Priest provides minimal support for his son!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nohome
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
ByzCath:
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.
Click to expand...
  1. Who was the head of the Archdiocese of Potland at that time? Wasn’t it the Archbishop who is now 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,
  2. Isn’t the Archdiocese of Portland an archdiocese of the Catholic Church?
  3. If the archbishop or the archdiocese have nothing to do with this Catholic order, then why were lawyers for the Archdiocese of Portland filing sworn documents in Court accusing the mother of negligence for not using artificial birth control when having sex with a Catholic seminarian.
  4. Wouldn’t these sworn documents filed in Court by lawyers for the Archdiocese, which was under the leadership of the present head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, have a negative psychological impact on a boy? I mean is it right to tell a boy that he was brought into the world because of negligence on the part of his parents who were negligent becasue they did not use artificial birth control to prevent his birth? Is it right for the father to continue to reject his son?
 
stanley123 said:
1. Who was the head of the Archdiocese of Potland at that time? Wasn’t it the Archbishop who is now 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,
2. Isn’t the Archdiocese of Portland an archdiocese of the Catholic Church?
3. If the archbishop or the archdiocese have nothing to do with this Catholic order, then why were lawyers for the Archdiocese of Portland filing sworn documents in Court accusing the mother of negligence for not using artificial birth control when having sex with a Catholic seminarian.
4. Wouldn’t these sworn documents filed in Court by lawyers for the Archdiocese, which was under the leadership of the present head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, have a negative psychological impact on a boy? I mean is it right to tell a boy that he was brought into the world because of negligence on the part of his parents who were negligent becasue they did not use artificial birth control to prevent his birth? Is it right for the father to continue to reject his son?
Click to expand...

Doesn’t matter, just using this case as a smear against the archbishop.

The fact is that this man is a priest in a religious order and the archbishop has no jurisdiction over him.
 
40.png
ByzCath:
Doesn’t matter, just using this case as a smear against the archbishop.

The fact is that this man is a priest in a religious order and the archbishop has no jurisdiction over him.
Click to expand...
I disagree that it does not matter. I think it matters to the boy. I don’t agree with a father abandoning his own son, regardless of what these lawyers have said about it.
 
40.png
stanley123:
I disagree that it does not matter. I think it matters to the boy. I don’t agree with a father abandoning his own son, regardless of what these lawyers have said about it.
Click to expand...
This reply of yours has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

Of course the is a bad issue and I do not agree with his mans actions.

But please draw a link between this and the news article about a lawsuit filed by the mother against the Archdiocese of Portland asking for $200,000 back in 1994.

You can’t because there is none.
 
Vienna - An Austrian who fathered a two-year-old son out of wedlock has sworn an oath of celibacy in order to become a Catholic priest, the Austrian news agency APA reports.

Christoph Frischmann has been authorised to join the priesthood because “he has promised to live in celibacy, but will also assume the duty of his paternity”, Ernst Jager, the vicar-general of the Innsbruck diocese in western Austria, said in a statement.

After taking his vows on September 1, Frischmann is to take charge of the Hippach, Aschau and Ginzling parishes, in Land province, in western Tirol.

For the past 15 years the Austrian Catholic Church has suffered from a shortage of priests. The latest figures from Kathpress, a religious agency, show just 36 were ordained in 2003.

iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=24&art_id=qw1121698981338B223
 
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!
Click to expand...
I’m not, I’m just pointing out the legal issues involved. By suing him, she IS putting blame on him, and she’s getting more than what he can offer already.
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!
Click to expand...
Unfortunately that’s the limit of our legal system showing itself. It can only provide a meager amount, espescially in this case, and it can’t make this man want to be a father.
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???
Click to expand...
A very valid question, and one that I raise myself. It’s got all of nothing to do with suing the religious order or the archdiocese for financial support of the child, though.
 
There were some more developments on this topic today from an article which appeared in the LA Times: Excerpts from the article:

“A Lawyer argued on behalf of Archbishop William J. Levada, above, that Stephanie Collopy who became pregnant with a seminarian’s child, should have been practicing birth control – contrary to church teachings.”

“On the face of it, [the argument] is simply appalling,” said Michael Novak, a conservative Catholic theologian and author based in Washington, D.C.

William Donohue, president of the conservative Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights based in New York, said the legal language was "simply code for, ‘What’s wrong with you, honey, aren’t you smart enough to make sure condoms were used?’ "

“Whether a bishop likes it or not, he has ultimate responsibility for a legal argument made on his behalf or upon behalf of his diocese,” said Father Richard McBrien, a theology professor at the University of Notre Dame. “Archbishop Levada would have — or certainly should have — known what his lawyers were arguing on his behalf.”
 
If I were the judge, and these parents came before me, I 'd order Fr. Uribe to pay at least $1200 per month and pay the kid’s medical expenses.

If he didn’t , for any reason, I’d hold him in contempt and throw him in jail.

The facts are that Uribe is a single gentleman with a doctorate degree and no living expenses whatsoever.

The fact that he chose to swear an oath of poverty, was his choice.

If a man doesn’t have any responsibilities, no kids, no wife, no debts, he can choose to become a hermit, or a monk or wino living under the bridge. But once he has responsibilities that changes.

Uribe has considerable earning capabilities, and needs to pay and support his own offspring according to those capabilities.

There isn’t a case against the order or the diocese, but if they want to bail him out of this jackpot, its up to them.

This woman and this priest’s child are just being jerked around by a judge, who IMHO doesn’t have the legal brains to try a chicken thief.
 
40.png
Kielbasi:
If I were the judge, and these parents came before me, I 'd order Fr. Uribe to pay at least $1200 per month and pay the kid’s medical expenses.
Click to expand...
Then you would not be a judge for long, there are limits on what one can be ordered to pay. There is an upper max on the percentage of ones income you can be made to pay.

No one can be forced to pay more than they earn.
The facts are that Uribe is a single gentleman with a doctorate degree and no living expenses whatsoever.

The fact that he chose to swear an oath of poverty, was his choice.
Click to expand...
There you go, the whole facts. Lets say the man was not a priest but chose to be homeless, or was homeless. What then?
If a man doesn’t have any responsibilities, no kids, no wife, no debts, he can choose to become a hermit, or a monk or wino living under the bridge. But once he has responsibilities that changes.
Click to expand...
Not true. A man can chose those things even with responsibilities. Usually a religious order will not accept a man with responsibilities. As he was in the seminary I believe that means he was already in the order, so when they accepted him he had no responsibilities. Now I wouldn’t be upset if the order kicked him out but they didn’t and they have responsibilites to him.
Uribe has considerable earning capabilities, and needs to pay and support his own offspring according to those capabilities.
Click to expand...
Earning potential mean nothing in this case, only acutal earnings.
 
There is an upper max on the percentage of ones income you can be made to pay.
Click to expand...
No one can be forced to pay more than they earn.
Click to expand...
Absolutely not true, at least in Pennsylvania.

A friend of mine has a teenaged daughter, but hasn’t worked in 7 years. He’s chosen to live off of his inheritance (which is almost gone now) instead of working to pay his bills.

His child support is based on his earning potential, and he has had several child support hearings over the years.

This particular priest is the same, he earns nothing. Doesn’t relieve him of his obligation.
 
40.png
Kielbasi:
Absolutely not true, at least in Pennsylvania.

A friend of mine has a teenaged daughter, but hasn’t worked in 7 years. He’s chosen to live off of his inheritance (which is almost gone now) instead of working to pay his bills.

His child support is based on his earning potential, and he has had several child support hearings over the years.

This particular priest is the same, he earns nothing. Doesn’t relieve him of his obligation.
Click to expand...
No, your friend has an inheritance, this priest does not.

Also, this priest does not live in Pennsylvania.
 
The law means nothing. THis is about morality and the Image of the Catholic church.THe Catholic church has the moral responsibility to care for this child,that means medicaly also.
Can you imagine what our enemies could do with this story. Catholic church says women who have sex with priests should make sure and use birth control.!
New Prefect of Vatica Congregation says priests that violate oath of celibacy must use birth control ! Can you imagine late night TV shows.
 
40.png
JOHNYJ:
The law means nothing. THis is about morality and the Image of the Catholic church.THe Catholic church has the moral responsibility to care for this child,that means medicaly also.
Can you imagine what our enemies could do with this story. Catholic church says women who have sex with priests should make sure and use birth control.!
New Prefect of Vatica Congregation says priests that violate oath of celibacy must use birth control ! Can you imagine late night TV shows.
Click to expand...
And would only seem to vindicate all the Jack Chick types out there, this is not good for the Church at all :nope: I can just imagine James White having a field day on his radio program if he ever gets a hold of this one:crying:
 
Its just plain wrong for a man who can to not support his children. Period. End of story.

Whether or not its a crime in some jurisdictions shows a problem with their laws. It is objectively a pretty vile sin to neglect the children.

This man isn’t homeless, he could do the right thing but chooses not to.
 
spoke to the vocations director of my former diocese when a similar story hit the newspapers there, and he informed us that no one with financial and legal responsibility for a minor child would be allowed to be ordained or to take vows and enter a religious order (man or woman). even a candidate for the diaconate would have to prove that his minor children will be provided for by his “day job” or other means before he can be ordained.
 
40.png
puzzleannie:
spoke to the vocations director of my former diocese when a similar story hit the newspapers there, and he informed us that no one with financial and legal responsibility for a minor child would be allowed to be ordained or to take vows and enter a religious order (man or woman). even a candidate for the diaconate would have to prove that his minor children will be provided for by his “day job” or other means before he can be ordained.
Click to expand...
That is as it should be but I think that part of the problem here is that the man was most likely already acepted into the religious order before this occured.

Religious orders do not send people to the seminary until they have made vows into the order.

For example, I have been accepted to the pre-novitiate of the Carmelites. For me, this will be 2 years as I finish my college. Then I go off for the novitiate, which is a year long, at the end of that I will make my simple vows and be a brother in the order. Then the 1 to 2 year internship then the seminary.

This man was a brother under vows, most likely and I say most likely becasue we do not have the whole story. That is a big thing here, we do not have the whole story so we really cannot form an informed opinion.
 
40.png
AmyS:
This, to me, supports priestly celebacy and chastity.
Click to expand...
Yes, it does support the teaching that chastity is the way to go. But I am not sure about the celibacy part. For example, suppose that the priest were allowed to marry this woman at the time he were a seminarian, and still be ordained a priest. That would make him a priest with a wife and son. Wouldn’t his son be better off with a father that gives him support and comfort, rather than a father who appears to be rejecting him?
I attended a liturgy in an Eastern Church and after the liturgy we were invited to the hall for socialising. It turned out that the wife of the priest was a wonderful person and she added a nice touch and was well liked by everyone. It looked like it was a wonderful situation for the priest and his wife and family and for the congregation.
 
40.png
AmyS:
This, to me, supports priestly celebacy and chastity.
Click to expand...
Non-issue here.

Even with ordaining married men to the priesthood, the religious orders will stay celibate.

Also again, even with ordaining married men to the priesthood, they will be called to be chaste, which means no pre-marital sex.

So please explain how your comment has anything to do with this issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top