A Mother, A Sick Son, And His Father, The Priest...

[jkaands]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/16/us/16priest.html?_r=1&em=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1255802856-nPfExnJcv041pYlqNVdyfA

I am posting this link and story here rather than on Open Mic to enable people who avoid this forum to avoid seeing it. This story appears to be entirely verified.

Two comments:

The Franciscans should have had Fr. X leave and has him laicized, if possible. I do believe they were responsible for the child. I don't believe that he should have remained in the order and definitely shouldn't have remained in active ministry. The Archbishop of Santa Fe was involved with a woman, no children, I think, and was forced to resign and retire from active ministry.

The research of the (former)Benedictine regarding the high prevalence of heterosexual unions among priests is pretty astonishing. These unions seem to be much less visible that those of the pedophiles.

[Jesus_lol]

the thread title sounds like the set up to a joke "..all walk into a bar..."

people always want to have their cake and eat it too. i dont agree with the rules barring preists from relationships, but as long as those rules are there, priests should not break them. they know what they are getting into, and if they cant make that commitment, then they arent worthy as a religious director.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote]Eventually they had a son, setting off a series of legal battles as Ms. Bond repeatedly petitioned the church for child support. The Franciscans acquiesced, with the stipulation that she sign a confidentiality agreement. It is now an agreement she is willing to break as both she and her child, Nathan Halbach, 22, are battling cancer.

With little to lose, they are eager to [s][b]tell[/b][/s] [b]sell[/b] their stories: the mother, a once-faithful Catholic who says the church protected a philandering priest and treated her as a legal adversary, and the son, about what it was like to grow up knowing his absentee father was a priest.[/quote]

Fixed.



I heard someone say once that every priest will, at some time in his life, be seriously tempted to violate his vow of celibacy. That they sometimes do does not surprise me. It also doesn't mean much to me.

Also this article seems to me to not be very objective.

Should he have been laicized? Maybe. I'm not about to speculate on what went on between the priest and his superiors.

[CatherineM]

I'm sure that most married people are faced with violating their vows at some point, that doesn't mean I plan too. If I did succumb, I wouldn't try to hide or run away from the consequences of my actions.

[Winchester]

[quote name='jkaands' date='17 October 2009 - 03:40 PM' timestamp='1255808411' post='1987026']
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/16/us/16priest.html?_r=1&em=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1255802856-nPfExnJcv041pYlqNVdyfA

I am posting this link and story here rather than on Open Mic to enable people who avoid this forum to avoid seeing it. This story appears to be entirely verified.

Two comments:

The Franciscans should have had Fr. X leave and has him laicized, if possible. I do believe they were responsible for the child. I don't believe that he should have remained in the order and definitely shouldn't have remained in active ministry. The Archbishop of Santa Fe was involved with a woman, no children, I think, and was forced to resign and retire from active ministry.

The research of the (former)Benedictine regarding the high prevalence of heterosexual unions among priests is pretty astonishing. These unions seem to be much less visible that those of the pedophiles.
[/quote]
And the point is?

[alleros]

This was a shocking story. This man was a friar as well as a priest, and this was hidden and covered up by his Order.

In a second report - and he was stood down when the matter became public, his parish said, " he was a good priest"

How could he be with this ongoing? He was to all intents living a lie of being celibate. Totally impure.