfect example why we shouldn’t have married priests.

 

[Veronica_Anne]

I’ve been reading all the posts on this thread so far. This is the comment that I have to make about your Point #3

stanley123:

1. The Archbishop, later on, after these sworn documents were filed in US Court asserting negligence for not using artificial birth control, was 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.

The above three points are given as a question as to whether or not they are correctly stated.

Yes. And (Simon) Peter denied Christ 3 times on Christ’s way to his crucifixion.

Peter is the one disciple of Christ who Christ, Himself, named as the head of His Church. Clearly, being a sinner does NOT exempt you from the call to serve Him.

 

[stanley123]

Veronica Anne:

Peter is the one disciple of Christ who Christ, Himself, named as the head of His Church. Clearly, being a sinner does NOT exempt you from the call to serve Him.

This is true, but it ignores the question of what constitutes true and sincere repentance. and it ignores the situation that this boy is in. The archbishop was head of an archdiocese where the lawyers for the Catholic Church say that the boy was brought into the world because of negligence on the part of the mother as she did not use artificial birth control while having sex with the Catholic seminarian. My personal opinion is that it is not a good idea for a father to abandon a boy by failing to offer him companionship and personal support and then to have lawyers of the Catholic Church tell him that he was brought into the world by negligence.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

contemplative:

http://photobucket.com/albums/y188/ginnyroc/th_stress.jpg

This article and thread is another perfect example why we shouldn’t have married priests.

I have to disagree with you most stongly especially becuase of the fact that we do have married priests.

Anyways, comparing this to married priests is comparing apples to oranges.

First, married priests with children take care of their children. Second, religious priests will never be allowed to be married, the ordaination of married men to the priesthood is for the secular priesthood only.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

stanley123:

This is true, but it ignores the question of what constitutes true and sincere repentance.

And who decides what constitutes true and sincere repentance?

Seeing that the Holy Father appointed this Archbishop to his new position I think the Holy Father is satisfied.

 

[stanley123]

ByzCath:

Seeing that the Holy Father appointed this Archbishop to his new position I think the Holy Father is satisfied.

I don’t see how the following question has been addressed:
Should we be concerned about the serious psychological impact it might have on a boy when:

1. He is raised without seeing his father, who is living, but is not giving him companionship and support. Basically, the father is rejecting his own son.
2. The boy is told that he was brought into the world because of negligence on the part of his parents. This is made clear to him in sworn Court documents which were filed by lawyers for the Catholic Church.

 

[Lost_Found]

Christ’s teachings are not easy to accept. Just the fact that he came here to establish a Church run by sinners as opposed to one run by angels. Ever wonder why He did that?

They chose to forgo a decent salary like you and I, and to give their collections to charity. They chose to forgo the glamour of family. They even chose to be in a position where their sins would be showcased on stage, unlike ours, which we keep neatly tucked away…. And yet they still screw up big time, all the time!! But on the other hand, I doubt Collopy is an angel either.

At the end of the day when you and I are done judging, let’s look inward for a minute. If a single person here sincerely cared about the boy, we would have seen at least one post asking where we could make a donation.

 

[Karin]

Lost&Found:

Christ’s teachings are not easy to accept. Just the fact that he came here to establish a Church run by sinners as opposed to one run by angels. Do we think about why he did that?

They chose to forgo a decent salary like you and I, and to give their collections to charity. They chose to forgo the glamour of family. They even chose to be in a position where their sins would be showcased on stage, unlike ours, which we keep neatly tucked away…. And yet they still screw up big time!! But on the other hand, I doubt Collopy is an angel either.

At the end of the day when you and I are done judging, let’s look inward for a minute. If a single person here sincerely cared about the boy, we would have seen at least one post asking where we could make a donation.

Making a donation will help financially also offering this mom a job that has some flexibilty in it to care for her sick child is also a good thing, but it still wont give this child a father…it seems from what i have read that this child has reached out to his father and has had the door SLAMMED in his face…what message does this send???

 

[Lost_Found]

Karin:

Making a donation will help financially also offering this mom a job that has some flexibilty in it to care for her sick child is also a good thing, but it still wont give this child a father

It’s the same point as the financial donation. If you truly cared about the fatherless child you would be a big brother/sister for him or another. Or you would contact their chapter of big brothers.

Karin:

it seems from what i have read that this child has reached out to his father and has had the door SLAMMED in his face…what message does this send???

Again, it sends the message that Christ established a Church run by sinners, for sinners.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

stanley123:

ByzCath:

Seeing that the Holy Father appointed this Archbishop to his new position I think the Holy Father is satisfied.

I don’t see how the following question has been addressed:
Should we be concerned about the serious psychological impact it might have on a boy when:

1. He is raised without seeing his father, who is living, but is not giving him companionship and support. Basically, the father is rejecting his own son.
2. The boy is told that he was brought into the world because of negligence on the part of his parents. This is made clear to him in sworn Court documents which were filed by lawyers for the Catholic Church.

I don’t see how either of these two issues have anything to do with the Archbishop. This priest is a member of a religious order which the Archbishop has nothing to do with.

These lawyers were lawyers for the Archdiocese of Portland, not the Catholic Church. The argument had nothing to do with Catholic Teaching and everything to do with a civil legal matter.