View Thread

 Print Thread
A Mother, a Sick Son and His Father, the Priest
Sinny
You know as wrong as the the woman was for having an affair while married the Priest is is more at fault not only because he's a Priest but because he took advantage of a vulnerable woman/couple. It's like a therapist taking advantage of their patient or a supervisor/employer of their employee. When in a position of power over the vulnerable and trusting they should be held to higher standards, more responsible. The church should support both of them and payout all medical, living expenses. The should have immediately dismissed him of his duties as a Priest or paid all expenses while he was still a practicing Priest.

Sorry the article is so long...3 pages.

a ona
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/16/us/16priest.html?_r=2&partner=EXCITE&ei=5043[/url]

a twoa
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/16/us/16priest.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ei=5043&partner=EXCITE[/url]

a threea
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/16/us/16priest.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1&ei=5043&partner=EXCITE[/url]

[quote]O
Edited by Sinny on 10/17/2009 13:52
 
Skeeve
I saw this posted on Democratic Underground and didn't bother reading it...the title didn't draw me in.

But since someone here posted it...heh.

I see it as just another notch in the headboard for the Church. I can't be shocked or surprised by them anymore.
"The world is my country, and do good is my religion." - Thomas Paine
 
Sinny
I hope this works.


It just keeps mounting on them. It just goes to show how far back it goes and the fact that they aren't limited to child molestation. Though that is the worst they can do. What's next to come out about them .....they rape, murder and hide the bodies?? I put nothing past them now.

When will people finally see they aren't worth standing up for. I realize that being proselytized, brainwashed as a child make's it hard for some to turn away from the church but sheesh c'mon there should be more people refusing to bring their children there to stop the next generation for being brainwashed. What more do people need to see the truth. The bullshit that the church is supposedly changing or cleaning up it's act is just that bullshit. I would think by now people wouldn't fall for the usual get their minds on something else to make it look good for the church. Like the way they get people all worked up about abortion being baby murdering ...it's just to hide what they do, get their minds off what they do, get them riled up over made up bullshit and confuse them claiming is baby murdering when it's not even a baby yet or part of society. Well you know what I mean.

EDIT: how the hell did this get into Entertainment thread??? `~` wtf. I didn't post this here I answered your response to my other thread Skeeve. Ok I will attempt to move it back into the priest thread.
 
Sinny
I just realized this didn't draw you in??? "A Mother, a Sick Son and His Father, the Priest
 
Hypatia
I don't agree that the priest was taking advantage of a vulnerable woman - I think she was just as willing a participant as he was.

Not taking responsibility for his part in supporting their son is definitely not right and she had every right to pursue support. Personally, I think she should have had a paternity test done and sued Willenborg for child support, not the church. If that had failed for some reason, then yes, sue the church for support. Just because he's a priest doesn't mean he doesn't have the same responsibilities, and rights, as any other non-custodial parent who should be compelled to pay child support. If, being a priest, meant that he had insufficient income to pay child support then that would perhaps be, IMO, cause to sue the church for support.

The church protecting Willenborg (or any other priest with their kids) from taking responsibility for his son is absolutely wrong and I can see how that would make it much easier for him to dodge paying child support.

But I don't see her as having been vulnerable just because she went to him for marriage counseling. I don't think many people would let that be an excuse for a man in the same or a similar situation.

 
Sinny
The way I see it is the Priest is on the same level or in the same category as a marriage counselor and/or therapist. Back then more so than today, though today they are considered the same, they were trusted and considered to be in the position of authority. Any couple needing marriage counseling, marital problems are vulnerable to outside influence. The way I see it the Priest is more responsible than the woman [wife]just as a Nun would be more than the man [husband]. I don't condone what the wife did but I do place more responsibility and blame on the Priest. Not just because of his position of authority but because he knew she was married, knew her husband and knew all their marital problems which means he knew their vulnerabilities.

No one here in this forum, that I know of, would consider the Priest to be of authority but to most Catholics they are. I have no doubt this woman and her then husband trusted the Priest Church and never realized just how vulnerable they were under the care and guidance of the Priest.

Since the church wouldn't defrock him then I say let the church be financially responsible for the child and the Mother. That's most likely the right way to go since one Priest doesn't make any kind of salary. Yeah they are provided for but the money really does go to and for the church and the Vatican.

What I like best is knowing the church and all Priests would never get away with this today Smile
 
catman
Hey, it takes two to tango. The priest should not have been allowed by the woman to do what he did. The first embrace and kiss should have been resisted violently. Knowing the "vulnerabilities" didn't mean he had some sort of occult power over her.
 
JohnH
Catman, I don't think you give enough credence to the adverse power relationship in this specific case. I agree that the woman should have resisted the advances given her and his circumstances. That said, it is very easy for me to see the multiple cultural and emotional pressures on the woman that allowed her to go ahead.
 
catman
JohnH: Well, perhaps. The "multiple cultural and emotional pressures" wouldn't have worked on any of the women I've known, but of course they were a very select lot.Grin But the woman's religion forbade what happened, and I would think that the woman surely knew that. I agree with Hypatia in that she must have been a willing participant.
Edited by catman on 10/25/2009 00:44
 
Sinny
Hey I didn't say I condone what the wife did. She knew at some level it was wrong too. I don't think the woman should take all the blame. The fact that the church and the priest himself were shrugging her her and the kid off shows they placed all the blame on the woman. Like she was some sort of Jezebel, the sinner, he was tempted by either the Jezebel or the devil. She was vulnerable and if her marriage weren't in trouble to begin with she may not have been so vulnerable to have sex with a Priest of whom she trusted to help not only her but her husband as well with their marriage. The Priest should have immediately transferred them to someone else before having sex with her. Those son of a bastards had a lot of power and control over people simply because it was handed down from generation to generation.

I hope with all the reports and truth about them coming out it helps to change if not our generation then at least the generation of kids today.
 
catman
Sinny: I didn't get the impression that you condoned what the woman did. As with the Scientology devotees who are being "milked", it's just hard to feel sorry for some people.
 
Jump to Forum: