Why should anyone listen to the Catholic Church after this?

[dsc]

In 1994 Archbishop William Levada was sued when one of his priests had an affair with a woman who became pregnant as a result of the affair. What was his response?

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 (she) should have known that could result in pregnancy," the church maintained in its answer to the lawsuit.

Later the woman went back to court seeking an increase in child support which is what caused this to become public. So what did the church say about this?

Levada was on vacation and unavailable to comment on the controversial legal stance, but the attorney who came up with it, Richard J. Kuhn, said he wrote Levada's answer to the complaint strictly from a "common sense" legal perspective, without regard to Catholic teachings.

However, Kuhn, an outside attorney who was hired by the archdiocese to handle the case, questions whether Levada ever saw the document. "I doubt that the archbishop would have gotten a copy of the pleading," he said.

snip

Kuhn said the defense he raised was probably based on his suspicion that Collopy got pregnant to keep Uribe out of the priesthood. "The archbishop shouldn't be criticized for something I did that didn't have anything to do with Catholic doctrine," Kuhn said. "It would be a different story if we sat down together and said, 'Let's do this.' "

The Portland archdiocese also doubts that Levada was closely involved. "We understand that the attorney handling the case did not speak with Archbishop Levada on this issue, and that the archbishop had no input," said Bud Bunce, the archdiocese's director of communication. But the fact that Levada may not have approved a legal argument filed under his name troubled some.

And what job does William Levada hold now?

That the "unprotected intercourse" argument was offered in Levada's name made it especially shocking to some Catholics. The former archbishop is now chief guardian of Catholic doctrine worldwide. The archbishop's new post as prefect of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was last held by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger — now Pope Benedict XVI.

So why should I respect this church when they say I am intrinsicly evil and part of a plot to ruin the world eqivilent with Nazism? Evidently not because they actually believe in their supposedly infallible moral teachings. Surely not because they value those teachings above money. So just what is left?

I leave you with the words of another Catholic.

Frances Kissling, president of Catholics for a Free Choice, a group that supports abortion rights, said Levada's defense was an example of how, "if something will cost the bishops money, they will use any argument whatsoever — like any other corporate entity — that will get them off the hook. It's a disgrace."

It is pretty disgraceful when even they don't believe they should have to sacrifice anything for those beliefs but want you and I to sacrifice.

All bold text is quoted from the following article:

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

free registration required.

[Midlodemocrat]

1. Well, speaking as a practicing Catholic

That is a disgrace.

[YOY]

2. Would you rather have Catholics convert to Protestanstism

and listen to Falwell, Phelps, and other assorted slimebags?

Sad and sick story.

[sniffa]

13. rather have them smarten up

and find their own path.

[bloom]

22. As if that is one's only alternative?

And as if "Falwell, Phelps, and other assorted slimebags" are the only Protestant options. You must not get out much.

:crazy: :silly: :eyes:

[YOY]

49. I get out plenty and if someone is hard core religious enough

then the hypocracies of one branch of christianity will substitute nicely for a similar set should they fear going "too far" to the left.

True there are other options.

[Beaver Tail]

3. For the same reason you should

never listen to anyone in the government because of Bush.

Are there terrible people who present themselves as good Catholic Priest? Most certainly. Does this mean they are all bad?

It's like hating ALL black people because you were muged by one or hating ALL white people because one killed your friend.

IN essence this priest does not represent Catholicism, he represents his own self (selfish) interest.

[dsc]

8. On the contrary

with the exception of the Pope this man is the person in charge of preserving Catholic doctrine. He decides what is and isn't orthodox. This isn't some random priest or even bishop from the middle of nowhere. This is the number 2 man in the Catholic church and the person who decides just what Catholic doctrine is.

[Beaver Tail]

16. Exactly

So seeing Cheney and Bush are such awful monsters does this make the Office of the Presidency or what the presidency represents a bad thing?

[dsc]

18. currently yes

But when in 09 someone else takes over that will no longer be true. If the Church fires this hypocrite then they have some claim to say this isn't what they really think. So far they have done nothing.

[Beaver Tail]

25. I think you are confusing

what the presidency represents and what Bush represents.

[Dhalgren]

15. But this priest does represent the Catholic Church.

He is currently in charge of church-wide doctrine. I, as a non-Christian, can easily separate the faith and belief of an individual from the workings and politics of that persons chosen church organization; but to try and remove that organization from responsibility for the behavior of its officers, I think, is going too far.

[Beaver Tail]

31. He does represent the Catholic Church

(I am not Catholic so I have no vested interest) but he is not "The Church". Just as Bush and Cheney represent their respective offices they are NOT the offices themselves. Because the people who are in the position are bad does not mean that all those under them are bad.

To blame the Catholic church in general, which is what the OP does, is to blame the religion as a whole instead of the criminals who are responsible (the ones in office). It is like holding the American people guilty for the crimes of Bush and Cheney which of course would be ignorant to do.

[Dhalgren]

54. But the American people are guilty of allowing the Bush

administration to commit murder, and robbery and crimes against humanity. We are guilty of allowing them to commit war crimes in our name. I don't think your analogy was very good for your argument...

[Beaver Tail]

73. Actually is was a very good analogy

As it compared leaders to followers.

This being said I should reject all Americans because of what some have done based on your answer. I should also reject the Catholic Church because of a jerk of a leader who obviously does not represent the beliefs of the Catholics.

The argument is representing Cathloics as guilty by association,

[Dhalgren]

94. No, no one is saying to reject all Americans (or Catholics), but

yes, reject America (until it changes its leadership and faces up to its crimes)and reject the Catholic Church (until it changes its leadership and renews its commitment to its members).

[redqueen]

4. Why should anyone listen to any church?

As long as they harrange about gay marriage and abortion, yet ignore poverty, they can all get stuffed.

Jesus didn't rant about gays and abortion... he ranted about poverty.

[Beaver Tail]

5. This is what turns Christians Against the left

You have allies in a lot of Christians, making such a broad statement isolates them and turns them away from you, kind of like what Bush is doing to the American allies.

[redqueen]

6. Christians against the left are ... confused. Jesus was a lefty. n/t

[Beaver Tail]

12. You did say

"Why should anyone listen to any church". A lot of Christians go to church (I am one of them).

The United Church for example SUPPORRTS gay marriage and there are some Catholic Priests that support the marriage of Priests as well as going to church every Sunday. These church goers are “lefty” and they listen to what their religious teachers tell them.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

20. And then she urged people to follow the example of Jesus.

Hardly alienating if you ask me.

[Beaver Tail]

75. Following the techings of Jesus does not Necessarily

make you part of the Church so it is alienating.

[redqueen]

28. I'm glad you've found a church you like

whose priests/ reverends / whatever they're called where you go don't rant about how evil and harmful gay marriage is... or how anyone who supports the ability of women to choose whether or not they want to carry a pregnancy to term will burn in hell... etc.

If people really must to to a church, that's the kind they should go to. Shame there are so few of them ... or that their voices are so quiet among the shouting of the evil ones.

[Beaver Tail]

47. We are shouting

The MSM just isn't listening

[redqueen]

51. Neither are most other churches.

:shrug:

[jobycom]

10. For pointing out the hypocrisy of churches?

Seemed a fair post. She didn't criticize religion or Jesus, just churches that don't listen to his message.

IIRC, Jesus did a fair amount of that, too.

[Beaver Tail]

17. He say "any church"

which by definition includes them all.

[Dhalgren]

26. "Any church that" does the following, is exclusive, not inclusive...

She was obviously not speaking of all churches, only the ones that bloviate on "abortion and gays" and ignore "poverty". Any church that does that is worthless...

[redqueen]

30. Thank you... that's what I meant. n/t

[Beaver Tail]

37. Thank you for clairfying your point

[Beaver Tail]

35. He did not say "that" he said "They"

The word "they" makes it inclusive the word "that" makes it "exclusive"

[Beaver Tail]

77. The post is Fair, there is no doubt.

To criticize this jerk is very fair. To criticize the bishops and other leaders for no action is also fair. There is definitely hypocrisy in the leadership; there is not disagreement from me on those points. What I do disagree on is blaming Catholicism. Its like blaming those “damn liberals” (of which I am one).

Edit here.

I can easily tear into Catholic leaders who have been hypocrites. There are plenty of them but there are also Catholic leaders that have done well for the world and have followed the teachings of Christ. They have feed the poor, clothed then naked, and sheltered the homeless. These are good Christians and CATHLOICS who have lead by example. This bishop does not represent them

[craychek]

14. They aren't ignoring poverty

the things that are getting in the news are abortion and gays because those are hot items here in the US right now. The catholic church has always been heavily involved in fighting poverty. Many of the charity organizations that I've worked with in cali and nebraska were run by catholics, the church, or at the very least partially funded by the church.

[redqueen]

34. Sorry, but what did the Catholic Church do about that guy who was

saying that Kerry shouldn't receive communion? Was he punished? It seems the church is more concerned with other things than poverty.

What was done about the bishops / archbishops who knew about the molestation cases and kept their mouths shut?

It's nice that they put on a show of fighting poverty. Looking at the church's history and even recent history... I can't view their "fight" against poverty as anything more than that... a show.

[LizMoonstar]

66. um, I think they made that guy Pope.

[craychek]

76. well you are entitled to your own opinion n/t

[kestrel91316]

33. I have never listened to the Catholic Church, but then I'm NOT CATHOLIC

[Midlodemocrat]

43. My priest is actually a very liberal dem.

He allows there to be a pro-life group in the church because the parishioners wanted one, and that is okay with me, because I believe part of being pro-choice is respecting that some are pro-life. I know that sounds like a contradiction, but I don't want ANYONE dictacting to me or anyone else what the laws should be about my body or anyone else's body.

Okay, that rant being over, our priest is very involved in social justice, as am I. He believes vehemently that instead of posting the ten commandments, post the Sermon on the Mount. Actually, he is very much for separation of church and state.

Going to a Catholic church doesn't make you a christian anymore than going to a garage makes you a car. I believe in the church because I was raised in the church and I love the history of it. I don't love everything about it, anymore than I love everything about my political party, or my job, or my family.

[redqueen]

58. I'm glad to hear those churches exist...

but I have to wonder... whats the point of being catholic if you go against church doctrine?

[Midlodemocrat]

61. Well, some of the doctrine, I don't go against.

The church I believe in believes that the New Testament supplants the Old Testament. This is how I was raised. The Old Testament is a historical entity discussing the world prior to Jesus, but with the arrival of Jesus, the 'eye for an eye' thing just goes away.

That is why I have such an issue with "christians" who talk about Leviticus, etc. Yes, Leviticus does state that homosexuality is an abomination, but it also states that pork is unclean. How many of these fundies had sausage or bacon for breakfast? To me, you can't pick and choose like that. Just admit that the OT only has historical meaning and not moral meaning and live by the rules of Jesus. Feed the poor, comfort the sick, etc.

I have yet to find an example of Jesus referencing homosexuality. And as a victim of the death penalty himself, I would like to think he was against it.

[jobycom]

7. Kill their leaders, convert them to... um, to, um... I don't know,

something else. Ask Ann Coulter, I've never been good at this hate stuff.

On the other hand, Bush didn't listen to the Catholic Church when the pope condemned his invasion.

[patcox2]

9. Speaking as a human being, why should anyone's employer pay support?

The claim is absurd, not the defense. A priest has an affair. Okay, good for him, many people have affairs. So why is the church now responsible for the support of his child?

My employer is not responsible for the support of my children, even if I have an affair with a co-worker.

An adult woman has an affair, big whipty shit. Why does she get to sue anyone? Is anyone on earth responsible for themselves anymore? Are women helpless incompetent creatures, presumed to have been taken advantage of any time they fuck? Do catholic priests have magical spell-casting powers?

Even if, under our hopelessly sexist and paternalistic laws as they have been twisted in 'clergy malpractice" cases, there is some theoretical and absurd liability on the part of the church, the birth of a healthy baby is not "damages." Period. Thats settled law.

What are the damages? "Hey, he was selfish, he didn't make me come, I want a million dollars?"

[dsc]

11. because his employer makes him take a vow of poverty

and thus makes it so he can't pay support.

[patcox2]

19. That might have the appearance of logic to you.

But its not the law. Its actually irrelevant. The nature of his employment agreement with his employer is utterly irrelevant to her right to support.

For example, suppose you make the minimum wage. Thats the equivalent of a vow of poverty. Does that mean that if you knock someone up, the mother can sue your employer? Same logic.

The priest is free to quit. Its not even considered a sin, you know. In any other paternity situation, the court would say, I assess child support in the amount of X dollars, based on your income of Y. If the court felt that the man had the ability to make more money, but was willfully refusing to do so, the court could impute income. But imposing the costs of raising a healthy child as damages in a tort action is simply unsupportable at law.

[dsc]

23. But he has no income

The Catholic Church agrees to support its priests which means paying their lawfully incured debts. He is basicly an asset of the church so the church owns him.

On edit Employers routinely are forced to provide insurance for non custodial children and to deduct pay for support both of which costs them time and or money.

[patcox2]

36. You shouldn't fuck people with no income.

thats the downside of sleeping around, you wind up with kids you can't afford.

[dsc]

39. See jobycom's post below

he or she puts it far better than I did. The point is that the Catholic Church compensates these priests in ways that are untouchable by support. This is no different than a man who works under the table to avoid paying support. Both he and the employer are liable.

[patcox2]

45. You are absolutely wrong once again.

The employer of the man who is employed under the table is not directly liable for that man's child support. Never.

[dsc]

48. Oh yes he is

If you know your employee is supposed to be having support withheld and you don't do it you are liable. The woman can sue.

[patcox2]

53. Citation?

Come on, big boy, give it to me.

[jobycom]

60. As someone who handles payroll

I can tell you that if a court orders me to withhold wages, and I don't, I can be fined, sued, and imprisoned. It's on every court order sent to me to garnish wages.

But that's not the point. The Church is paying wages under the table. They are paying wages above board, legally, and in full view. But they structure those wages so that the employee can't convert them into money. Thus, the woman would be owed some of those wages, as in any child support case. But to collect any of those wages, they would have to be in monetary form, and only the church can convert them into such.

We're not talking about an employer who pays below the board. We are talking about what form the wages are paid in.

Or, look at it this way. The Church agrees that in return for a vow of poverty, they will provide all the priest's needs. Now his need is of child support for his child.

The courts obviously agreed, since the woman already won the first suit, and was trying to increase the amount the Church was required to pay her.

[dr.strangelove]

63. Wrong issue

You can be fined for failing to follow a court order, just like you can be fined for fialing to pay a traffic ticket or your taxes. the ability to fine you or lock you up does not give them the right to make you liable for the employee's obligation.

[jobycom]

68. God, I hope you're not an attorney

Look, if I pay my employees in kind, and I receive a court order to withhold wages, I have to take the payment-in-kind into account. If I am suing for child support and I can prove that the man I'm suing has wages that aren't monetary, a court will certainly consider those wages, too. If as an employer all of my wages paid are non-monetary, I will be expected to convert some of those wages into money.

I don't know what you think she is suing for. She's suing for child support. She already won the case once, and was receiving child support--that should prove you wrong, without further argument. She went back to court for higher support because of changes in the situation--as often happens. It's routine. She wasn't suing the Church for responsibility, she was suing just to collect the support owed their child, and she had already won. The second case was to adjust the income.

[dr.strangelove]

74. I've never argued that they should not pay

I am a lawyer, thank you.
I know the result of this case and believe that the court reached the correct conclusion 8 years ago. I was merely telling you that you can not be forced to pay an obligation you don't have. If you pay an employee, you can be forced to withhold, regardless of how you pay an employee. I agree and the court reached the right conclusion here.

The woman's choice to enter into the relationship is a defense that should be raised. Whether you agree or not, the State of Oregon allows this evidence to show how much the mother should be obligated to contribute to her own child's care. The State of Oregon has guidelines to figure out support payments. The custodial parent has the same obligation that the non-custodial parent has, to provide care to the child based upon their income. The state allows the willingness to engage in sex to be a factor in allocating the mother's obligation. Courts will allow rape victims to contribute less on thier side of balance sheet used to calculate support payments. I think the basis for this was a right to life lobbying effort many years ago that cereated several legal changes to provide incentives not to have an abortion. I don't know if that it right, that is just a hunch.

I agree with you that wages that aren't monetary must be considered. I hope a court would order you to convert some of those wages into money, and all you to deduct from the remaining wages paid to the employee your costs of the conversion.

I know very well what she is suing for and that she won the child support. This does nothing to alter my suggestion that you can not be forced, as an employer, to pay an obligation that is not yours. Your obligation is based upon the wages you pay. If you fire the man, your obigations, absent the cobra issues I cited earlier in another post, cease.

[jobycom]

82. Sorry, I was arguing with the other poster, and blaming you for

what he said. My bad. I'm sorry.

This next is a question, though it's phrased as a statement:

Obviously an employer can't be forced to pay an obligation that isn't theirs, but the argument of course is what their obligation is. If they have a contract that creates the expectation of a lifetime of employment, then some of the benefits they have promised are deferred, or rather, are buried in job security. This would discourage, and in the case of the Church, since no wages are paid, prohibit, the ability of the employed to save. Unless the contract with the priest specifically spells out that they can be fired and all obligations released because of the type of indescretion the priest committed, then it would be obvious they were terminating the priest because of his financial burden, which would seem to me to be grounds for arguing that the Church still had a liability.

The Church doesn't just hire people to be priests. They create contracts, and the appearance of contracts through vows and history, that create the expectation of a lifetime of employment. Thus, firing a priest to avoid a financial obligation would be problematic. If a court ruled this created a liability (and I've heard of that happening with tenured professors being terminated), then the Church would still be under obligation.

Why would that not be true?

[dr.strangelove]

85. Two things

An employer's obligation with regards to support is created by statute and probably differs from state to state. In Oregon, an employer can be forced to withhold wages and purchase insurance coverage pursuant to an employment plan, but nothing else.

I can see some merit to an argument that an employer who gives a contract of lifetime employment conveys some valued benefit as job security. I don't know anyone who has every tried to put a dollar value on job security though.

An employer certainly has the right to terminate an employee because of that employees indiscretions. In the absence of a contract, an employee is deemed at will. From personal experience I know that priests are employed at will. An employee at will can be fired for any reason unless the termination violated law, such as for sex or race if the company alls under the discrimination laws.

There is no written contract with the church. A priest can be fired for any or no reason at all. Over the last 50 years, priests have been fired for sexual relationships with men, women and children, these are the most public firings. However, priests have also been fired for financial impropriety, such as stealing from the proverbial collection plate. I know a priest who was fired in the 1980s for giving a speech in favor of abortion for victims of rape.

I disagree that the church creates a different type of employment relationship with a priest. I don't agree that there is any expectation of a lifetime of employment. I also have no problem with the church firing a priest to avoid a financial obligation. The obligation is the priests and will remain his. He will be forced to get a job or starve to death on the street. His wages will be garnished by his next employer, just as the church had to garnish his. If that next employer also wants to fire him because they do not want to deal with the work involved in garnishing the wage, that is fine with me too.

I guess you are suggesting that the church is in a different position that the next employer, but I would not. Regardless of how they pay the priest, they must pay the support as long as he works for them. If he does a great job, he will probably stay. Since he broke the celibacy vow, I would suggest he is not a great priest and probably should be fired.

I've never heard of a court ruling that a lifetime employment contract created an obligation on a university or education facility. I may have missed that in the various CLEs on this issue I have been too, but I never heard of that.

[patcox2]

87. Turns out the church is not legally obligated for the support after all.

The woman's direct child support claim against the church was rejected, as it should have been. (It was actually against the specific order that the priest is a member of). However, she had also brought a tort claim againist the order based on the incident. the Order settled the tort claim by voluntarily agreeing to pay support. Here is a link:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-priestdad28jul28,0,4272585.story?page=2&coll=la-home-headlines

She then went back for more. There is not enough detail, but I would guess that the grounds for the increase were based solely on interpretation of the settlement agreement, and not based on any theory of law which imposes direct obligation for child support on the Order.

[dr.strangelove]

90. Interesting theory

I never thought to agree to support as a settlement of a suit. I would have included some provision in the settlement about future increases in support. If they did not, they should sue their lawyer for malpractice.

I never thought the church had an obligation to pay directly, but merely to withhold payment to the priest. I am surprised they agreed to pay monthly support instead of buying an annuity for the child's care. I would think paying a few hundred thousand to a structured settlement outfit would have gotten the child a nice monthly check until he/she was 18, then paid for college and had some money left for starting life, like a down payment on a car or an apartment.

[bloom]

101. "I would think paying a few hundred thousand..."

yeah - that would be nice. This is from the article in the preceeding post -

"In 2004, Father Richard Thibodeau, Picton's predecessor, offered a one-time payment of $3,876, an amount he termed "generous."


They sound pretty delusional as far as what it takes to raise a child.

What they want to pay might cover food and that's all. :(

[bloom]

99. That article makes a couple of good points in relation to child support

that should paid by priests/the Church...

"This should never, ever have happened," said Picton, who since March has run the Denver Province, which oversees 200 priests in 31 states. "You don't not take care of the kid."

'Picton said Wednesday that his religious order needed to go beyond civil court standards — which base child support, in large part, on a parent's income — because the laws don't account for a priest who took a vow of poverty."


----

Any judge with any sense should be able to make a reasonable est. of support based on factors such as what would a similar position pay, etc.... but like like this church official person says - there is no reason for the church NOT to come up with a reasonable amount on it's own.

The Catholic church loses whatever moral ground it might have had when they refuse to pay a reasonable amount. Of course - it sounds like they would like to keep it out of the courts - with a confidentiality agreement and all. And then people can't compare notes, too.

[dsc]

70. Here you go

It took one, count it one, google search under the terribly difficult to think up terms child support, employer.

http://www.state.sc.us/dss/csed/employers.htm

What are the penalties for not withholding?
If an employer wilfully fails to withhold income pursuant to a notice to withhold, the employer can be required to pay the full amount of child support they failed to withhold.


It doesn't get clearer than that. I may be wrong on who initiates the suit (I said the custodial parent while it probably is the state) but the letters in bold, bold added by me, are as clear as well cleaned crystal, the employer can be required to pay the full amount of child support they failed to withhold

Again this took the arduous task of one, count it one, google search.

[patcox2]

83. That does not transfer the support obligation.

That is a penalty for the separate offense of failing to withhold. The amount of that penalty is measured by the amount of support that was not withheld.

But that is not a transfer of the support obligation to the employer. The ongoing support obligation remains solely on the employee.

I tend to use lexis-nexis, rather than google, for my legal research, it has the advantage of being accurate.

And having a law degree and being admitted to practice gives me the ability to accurately interpret the significance of what I find.

[dr.strangelove]

86. Now now

I'm a lawyer ripping this logic apart in other parts of the thread. I agree with your point, just not your attack of google as a legal research tool and your comment about the skill demostrated merely by your degree and admission to practice.

I use google all the time and find it is reliable and accurate. It often cites into lexis-one, which is lexis's free research tool. It also often cites into findlaw and the various state law websites, or law firm cites that are very accurate.

Maybe you have a higher opinion of law degrees than I do, but I have plenty of clients without law degrees that never cease to amaze with their powers of legal interpretation and analysis.

Anyway, go ahead and rip away at this poster's logical and legal errors, I would only ask that you not attack free legal research alternatives to lexis. I spent hours trying to get my associates to use them and save our clients some money. Also, just having a law degree and an admission does not a good lawyer make. I know plenty of assholes who graduated tops in their class who could not make the analysis you made in your argument, and I have a law clerk who got a GED while in juvenile prison that could probably do just as good a job.

Sorry to be an ass on this, but I think some of your posts can be read to reflect poorly on the profession, I know that was not your intent, I just wanted to point it out.

[patcox2]

88. You're right, the argument should stand on its own.

Facts are very helpful, too. See my post above, in the womans original attempt to obtain child support from the church, her claim was rejected, there is, as I was arguing, no direct legal obligation on the part of the church to pay child support for the children of church employees.

It was a settlement of a related tort claim.

More info: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-priestdad28jul28,0,4272585.story?page=2&coll=la-home-headlines

[dr.strangelove]

92. I saw that

Rather interesting approach. I would not have agreed to a settlement that did not address the possibility of future increases in care costs and support. This new suit may be dismissed because it violates the settlement agreement. If not, maybe the lawyer should put the professional liability fund on notice of a potential malpractice action.

[patcox2]

95. Ugly case. I hate "clergy malpractice" theories.

Under New Jersey law the Supreme Court put its back out contorting logic by insisting that they were not enforcing religious tenets, but then adopted a rule which basically found that its "clergy malpractice" to have sex with a parishioner, because the religion forbids it. I worked up the outline for an argument that the case violates our "heart balm" statute, and that the Court basically resurrected the long dead cause of action known as "seduction." but practice is so hectic, I only have hours to post here, how am I supposed to write a paper?

[dsc]

96. Then you might try reading what posters have written instead of

of offering fantasies. No where did I claim it transferred support obligations to the employer. What I did say, and I still stand behind, is that if an employer pays a person with solely inkind wages, or in the alternative pays him under the table, then the employer is indeed liable in a child support situation. What the church is doing here, is no different at all, from a family owned company paying the son of the founder by providing an apartment, cars, food, utilities, etc but no money so he can't be garnished. They would be sued and so should the church.

By the way, I hope you don't treat jurors with the same smug self satisified tone you did me. If you do, I bet you lose a lot of cases for your clients. I would have great difficulty following a promise not to punish a client for his lawyers behavior after your behavior here. The simple fact is that in SC, unless they are lying on that website, failure to withhold child support does in fact make you liable for paying that past support.

[patcox2]

41. No employer is ever forced to provide insurance for non-custodial kids.

The courts lack the power to do so. You are wrong.

As to garnishing, well, thats fine and dandy, but its a huge step from requiring an employer to garnish, and making the employer legally obligated for the employees debt.

[dsc]

46. They most certainly can and are all the time

Divorce decrees routinely assign the burden of carrying insurance to a non custodial spouse and since in many cases the insurance is employer provided at at least a subsidized cost, that is a defacto ordering of the company to either provide or help provide insurance.

[dr.strangelove]

64. No

It is an order to the person who works for the employer. A court can not force an employer to buy insurance unless they are doing so out of a withholding provision. If the person leaves the job, the employer has no further obligation other than COBRA and statelike continuation provisions. The order is tied to the employee, not the employer.

[jobycom]

40. No, not right. I posted below before I saw this.

The Church substitutes living conditions for income. As I said below, a friend of mine worked for the vatican, and lived a luxurious lifestyle, but didn't own anything. The Church's agreement is that they provide all your needs.

In the case of the Church, there is plenty of income, but no monetary wages to withhold. The Church holds all of the priest's wealth. Should the priest be allowed to live an upper middle class lifestyle yet not have to pay for his own child's support, simply because his employer has come up with a clever way of paying him?

[bloom]

102. I think it's similar

to if someone lived in a commune. Such a person wouldn't be able to get out of paying child support or any other debt just because the assets were held in common and nobody got "wages".

[Dhalgren]

21. Thank you! That was exactly the point of the suit against the

Church...

[jobycom]

29. That was my first thought; however, I could argue

that this corporation is suggesting to its members that the take an action that would void the basic contract this organization requires for its ultimate payoff.

A parallel: What if an insurance agent tells a policy holder to go skydiving when skydiving is specifically forbidden by the policy?

One thing, though, and I'm not sure the answer. Do priests take vows of pverty? I know a former Jesuit lay brother who worked in the Vatican. He took a vow of poverty to work there, so he owned nothing. He always joked about it: he could eat anything he wanted in one of the best kitchens in the world, could wear any clothing he could desire, had a garage full of cars he could use for the asking. He wanted nothing, and lived like a rich man, but owned nothing, not even the clothes he wore. If priests have such a vow, then the woman could argue that their payment structure was such that it hid income from the job, and that the priest was far more capable of supporting this child than his bank account would show.

Just a thought. Probably wrong.

[dsc]

32. actually perfectly correct

and much better expressed than I did.

[bloom]

103. To do it right

you would have to assess how someone lived, what services were provided, etc.

I talked with someone whose job it is to figure out child support - get people to pay up. He often has to deal with people who hide assets and income. He asks how they live - what car they drive (it might be in their girlfriend's name). Some people are very good at hiding stuff - but that doesn't mean they don't have to pay up.

[bloom]

38. If the Catholic Church is going to be responsible for these people

in a "paternal" sort of way - they should pay for the person's obligations. If the person was sued over something else - I expect the church would pay it. I expect the Church would pay the priests medical bills.

It's a pretty messed up argument - if people can be "employed" by - working for the church - and that were to clear them & the Church of any responsibility for anything they ever did.

[Bunny]

55. Do you believe fathers should pay support to their children?

Regardless of whether the woman "came"?

[Mairead]

89. You misunderstand: the Church is not the guy's employer

The relationship is much more pervasive than that. The guy BELONGS TO the Church, and is expected either to follow its every dictate or leave. It's closer to a master:slave or parent:child relationship, and the reason the Church would owe the money is because of its 'failure to supervise'.

[stepnw1f]

107. Ah Yes.... The CathoLICK Apologist

You posted on this before. Same crap. It must weigh heavely on your conciousness to have to defend such hypocrisy so much. And boy do you defend with such a convoluted twist. Poor poor thing. Eck....

[dr.strangelove]

24. What should the church have done?

What is so wrong with this answer?

[dsc]

27. You are kidding, right?

The church considers the use of birth control a mortal sin. It considers the advocating of birth control's legality by politicians an acceptable reason to deny communion to those politicians. But when they have to actually pony up some money all of the sudden "she should have used protection" is the line. Give me a freaking break.

[dr.strangelove]

42. I guess only some defendants have the right to the best defense

Two things, first, there is no way the church even saw this answer before it was filed. That is not the way we practice law in Portland.

Second, who cares about the church's views on birth control. They are fighting a lawsuit. When someone is sued, they should be able to use any defense available to them. Even if the legal defense is against their personal views, it is a LEGAL defense. I thought we only cared about justice. If justice dictates that someone is not liable, should they not have justice available because of thier position on this issue. I think not.

[jobycom]

50. I wouldn't argue with that. No one really is. But you have to understand

how upset a woman who has been told she has to have twelve children because she's not allowed to practice birth would be at this defense?

I don't think the outrage is over the Church's right to the defense, it's over the hypocrisy of using this argument while telling its members it would be a mortal sin akin to murder to do what they say the woman should have done.

Even if they win this case, they are going to lose more by making that argument than they ever would have made by simply paying.

[dr.strangelove]

57. I think you are reading the Answer wrong

An answer to a lawsuit submits only legal bases for a defense, not judgment on the behavior or suggestions to the plaintiff.

The Answer does not indicate the woman should have used protection, it indicates she knowingly engaged in a behavior that could result in pregnancy and the damages she is seeking. The unprotected part of the defense is not the issue, but the sex itself. If the woman chose to "sin", so be it. The use of a condom has nothing to do with the defense. The word protected is being made an issue when it has nothing to do with the legal defense. The legal defense is that she chose her actions and they have consequences, which should be considered by the trier of fact when deciding if this defendant is responsible for the damges alleged.

Also, the church never saw this document before it was filed. It was more than likely taken from another file where the use of the term "unprotected" would not have mattered to anyone. If the term "unprotected" was removed from the paragraph, would you still object to the Answer?

[jobycom]

65. I said nothing to the contrary

It's a fair defense, I didn't say otherwise. It's also a losing defense, since every paternity suit uses it.

My only point was that it can be a good legal defense and be a very stupid business move.

As for the word "unprotected," take it out, and yes, the outrage does disappear. That would be exactly the Church's doctrine, then. Add it, and the implication is exactly as people took it.

As for whether anyone in the Church actually read the defence before it was filed, I have trouble believing they didn't. As you are aware, priests are highly educated, with the equivalent of a Master's degree to even become a priest. Archbishops even more so. A lot of priests have law degrees--I had a cousin who was a priest and had a law degree. I find it unbelievable to the point of absurdity that someone wouldn't have wanted to know the exact defence being used, and I find it only a little less absurd that a lawyer would not think of the incongruity and ask his client about it. Unless, of course, they had agreed beforehand to not reveal such things. Kind of like Bush and Rove do, I'm sure.

[dr.strangelove]

69. Wow

So the degrees held by a client should somehow make them mor einvovled in their defens.e If only that were true. I defend companies who exectutives have appeared on the over of national news magazines, people with MBAs, JDs, multiple Masters, MDs and PhDs. I have a client that I did an answer for yesterday who is both a lawyer and an MD. I know he has never read an answer I filed on his behalf. It is a simple legal form that I know of no sophisticated client that reads. It is their sophistication that causes them not to read them. They know they are merely a few of thousands of pages I will be sending them in the coming weeks. I send them after they are filed, NEVER before. I have clients that are priests with law degrees, they never want to know what defense I will cite in an answer, becasue it has nothing to do with the defense we will actually use later. It is merely citing all available options. Months later, after discovery is completed, we talk about individual defense theories and we file amended ansers or revoce affirmative defenses. I do not find it at all absurd that a lawyer would not think of the incongruity and ask his client about it.

[jobycom]

79. Oh, don't go lawyerspeak on me

You know my point. There's a difference between a Fortune 500 company and the Catholic Church. These guys buy entire runs of books with minor criticisms of them to prevent the books from hitting the shelves. They hire people to read most everything published in many languages to make sure they don't look too bad. They knew what their attorney was saying, unless they had specific instructions not to.

[dr.strangelove]

81. Of course they did

They knew their lawyer would reserve every available defense. That is all that was done here. No company I know of pays someone to read answers. And from my experience Archdiocese, and I have represented the NY and Boston Archdiocese, but never Portland, are very much like large corporations. Both NY and Boston have a risk manager who is a JD and a priest. They have a staff of priests with JDs or paralegal credentials. Its not very different at all.
Both the church and companies have PR departments who engage in the activities you suggest.

[bloom]

104. I think it would take a pretty stupid lawyer to make that argument

for the Catholic Church. It's not like everyone doesn't know the Church's take on birth control.

"who cares about the church's views on birth control" you asked a few posts up.

I would answer - apparently the Church does - or they should say they are actually flexible - the implication of the argument at hand.

This affects far more than one woman. Millions. As many as there are Catholics.

And probably some that aren't.

[dr.strangelove]

113. Reading is fundamental

As I said in other posts, this answer never said anything about supporting birth control, and I think any lawyer who did not put this in an answer for his client would be stupid. I don't understand why you keep thinking an Answer in a lawsuit is like some official statement of the defendant's position. It is merely a statement of all possible defenses. A lawsuit will alleged many theories of liability called causes of action or counts. Many will be dismissed or not pursued. An answer does the same. Many of the points raised in an answer will never be heard again. Any lawyer who works like I do, meaning he has to file answers or else waive his client's rights, should act this way.

My comment about "who cares about the church's views on birth control" was taken entirely out of context by you. Re-read that post and the conversation I was having. If you still think I was asking whether or not any person in the world cared about the church's position on birth control let me know. Perhaps I was engaged in a conversation where that comment had a context. Your pulling it out and alleging I stated that I doubt whether anyone cares about one of the world's most populaced religions views on a controversial matter of Church law is disrespectful.

[bloom]

114. Ok here is the context...

"Second, who cares about the church's views on birth control. They are fighting a lawsuit. When someone is sued, they should be able to use any defense available to them. Even if the legal defense is against their personal views, it is a LEGAL defense. I thought we only cared about justice. If justice dictates that someone is not liable, should they not have justice available because of their position on this issue. I think not."


This seems like a case of not seeing the forest for the trees. The Catholic Church holds them self up as the supreme moral authority on earth. It seems to me that with that "status" - it behooves them to have arguments made in their name that are consistent with their morality.

Maybe Lawyers whose job it is to represent such huge organizations sometimes lose site of how lopsided it is. The Catholic Church - taking in $8 Billion dollars a year vs. a mother who might make $30,000 on average.

I know lawyers whose job it is to collect child support from parents who don't want to pay it - that is the perspective I hear the most - so I may see things differently than you do.

[bloom]

115. Even more to the point - I would say that the Catholic Church's moral

authority is their Primary Asset. Without the Church's moral authority - it is a worldwide network of men who have been swindling people out of 10% or more of their income for nearly 2000 years. "The Catholic Church owns more land globally than any other organization".

If a lawyer for the Catholic Church puts the moral authority of the Church on the line for something like $400 month when the Church's income is something like $750,000,000.00/month - how is THAT a good argument?

Even beyond the birth control angle - I find the suggestion that the woman is the sole responsible person in the creation (and therefore the raising) of a child to be immoral and irresponsible. I think the Church would want to set a better example than that.

You wrote: "When someone is sued, they should be able to use any defense available to them." And I say - If the making of the argument is more of a loss than a gain (regardless of the outcome) - for them - then they client would NOT want to make that argument.
.


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

...J. Michael Henningan, an attorney who represents the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, said he wasn't familiar with the Portland case. But "the positions the attorney takes become the positions of the clients," he said. "It is never OK for an attorney to take a position contrary to the beliefs and understanding of the client."

[dr.strangelove]

117. I'll try again

Wow, your hatred for the church was pretty clear there. I have o love for the church and think they are wrong on many of their positions, but to suggest that the "moral authority" is their primary asset is without any support. To suggest the church is a worldwide network of men who have been swindling people out of 10% or more of their income for nearly 2000 years shows that you harbor hatred which colors your views of this organization.

I'm not going to even begin to point out the billions of dollars the church has spent helping people. The amount of the land it owns that is used for community benefits and resources. I hate many things the church does, but I'm pretty glad they feed the homeless, teach reading, provide safe after school programs, and there are many more programs in my neighborhood alone, I have not the time to address their programs in other neighborhoods, states and countries.

I addressed your assertion of the church's income of $750,000,000.00/month in my last post. You are so far off and have no support for any number within 90% of that.

The church never stated that the woman is the "sole responsible person in the creation and therefore the raising of a child." Where does that come from? I would agree such a statement would be immoral and irresponsible and the church would think such a position is insane. Where did you pull that from. I have always thought the church's position on child raising is that it should be confined to a marriage where botha mother and father are present and supporting the child. Please tell me where you have seen or read a position by the Portland Archdiocese, or any other, that a father is not responsible for creation or raising a child. Again, I think your hatred for the church has colored your reading of this document. Supporting your right to be sure that one parent of a child pays their obligation and the other parent pays their obligation in no way suggests that only one is responsible. In fact such an argument must acknowledge that both are responsible equally. It merely is used to discuss which parent is responsible for what percentage of the costs of raising the child.

How can making an argument that a mother is obligated to pay her fair share of child support more of a loss than a gain. I never suggested one do this for the client.

Mike Hennigan (you spelled it wrong, its not Henningan) the lawyer you quoted, is a legend. He is now a commercial law plaintiff's counsel, but there was a time when he was a civil rights guru. He literally wrote the book on constitutional standing and wrote a beautiful defense of the Vietnam Conscientious Objector status and the right of these men to a civilian trial. I am sure he is not familiar with the Portland case, but his position is entirely accurate. The positions the attorney takes become the positions of the clients. This attorney did not take a position, he filed an Answer. The media reporting this do not understand what an answer is, nor do you. It is not a position paper. I agree with Hennigan, it is never OK for an attorney to take a position contrary to the beliefs and understanding of the client. I don't think that was done here. If the church wants to change the Answer, that is fine, I would be happy to do it. I felt I have defended the attorney's actions and his reason for including a very basic legal defense integral to apportioning child support. To do otherwise would have left his client without a legal defense they are entitled to. They can choose not to pursue that defense, I would advise against it, but the choice is the clients. This attorney has not taken any position at all yet, that is my point.

[bloom]

120. It sounds you haven't read the article...

I didn't spell the name wrong - that is a cut and paste from the article in question. The LA Times spelled it wrong then.

Some more quotes from the article:

"I thought, 'What kind of is that?' " said Mary Jane McGraw of Oak Park, who runs an affiliate of the Boston-based Voice of the Faithful, a Catholic lay group.

She said she was most offended that archbishop blamed the woman entirely for the pregnancy.

"Once again, they want to lay it off on Eve," she said. "Nothing's changed."

Levada was on vacation and unavailable to comment on the controversial legal stance, but the attorney who came up with it, Richard J. Kuhn, said he wrote Levada's answer to the complaint strictly from a "common sense" legal perspective, without regard to Catholic teachings."

-----

I think you are making assumptions about what I think. And I think it is valid to note what the Catholic worldwide takes in in a month - because that is the amount which is threatened if the PERCEPTION of the Church's moral authority is lost.

It doesn't really matter if they really have "moral authority" or not. As long as people think they have the moral authority to tell them how to live their lives - that is what matters. That is what can be lost by the Church abandoning their authority over a small claim - along with those peoples good faith in the will of the Church AND their money.

I don't have to be a legal expert to understand - if the Church loses their authority by abandoning the moral high ground over $400/ month that is a stupid thing. Just like the person who posted this - she is disgusted - as thousands of women are likely to be. I think for good reason. If the church loses - worldwide - thousands of members over this and similar issues - if they give up their greatest asset - they stand to lose a lot of money.

I think any competent attorney should understand that when they make arguments on the Church's behalf. I'm not the only person who thinks this. Read the article. I think you are still hung up on legal "rights" and you're not thinking about ramifications.

---


From another article:

"St. Mary's parishioners said Thursday they were surprised, if not shocked, when they learned Uribe has a son.

"The Masses he gave were so nice, and he talked in such a pretty way -- I liked the man," said Manuela Gonzalez, 30. "Surprised? Yes, I was surprised. You have ideas about how a priest should be, and that's not the way it was."

"Priests are the ones who should be setting a good example and doing right by people," he said."

http://www.whittierdailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,207~12026~2986704,00.html
---



And from an editorial where one of the Catholic leaders "gets it". I may disagree with the writer though - I think Mahony is trying to protect the church's moral authority by keeping things secret (whether that is effective or not :shrug: ):

"TWO ROMAN CATHOLIC LEADERS acted in response to two court cases in recent days, in two utterly different ways. One went (albeit very belatedly) beyond what the court required in order to do the right thing. One avoided giving as much as the court demands.

On July 27, the Denver head of a religious order said the group would pay increased child support for the son of one of its priests, even though the courts had said it didn't have to. "You don't not take care of the kid," Father Thomas Picton, leader of the Denver Province of the Redemptorists, said in refreshingly plain English about what is plainly the right course of action. (In doing so, he countermanded subordinates who put the child's mother through a tough court battle, which she lost.) Picton said he also would encourage the priest, Arturo Uribe, to get counseling on fatherhood, though he has never met the 12-year-old son he fathered while a seminarian.

Two days earlier, a state appellate court ordered Cardinal Roger M. Mahony to turn over to prosecutors church records involving priests accused of molestation. It was the second such court ruling within a year, yet the cardinal's lawyers said they would continue his appeal in what has become a marathon legal struggle long since abandoned in other areas, including Orange County and Boston.

Accusations and proven cases of sexual misconduct by priests have gravely injured the church's reputation, even among its believers. Like an increasing number of church leaders, Picton seems to understand that to regain public trust and to reclaim their moral authority, Catholic authorities must go beyond legalities. Mahony hasn't gotten the message."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-bishops4aug04,0,1790583.story?coll=la-news-comment-editorials

[dr.strangelove]

116. Every defendant has a right to the best legal defense

Two things, one you still have never addressed the basic flaw in your position, that the Answer in question NEVER suggests or advocates using "protection." It merely stated that unprotected sex is a risky behavior.

The church NEVER endorsed protected sex in this Answer, even protection methods that comply with church teaching. As I have said several times, the mere mention of "unprotected sex" as a risky behavior does not endorse "protected sex." The Answer does not suggest a different behavior for the woman in any way. I still have yet to read your explanation of where the Answer states support for "protected sex." It is not logical to suggest that merely because you are critical of one behavior "unprotected sex" you must support the opposite behavior. The church in this case would have been critical of protected or unprotected sex, since it was not within the confines of marriage.

As for the church's views on "protection," there are several methods of birth control the church endorses, including timing the menstruation cycle and detecting body temperature. Using these methods would both clearly fall into "protected sex" but are not in any way opposed to church teachings. You are making the assumption that the church read this Answer, or at least should have, and that the Answer opposes their views on this issue. Even though the answer never mentioned support for Protection, you are making the assumption that "protected sex must mean means of "protection" not endorsed by the church.

The Answer does not support "protected sex" it is critical of unprotected sex. It does not support the use of basal body temperature or cycle study as method of birth control, both are acceptable to the church. It does not suggest she take the pill, use an implant, get hormone injections or use the female condom, it just states that she chose to engage in a legally classified "risk" behavior.

Second, I don't see how you can hold yourself out as a liberal or progressive yet argue this organization should not be able to use all the rights inherent to its freedom. You seem to have something against the church, fine, I don't care if you hate them. I'm not a very big fan of the church either. They still have every right to use every legal defense available. It is the basis for our system of justice.

On your comment about the church's income and its relationship to the mother's income, you don't seem to understand organizational law or family law. For the former, if you think the Archdiocese of Portland makes $8,000,000,000 per year, you are way off base. If you think that just because the legal entity the Archdiocese of Portland operates under the same system of government as the Archdiocese or New York, that somehow NY should pay the debts of Portland, you don't understand how organizational law works. If you are implying that the Archdiocese or Rome should pay the debts of another Archdiocese, you are making the same mistake. If you believe the Archdiocese or the Vatican State should pay, it is again the same mistake. These are all independent legal entities, much like our states are independent from each other and from the federal government. If California under Arnold is run into the ground and about to go belly up, NY and Oregon can not be forced by a California taxpayer to pay the debts of California, nor could the US federal government. also, the Portland church is in significant financial trouble and has already under the bankruptcy court.

The "church" is not one legal organization. The Portland Archdiocese gets very little funding from any source other than its own investments and parishioners. They may apply for grants or aid from the Vatican State, just like any other Archdiocese. The Boston Archdiocese, one of the most successful in the US, sought money from Rome to aid in its payments of settlements with abuse victims and were denied. They were left on their own. They had to sell significant pieces of property and stock holdings to fund the settlements.

For the latter, the church did not father this child, a young priest did. They have no legal obligation to pay for this child absent their obligation to withhold income from their employee to satisfy a judgment entered against him. In this case, the church agreed to pay support for this child. They had no obligation to do so, but I am glad they did. You are right, the Portland church can afford to care for a child by one of its employees. For that matter, so can many large organizations. Take for example the DNC. If an employee of the DNC fathered a child, the DNC could easily afford to pay for the support of this child. They may even agree to do so, though they would have no legal obligation to do so.

Also, thank you for pointing out the context of my original comment. It seems very clear now that you used my comment out of its proper context.

As for the Catholic Church holding themselves up as the supreme moral authority on earth, I don't think that has anything to do with their legal rights. I don't think someone should have to limit their legal rights to "what they preach." I also see you as the one claiming to be the moral authority on this issue.

[dsc]

52. two things

First I find it nothing short of absurd that the Bishop had no idea this defense was being used. He was the client.

Second, having a right doesn't mean one has to exercise that right. If I marry some guy in Massachusetts and then return to NC and we split up I probably have the right to say I shouldn't have to pay alimony since same sex marriage is illegal in NC but I would still be a hypocrite whose words about the sanctity of same sex marriage should no longer be trusted.

[dr.strangelove]

62. What are you saying here?

I don't think you know a lot about legal practice, but your second point answers your first point. I'll take them in turn.

First - I find your conclusion of absurdity absurd
I don't know how many times you have represented businesses such as churchs. I have represented probably hundreds of business entities, including churches of many faiths. I don't think I have ever shown an answer to a party before filing it. It is simply not done. I get a lawsuit in and have a limited time to file an answer.

Second - Having a right doesn't mean one has to exercise that right. EXACTLY. While I disagree that you would have any legal basis to argue you shouldn't have to pay alimony since same sex marriage is illegal in NC, I would rather discuss that in another thread.
FOr this thread, an answer to a lawsuit is just what you said, NOT exercising a right, but stating that you have it. If you don;t plead an Affirmative Defense, you waive it. Due to time constraints imposed in filing an answer, a lawyer must cite every available defense. Just because a defense is listed in an answer, does not mean it will be used. I list on average 20-30 affirmative defenses in every answer I file, none of them usually are used.

Again, you are attacking a piece of paper for its stance on a religious issue, when the piece of paper was never seen by the person/organization you are using it to attack, and is not a postion paper, merely a reservation of a right to a defense that every citizen should be entitled to.

[dsc]

67. I find it totally ridiculous that the person who runs a business

wouldn't see papers filed on his behalf in the course of a decade long case. These papers were filed in 94 and refiled a few years ago. I admit to not representing or running a business but if I did run a business I would demand to see what was being filed in my name and any lawyer who refused to show me those papers wouldn't be working for me.

Trying to preserve a right is no less egregious than actually using it. These people supposedly believe that the use of contraceptives is murder. They surely shouldn't be advocating that use in legal briefs to avoiding paying for their misconduct.

[dr.strangelove]

71. I wish I had clients with that frame of mind

First I would love to be able to bill several hours to discuss every answer I file with a client. I don't know any client that would want to pay for this. Most of my client's hire me because they want me to do the best job protecting their interest.

I think it is insane to suggest someone's preserving a right is no less egregious than actually using it. However I can not find it all all egregious to use or preserve a right. Rights are avalable to all people, not merely those you like.

The answer also did not suggest this woman use a contraceptive. You are reading something that is not there. The Answer points out a fact, unprotected sex is likely to result in the damages alleges, childcare costs. They are not advocating an issue in a "Legal Brief."
Also, an Answer is NOT a Legal Brief.

[dsc]

72. I didn't say anything about discussing the answer with you

I would demand to read it. I would then expect to be able to understand it well enough to know the gist of what was contained in it. I may not get every single nuance but I should certainly be able to see if it conflicts with my basic philosophy. These people supposedly believe that using bc is a mortal sin. It is nothing short of outrageous for them to now say "if you sinned a little more this wouldn't have happened".

[dr.strangelove]

78. There is no need to demand

We are required by law to send every pleading we file on your behalf to you. Most answers are very simple to understand. There is not a great deal of legal complexities in an answer, just a lot of simple words. If an answer conflicts with your basic philosphy and you called me, I would tell you that it has nothing to do with your philosophy and if you did not want to use that defense, you did nto have to, but as a lawyer I am obligated ot cite it when preparing an answer. We don;t ever have to use it in the actual case, just like the other 30 affirmitive defenses in that same answer.

Also, they never said use birth control. The answer did not suggest this woman use a contraceptive.
Where does it say this. I read it to say that unprotected sex may result in a preganancy. You seem to suggest they must mean you should have protected sex as an alternative, as if protected sex was the only alternative to unprotected sex. What about not to have sex in the first place. There is an idea. I don't want to get pregnant by this priest, so avoid the issue entirely by not having sex at all.

The defense is about the assumption of risk. This was not a rape victim, which is what this legal defense is all about.

[bloom]

106. The mother's fault :eyes:

From the article:

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.

...She said she was most offended that archbishop blamed the woman entirely for the pregnancy.

"Once again, they want to lay it off on Eve," she said. "Nothing's changed."
----

You might think - as a lawyer that that is a reasonable argument to make - but any lawyer representing the Catholic Church or any other religious organization should be aware that if they make arguments that make their clients look like misogynistic, greedy bastards - there may be hell to pay - and it may not be worth it.

It sounds like they usually try to get confidentiality agreements to avoid press like this.

[bloom]

44. Or maybe they expected her to get an abortion...

:silly:

:crazy:

:rofl:

[Xithras]

80. Much ado about nothing.

I read that argument as simply stating the facts...the woman engaged in intercourse knowing full well that pregnancy could result. Religious opinions notwithstanding, she had plenty of options available to her and elected to not take any of them. The argument doesn't say that she should have used protection, but instead states that she didn't do ANYTHING to prevent pregnancy (and yes, there are methods that can be safely employed under Catholic doctrine to avoid pregnancy).

Like other posters here, I happen to agree with the churches position. The guy is an employee and the employer shouldn't be responsible for paying his debts. I run a small business, and I don't know what's scarier...the fact that the woman sued the fathers employer for child support, or the fact that some people here actually AGREE that they should be forced to pay. The argument, in essence, is that the employee is the property of the employer...ie, a slave.

The reality in the Catholic Church (and many others), is that priests and workers are more like volunteers. The church provides food and shelter in exchange for work. People are free to enter and leave the system any time they like...a system not unlike that found in the Peace Corps and other volunteer organizations.

If the woman was dumb enough to sleep with a guy that had no income and no assets, that's really her problem. Nobody forced her to get pregnant with his baby, and nobody forced him to have no income. He could leave the employment of the church and seek a paying job any time he wants.

[bloom]

91. It seems to me

if the church did not want to cover the obligations of the priest - it would up to them to fire him.

If part of the agreement with said employee was that he not have a family - it would seem to be grounds for dismissal.

People's "income" - whether it is in the form of housing, food, transportation can be quantified and is quantified for tax and other purposes for other professions. So it's not like there are not grounds to get child support.

I don't think it is "scary" that the church could choose to pay or fire him.

Why should we taxpayers pay because the church/priest won't. How is that a good idea?

And I don't agree that it is like he is a volunteer - as if he is a homeless person - who happens to get everything (else) taken care of.

Of course part of the point of the article is how can the church say they are against birth control and then say in court that people should use it so it is convenient for them. It's pretty nuts.

[dsc]

97. The church can, and IMO should, fire him

but if they choose instead to continue to permit him to have no income so he can dodge his obligations while providing him with every material need he might desire, then yes they should be on the hook.

[leftofthedial]

56. my personal opinion is that no one should listen to any church

but this is egregious

[Arugula Latte]

59. Listening to any religious dogma is a mistake, IMO. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

84. The Church has a lot more in common with Enron than Christianity.

Pass the basket, the lawyers need the dough.

Yes, I am a "lapsed" Catholic. Since age 12 and got the "God works in mysterious ways" answer from some priest.

[dogday]

93. You are grouping the actions of a few

to the ideals of the religions itself. Because certain people do things and are so-called Catholics or Baptist, or Protestant, does not reflect the ideals of the church or of the religion.

These right wing fundamentalist are not the religion, they are people using the religion to further their cause. I see few people actually practicing religion, those who offer food to the hungry and shelter to the poor.

Those people who help their fellow man and try to make this world a better place by good deeds and thoughts are the religion in this world. All others use religion to further their causes....

[dsc]

98. He isn't the Archbishop of Podunk

He is the person in charge of preserving the orthodoxy of the church. It is perfectly reasonable to hold the church accountable for the fact that the person they chose to put in charge of orthodoxy evidently feels free to argue that people should disregard that orthodoxy if it somehow helps him win a legal case. This isn't like my tarring all Baptists by the actions of Falwell who has no such role in the Baptist faith.

[dogday]

111. One man holds the ideals of that religion

Just cause he is in charge of the religion does not mean he is that religion. Again the actions of one or the few is not the religion itself, it is one man using it to his advantage no matter what seat of power he holds in the church, the religion is being used by him...

[RetroLounge]

100. "Why should anyone listen to the Catholic Church "

I don't...

RL

[Disturbed]

105. Ever wonder what Jesus would think about..

the Vatican or those opulent Protestent Churches?

[bloom]

108. I guess the Portland Archdiocese has been having lots of problems...

Bankruptcy

"Citing monetary concerns arising from impending trials on sex abuse claims, the Archdiocese of Portland 6 July filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on July 6, 2004, hours before two abuse trials were set to begin, becoming the first Catholic diocese to file for bankruptcy. If granted, bankruptcy would mean pending and future lawsuits would be settled in federal bankruptcy court. The archdiocese had settled more than one hundred previous claims for a sum of over $53 million. The filing seeks to protect parish assets, school money and trust funds from abuse victims: the archdiocese's contention is that parish assets are not the archdiocese's assets. Plaintiffs in the cases against the archdiocese have argued that the Catholic church is a single entity, and that the Vatican should be liable for any damages awarded in judgement of pending sexual abuse cases."

[bloom]

109. If one were to base the child support

on what pastors of other religions make:

• Senior pastors earn a median base salary of $31,006 and a median housing allowance of $15,250.

http://store.yahoo.com/buildingchurchleaders/studofchurbu.html


Then with the child support guidelines around here - the priest/Church would owe $600./month.


The Church had been paying $323 since 1998 - the Church wanted to end it with "a one-time payment of $3,876, an amount he (Father Richard Thibodeau) termed "generous." That should be about 6 months worth. :eyes:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-priestdad28jul28,0,4272585.story?page=2&coll=la-home-headlines

[dr.strangelove]

118. Basing child support on what others make is not done

It is all about how much the father makes, or can make. I now have a job where I live on both coasts and move between Portland and NYC several times a month. Just because I make a significant amount more now than I did when I worked in Oregon City, does not mean an Oregon judge should require an Oregon lawyer to pay based on my income.

Also, it is impossible to figure out support in Oregon without both sides of the support guidelines. I can run them for you on that income, but I need the mother's income, housing costs, insurance costs, and so on.

[bloom]

110. "The Catholic Church owns more land globally than any other organization"

...And don’t expect the church’s opulent basilicas, its museum-quality art collection or jewelry to hit the market either. They may amount to priceless ancient treasures, but the church values most of its artwork and valuables at just 1 euro, so they will never be sold....

What’s more, most companies have the luxury of selling off unprofitable divisions, but not the Catholic Church. And unlike ordinary corporations, the church’s main revenue source comes from parishioner contributions notes Joseph Harris, who analyzes Catholic Church trends.

Total donations made at a parish level in 2003 were $8 billion said Harris. And while Harris’ research shows donations increased at an average annual rate of 4 percent from 2000 to 2003, there’s no guarantee that growth rate will continue.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7558375/

--------

For someone to argue that the Church should not be paying child support, that it's all the woman's fault for having sex with someone without an income is just plain crazy.

If the Church had paid to the mother what they had paid their lawyers over the years for this case - it probably would have been more than enough to cover what the mother was asking for as his/their share.

I guess it's not enough for some people that the Church only allows men to be priests - and to be a part of the hierarchy. People are arguing that priests should be able to have sex without any consequences to themselves OR the church and that it is all the woman's fault if she happens to get pregnant while not using birth control that the Church does not allow. That is fucking ridiculous.

The Church lost a lot of moral authority with this case - if they ever had any to begin with.

[RPM]

112. I dont know why people listen to them in the first place

:hide:

[genieroze]

119. Those dang women are always getting themselves pregnant. /sarcasm