Faithful Furious Over Tactic(Church Lawsuit defense=should've used thePill

[papau]

Factoid: Prefect of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was last held by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger — who's now Pope Benedict XVI - and is now held by the former Archbishop of Portland William Levada - the fellow saying in the lawsuit that the lady should have used the pill when screwing the priest.

http://www.latimes.com/services/site/premium/access-registered.intercept

Faithful Furious Over Tactic
Catholics express shock over lawyer's arguments that a woman who sued Portland archdiocese for child support should have used birth control.
By William Lobdell
Times Staff Writer

August 3, 2005

In 1994, then-Archbishop of Portland William Levada offered a simple answer for why the archdiocese shouldn't have been ordered to pay the costs of raising a child fathered by a church worker at a Portland, Ore., parish.

In her relationship with Arturo Uribe, then a seminarian and now a Whittier priest, the child's mother had engaged "in unprotected intercourse … when should have known that could result in pregnancy," the church maintained in its answer to the lawsuit.

The legal proceeding got little attention at the time. And the fact that the church — which considers birth control a sin — seemed to be arguing that the woman should have protected herself from pregnancy provoked no comment. Until last month.

That's when Stephanie Collopy went back into court asking for additional child support. A Times article reported the church's earlier response. Now liberal and conservative Catholics around the country are decrying the archdiocese's legal strategy, saying it was counter to church teaching.<snip>

[getmeouttahere]

1. But the Church doesn't believe in contra - oh, forget it!

[mtnester]

63. Here, use these

:banghead: :wtf:

[meganmonkey]

2. OMG

:crazy:

I can't even wrap my head around this one. I am going to stop trying, it hurts...

:rofl:

[tanyev]

3. Maybe the priest should have used a condom.

No, that would have been a sin, too. But having the sex outside of marriage was a sin. So maybe he should have married her. But he's not allowed to do that. Aaaah....head exploding.....

[saigon68]

37. Rat Face should have issued him a Condom

[hobbit709]

4. Hypocricy

is thy middle name.

[VegasWolf]

18. and yet some people still believe in this stuff. nt

[damntexdem]

25. Use a condom, sin once, go to confession.

But a priest gets married without permission, he sins continuously, cannot get forgiven so ... long ... as ... he ... continues ... to ... do ... the ... right ... thing.

Ooh, head experiences secondary explosion.

[Tsiyu]

5. Chasing their tails

around and around.

Pretty soon, they will wear a deep circle in the ground and drop away.....

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

6. She probably tried to but her Catholic pharmacist wouldn't sell them

:sarcasm:

[papau]

10. I like that one! :-)

:-)

[H5N1]

17. Oh the double-decker irony!

[auburngrad82]

7. Moral of the story

Don't screw with the Church.

Literally...

[Cobalt Violet]

8. Just more cafeteria Catholics.

[izzie]

9. Oh that is too funny.

I am living in a mad house.

[yorkiemommie1]

62. aren't we all?

:crazy: it's insanity.

[Kelvin Mace]

11. Corrected link

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-me-levada3aug03,0,2860940.story?coll=la-home-headlines

[papau]

12. Thanks - the old link worked until about 10am - I did not catch the

change.

Again thanks

:-)

[Ian David]

13. Better link. Use www.BugMeNot.com for login and password

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-me-levada3aug03,0,2860940.story?coll=la-home-headlines

[proud2BlibKansan]

14. WTF?

Will they now be passing out condoms at the seminary?

[NickB79]

44. No, at communion

"This is the body, and the blood, and the rubber of Christ."

[RetroLounge]

60. .

:spray:

RL

[genieroze]

77. Blessed be the condom makers for they protect thy priests from

impregnation.

[Megahurtz]

15. The Nerve!!! n/t

[VegasWolf]

16. God works in mysterious ways! nt

[Miss Chybil]

19. Lack of contraceptive use is NEVER a defense against child support.

There is no defense. If the child is yours, you pay. Period.

[patcox2]

20. Not being the father is a damn good defense.

The church is not the father. I have never heard of respondeat superior being used to make an employer liable for an employee's child support.

[TankLV]

26. Don't you have anything better to do than come here again and again

to spew this crap?

THE SUBJECT TODAY IS ABOUT THE CHURCH'S CONTINUING AND THIS TIME BLATENT AND INDEFENSIBLE HYPOCRICY AS USUAL and you spew some nonsense that has NOTHING to do with yet ANOTHER BLATENT EXAMPLE of a morally bankrupt cult. NOTHING!

Yet you come here time and again to spew your indignant defense of this corrupt bunch of sexual deviates!

You really are somthing!

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Miss Chybil]

39. You're right. So, why the birth control argument? nt

[patcox2]

59. I would be guessing without reading the pleading in question.

It turns out the mother's direct claim for child support against the Order was rejected because there is no legal basis for it.

But she also had a tort claim against the diocese alleging, in effect, what is called clergy malpractice, these cases are usually based on the theory that in his ir her role as a counselor, clergy are in a position of trust vis a vis parishioners, and therefore should not have sex with them, just as a spychiatrist would be commiting malpractice for sleeping with a patient.

The church agreed to pay child support, even though the court found there was no legal basis, in exchange for the woman's dropping the clergy malpractice claim (which may not have been a very strong claim; the man in question was not yet a priest at the time of the affair, he was a student on his way to becoming a priest).

The woman then came back years later, when the child was 12, seeking an increase in the support payments. Since the support payments were not awarded under the law of child support, but rather were the result of a voluntary settlement, the legal arguments she made in seeking an increase are hard to figure. And since the birth control argument was defensive, its hard to know what prompted it or what legal point in her case it was meant to defuse.

But who needs details when we have a pretense to pour our scorn on the evil catholic church?

[AllyCat]

69. PatCox...the argument is not "did she have a case"

The argument is that the Catholic Church, ever the critics of sex without the purpose of conception, used an argument stating that it was basically SHE who had "unprotected sex". They do not agree with "protected sex" at ANY TIME. So why did they bring this up?

That's what has people miffed and that's the point of the article, had you read it.

[patcox2]

71. I read it and I found several earlier articles as well.

The fact that I find this narrow issue of legal strategy more interesting than the non-controversy about the so-called "hypocracy" does not mean I did not read or understand the article. It rather stems from the fact that I tend not to go along with the most obvious, lowest-comprehension-level hook that the news article is playing, because I actually like thinking for myself.

[AllyCat]

74. More interesting or not, that was not the discussion at the time

Hardly a lowest-comprehension-level kind of thing, but it sure does look like "hypocracy" (sic). The point made is that the Church makes it okay to drop their beliefs when it suits them. It doesn't matter if they paid the support where they had no legal basis to do it. They don't get a free ride on their consciences because they did that. Defending their case this time needs to involve their beliefs and those they insist their members adopt. They should be operating at a higher level than just following what is the law. They should be following their own laws as well.

[Miss Chybil]

78. I don't see this as a church, or religious issue.

It's a child support issue. I don't get the birth control argument, though. It seems their position is pretty clear without throwing out a non-starter, and hypocritical statement, like that. (Which is what seems to have everybody so upset. It's muddying the whole argument.) It's like you said. The church is not the father. However... does the father work for the church for no money? That could be an issue, don't you think? If he gets paid, he should have his wages garnished like a lot of other people who pay child support. I don't see why this is so complicated, but then, I'm not a lawyer.

[Mandate My Ass]

21. the uterus and its contents are only sacrosanct

when those denying your reproductive choices have no liability for the outcome.

Notice how the Church of "no sex unless its for procreation -- no excuses" now thinks it's the height of irresponsibility to fornicate without protection. :eyes:

[damntexdem]

27. Maybe they just haven't made the subtleties of their position clear:

No sex, unless it's for procreation.

But fornication is for fun, so no fornication unless it's with protection.

Well, they can't put it into the Catechism; but it's the rule that much of the clergy follow.

[VegasWolf]

22. In the church's defense, they are not used to dealing with a defendant

that is a female.

[Mandate My Ass]

23. she's the plaintiff

but I get your drift. :-)

[VegasWolf]

34. Right! nt

[damntexdem]

24. LOL!

Maybe they'll get somewhere when they argue that she should have gotten an abortion ;-)

[Megahurtz]

35. Hahahaha!!!

:rofl:

[bleedingheart]

28. bwahahahahahahaha...

[Catfight]

30. The church is dead, they should be arrested for running what is considered

a brothel in any other areas. Take their robes away and you have a bunch of perverted obsessed sex predators under stain glass churches ruining lives every day.

[SemperEadem]

32. I was watching "In the Name of the Rose" the other night

I see no difference in the church today... still corrupt as they ever were.

[Moosepoop]

33. The father obviously didn't use protection either

In her relationship with Arturo Uribe, then a seminarian and now a Whittier priest, the child's mother had engaged "in unprotected intercourse … when should have known that could result in pregnancy," the church maintained in its answer to the lawsuit.

If it was "unprotected" intercourse, then the guy didn't use protection either. So he also engaged in unprotected intercourse that he should have known could result in pregnancy.

How did they get the notion that only SHE was responsible for the pregnancy?? They do realize that he was there too, right? Right??:eyes:

[BattyDem]

36. They probably think that because Mary got pregnant without a man ...

every other woman does, too! :eyes:

[patcox2]

38. Catholic church is a diverse group, members have diverse views.

Kinda like democrats.

There are catholic priests who buck the vatican on divorce, birth control, and homosexuality. They should be applauded, not denounced as hypocrites.

48% of catholics voted for Kerry, even after several Bishops said they could be excommunicated for voting for a pro-choice politician.

Thank god they are hypocrites, or the democratic party would never win an election.

[Inland]

40. True, but this is a formal argument by the archdiocese.......

To argue for contraception as a means to save child support is the same argument for contraception that the woman would make.

So when it might save the diocese a buck, contraception is required. When it might save the woman a buck, it is forbidden.

[VegasWolf]

41. Exactly, or in common terms HYPOCRISY! nt

[patcox2]

45. Legal pleadings and hypocracy

Its a legal pleading in a lawsuit. In a legal argument (I make them all the time) legal propositions are put forward by attorneys which do not necessarily comport with the moral beliefs of the parties. If there is legal precedent for the argument that a woman cannot claim a birth as damages in a tort claim if she failed to avail herself of birth control, then it doesn't matter if the catholic church itself is opposed to birth control, the legal principle still applies to the benefit of the catholic church anyway.

For the court to do otherwise is for the court to enforce religious doctrine, which the courts do not do.

[VegasWolf]

49. It is still hypocritical no matter how you try to dress up this pig.

Representatives of the church are using arguments that are
completely diagonal to the church's own teachings.

[patcox2]

53. Well at least they are just diagonal, and not opposed.

nt

[VegasWolf]

56. They are opposed, non-congruent, non-orthogonal and absurd. nt

[Inland]

61. Your argument is circular.

The archdiocese asserts that its money is a reason for the woman to have contraception. But the woman's own money is not a good enough reason.

So you assert that the archdiocese is taking an immoral position in order to save money because its legal to do so. But the woman can't use contraception to save money because it's legal to do so. It's the same amoral distinction.

If saving the Archdiocese money is a good enough reason to a) require contraception or b) take immoral but legal positions, why isn't it good enough for the woman?

Why is it that contraception is a sin if the woman is having sex with the baptist pastor but actually required if having sex with the catholic priest? Because the bastard in the first instance doesn't cost the archdiocese money. That's the only difference.

[patcox2]

73. This is why we have lawyers, the distinctions are sometimes difficult.

To say "a person who has sex and does nothing to prevent the possibility of conraception has no right to blame another for her pregnancy" is not the same as saying "she should have used contraception."

I am sure you do not see the distinction, but their is one. Remember, she was not bringing a child support claim. Contraception or lack thereof is irrelevant to a child support claim. There is no legal basis for a child support claim against the church, thats why the court rejected her baseless child support claim. Her lawyers were putting forward a "creative" claim that the church should be liable for damages because she was "injured" by the actions of the not yet priest (he was not a priest yet when it happened) because she got pregnant.

Now most people are unaware of this, but with few exceptions, the birth of a healthy baby is not considered a "harm" at law (what would that say to the kid?) So her lawyers had to get pretty creative to put together a case against the Order. And this argument was made in reponse to something her lawyers argued, it did not come out of the blue.

The church teaches that you should not use contraception, and should only have sex to procreate. This woman had sex. It is fair to assume that she did it for the purpose of procreation. This is bolstered by the fact she used no contraception. It is not hypocracy to point out that someone in her position has no right to complain about having gotten pregnant. That is not to say she should have used birth control, that is only to say that she should not be complaining about the natural results of the conduct she engaged in willingly as a competent adult.

[Eloriel]

42. No, hypocrisy should be denounced wherever it's found

Whether it's "our side" or some other side doing it. Hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another, prescribing a way of life for others that you won't follow yourself.

The Church had the ability to prevent its lawyers from using an argument that is hypocritical in that the very argument violated Church teaching. And they did not; that's wrong, and it's hypocritical, and no one can make anything better of it. As others have pointed out, it's also hypocritical because the priest also could have been taxed with the responsibility of using contraception himself but somehow no one in the Church seems to have thought of that.

None of this case really has ANYthing to do with going against or standing up to official Church teachings on homosexuality, divorce, birth control or voting for Democrats.

I am against religion bashing (tho have plenty of my own issues with the Church), but on the other hand, I find your tortured attempt to defend the Church on this issue painful and offensive. Further, I sincerely hope you're wrong, and shudder at the wider implications of what you've written here:


Thank god they are hypocrites, or the democratic party would never win an election.

[patcox2]

47. Once again the law applies equally to all, regardless of belief.

If the argument made by the church is in fact a defense, then the defense applies to the church.

I would actually like to see the pleading, for a very complicated reason.

As I was howling this morning, nowhere in the law governing child support is there any rule that imposes any kind of constructive liability on a party who is not the actual parent.

The mother here was not seeking child support. She was seeking the cost of raising the child as damages in a tort claim based on clergy malpractice (a COA also known as breach of fiduciary duty).

Normally, in the law governing tort damages, a baby is not viewed as a negative thing and you cannot get damages based on having had a baby. There are some exceptions.

Now, if you are going to go into court and claim that the having of a child is some terrible thing that has afflicted you, there is a counterargument. If you didn't want a child, then you should have used birth control. It is not to say that "she should have used birth control," but rather "what right has she to complain that the birth of a child has injured her when she did nothing to prevent it."

[patcox2]

52. Hypocrcacy is not a sin.

Ya know, hypocracy does indeed rankle, but you should try to see it as part of the human condition, rather than a cudgel to beat up you enemies with.

Every person, bar none, is a hypocrite. Psychiatrists have demonstrated that it is not a pathology to despise those flaws we ourselves have, it is in fact normal and a trait everyone possesses. And any serious philosopher would tell you it is self evident that actual behavior never meets the perfect standards of an ideal belief.

Its sort of hypocritical to say, in effect, "I hate the catholic church's doctrines, they are wrong and evil," and then condemn the church for not adhering to the very doctrines you find objectionable. Its as if you are insisting that the church be evil, so that you may continue to be jsutified in condemning it as evil.

[VegasWolf]

58. No, it is an absurdity. nt

[rocktivity]

43. Women don't get pregnant by themselves, dont'cha know

If "the child's mother had engaged 'in unprotected intercourse...(that) she should have known...could result in pregnancy,'" then the child's father is EQUALLY guilty of doing THE EXACT SAME THING!

:headbang:
rocknation

[juliemf]

46. This is why it's hard to be a Christian today

How am I supposed to live as a good Christian, if the Vatican does not even know what that means? Little old me trying to understand that. Maybe it's time we start to embrace Progressive Christianity and realize the some of the bible does not apply to life. Leviticus says it's a sin to tattoo the body or shave a beard...where does it end?

[wryter2000]

48. Welcome to DU

:hi:

[athenap]

51. It's easy to live as a good Christian

and live a Christ-like life.

The trick is to leave the Church out of it. Isn't that what Jesus did? ;)

[juliemf]

54. I suppose you're right!

Faith and good will towards others. That's the way I look at it. Which is why I hate people saying "All Christians," "You should be believe," or "You're not a good Christian if..." I just wanna scream..it's not about judgment! Is it?

[noonwitch]

67. That, or find the right church

There are scumbags in every denomination, but some have more congregational controls than others.

In the UCC, for example, the local church and it's members have the final say on which policies they accept from the national denomination, they do their own hiring/firing of ministers and church staff, and they are very open and affirming, for the most part. Congregational churches that aren't open and affirming have mostly left the UCC, and they go by the Congregational label.

My church is a Unity church. It's a large one, too. The church does criminal record checks on all volunteers that work with kids. I don't know if they access CPS central registry, because that's more for schools and day care centers to use for clearances on potential employees. The church has a board that makes most major decisions, and the members vote on the board members every year or so. With 2500 members, it's difficult to present every item to the congregation.

[VegasWolf]

55. Yeah, and Levictus says that God considers it to be an abomination to

eat a lobster. Go figure.

[progressoid]

50. Oh that's just too fucking funny

(and sad on a number of levels).

I suppose for Catholics this is serious stuff, but the whole dogma eating itself is hiiilarious.

Here's an idea....think for yourselves.

[4_Legs_Good]

57. Shouldn't the *priest* be the one paying child support, not the church?

WTF does the Church have to do with the priest getting a woman pregnant???

A deadbeat dad is a deadbeat dad.

In Levada's defense - WHAT AN ASSHOLE!!! Well, I guess that wasn't much of a defense, was it? He Confirmed be like 15 years ago and I've never liked him.

Feh!

david

[VegasWolf]

65. Think that they can garnish his wages? nt

[patcox2]

72. Well, actually, the church volunteered to pay the support.

You see, the court entered a child support order against the priest and the priest only, because the church had no legal obligation to pay child support for the illegitimate child of some guy who was, when the child was conceived, not even a priest yet.

But the order in question voluntarily agreed to pay, because the priest had little money. And then the Order voluntarily increased the payment, but the mother kept coming back to the well, as it were.

The church was actually fighting a baseless and unfounded claim when it made that argument. I am worried at the morality of people who bring baseless claims because of their own irresponsibility, myself, than I am in being the "hypocracy policeman" for the world.

[VegasWolf]

75. LOL. My ex-wife kept coming back for more as it were. I certainly

have some sympathies for that argument. I just find
it incredibly ironic that the church can stand up in its
pulpit and decry the sins of contraception, the use
of condoms, etc., and then turn around and use that very
defense in a lawsuit. If I were one of the faithful,
I would be outraged at this apparent duplicity. I would wonder
how certain the church really feels about these moral under-pinnings
of its own faith. I would wonder why I was forbidden on Sunday
the use of condoms, then criticized on Monday for not using them.
I would be as outraged as these faithful are.

[4_Legs_Good]

76. Ahh, thanks for the clarification...

It just seemed odd that the employer of a deadbeat dad would somehow be held responsible for paying child support. I don't expect a law firm would be held responsible for child support if one of their partners failed to protect himself while having an extramarital affair.

david

[central scrutinizer]

64. another weird aspect to this case

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/front_page/111710202583760.xml&coll=7

excerpt:

All 389,000 Roman Catholic parishioners in Western Oregon soon may find themselves defendants in their archdiocese's legal fight to keep parish property from being used to pay sexual-abuse settlements.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Elizabeth Perris said in a Wednesday hearing that she was leaning toward converting the property litigation into a rare class action at the end of July.

"I've never had a class action before in my 21 years as a bankruptcy judge," Perris said, as she and several bankruptcy lawyers thumbed through their copies of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, puzzling over the class-action rules.

snip

Who owns $600 million in real estate, investments and cash has been a central issue since the Archdiocese of Portland became the nation's first to file for bankruptcy in the wake of lawsuits alleging clergy sexual abuse.

end excerpt - in other words, to try to shelter the church and minimize the depth of their pockets, all of the parishioners are joining the lawsuit, claiming that they, and not the Church owns everything.

[progressoid]

79. Wow - this will be an interesting twist.

[VegasWolf]

66. People really give 10% of their hard earned money to this organization? nt

[arwalden]

68. Astounding, Isn't It?

[AllyCat]

70. Fiance's Catholic parents will not longer give them money

because they are tired of paying for legal fees for these morons and the Church that covered it all up. They give to local charities now, the 10% they would have given to the Church.