Former Stripper Claims Priest Fathered Baby

[moobu2]

A woman who described herself as a former stripper in Miami has filed a petition for a restraining order against a South Florida priest, who she now claims fathered her baby.

The woman, Beatrice Hernandez, told CBS4 News that she was a dancer at a Miami strip club, Porky's. She said she met Father David Dueppen at that strip club and started a relationship shortly thereafter.



Early this year, Hernandez had a baby and demanded Dueppen take DNA paternity tests, according to court documents obtained by CBS4 News. But, in the restraining order petition, Hernandez said that after several attempts for a DNA test, "the rage escalated as he attacked , grabbing her by the throat and choking her."

"I'm afraid. I'm on the street. I'm running from people," Hernandez told CBS4's Jim DeFede over the phone. "David said to me that if I go to the media, he would make me disappear and take my baby."

<snip>

Dueppen has also been in the news before. In 2006, The Miami Herald printed an article stating that a woman said she was abused in 2005 by Dueppen. It's unclear whether that woman is Hernandez, but the Archdiocese did confirm that a financial payment was made to Beatrice Hernandez in 2006.



"It was not hush money" lol yeah right.

[MineralMan]

1. How is this a story about religion or theology?

Seriously. This has nothing to do with either. It has to do with an individual.

In fact, I'm not even sure I see any reason for this to be posted on a general forum at all. Perhaps in the Florida forum, since it's a local story.

[darkstar3]

5. A religious man

performed several acts that are considered "sinful" by his religion. Because he is a leader in that religion (a priest), he is supposed to be held to a higher standard.

Now, I can't speak to why Moobu2 personally posted this in the R/T forum, but I DO think it has a place here because now we can discuss that higher standard and the implications of breaking it in such a public and unfortunate fashion.

[Green_Lantern]

11. but

If the Roman Catholic church removes a priest for breaking his vows of celibacy the same people highlighting these Christian sins will be saying how outdated celibacy is.

As someone once told me, it's easy for moral relativists to not break a moral code when they have no moral code to break.

[darkstar3]

17. Or perhaps,

rather than taking the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" approach, those people will simply expound on the idea that "sin" is incredibly stupid concept, and that the standard priests are held to is unreasonable.

And what does moral relativism have to do with anything?

[Green_Lantern]

23. sin isn't really a stupid concept....

Some things are just either right or wrong. Maybe you misunderstand the concept of sin. This guy wasn't interested in a marriage and family though but in screwing around.

[darkstar3]

24. And those things can be right or wrong without the concept of sin. n/t

[Green_Lantern]

25. sin is a moral wrong...

nt

[darkstar3]

26. Not true.

Sin is what the CHURCH considers to be a moral wrong. An example of a "sin" in the eyes of the church that is not a moral wrong would be pre-marital sex. In fact, many of the Church's "sins of the flesh" could fall under that category.

[Green_Lantern]

27. well then you aren't saying there aren't sins...

You just disagree about what should be considered a sin.

[darkstar3]

28. Putting words in my mouth will get you nowhere.

I already stated that there are rights and wrongs in the world. It is perfectly easy to see that in a secular light without complicating matters with the idea of sin. Sin puts the church in control over what is right and wrong. Sin introduces the concepts of eternal punishment for finite deeds. Finally, sin is redundant, because we are already capable of determining what is right and wrong without it.

[Green_Lantern]

29. the concept of sin isn't isolated to Christianity...

As far as "eternal punishment for sin" I think that concept doesn't exist in Catholic doctrine. We view sin more as a separation from God and We believe Christ died to redeem mankinds' sins.

[darkstar3]

31. I understand that

and it's still a stupid, pointless concept. Further, if you believe that "eternal punishment for sin" is not in Catholic doctrine, then you need to learn more about what Catholics call "mortal sin."

[Green_Lantern]

32. the doctrine on mortal sin...

Says more about separation from God than eternal punishment. Some Catholics are more fire and brimstone types, I know.

[darkstar3]

34. Is that you, rug?

Mortal sin sends you to hell according to Catechism, and hell is described quite thoroughly in paragraphs 1033-1037. A word used repeatedly in that section is "eternal". Another word used is "punishment.". Whether actual fire and brimstone are involved is irrelevant, since the Catechism is quite clear on the idea that hell is punishment.

[laconicsax]

36. Woah! Deja vu.

[darkstar3]

37. That describes a lot of threads lately...n/t

[rug]

38. No, it's simply another well-informed poster.

:)

[darkstar3]

40. Well-informed would imply that either of you had done the reading necessary

to actually know what Catholics believe. Since I've had to introduce you several times to the Catechism, and now I have to start with him, I really don't think either one of you qualify as "well-informed."

[Green_Lantern]

43. no you just took the parts of catechism necessary to prove...

Your point.

[darkstar3]

44. So your Catechism supports my point.

Does it support yours? Where?

[Green_Lantern]

48. it's not MY catechism...

I'm not RCC, I don't recognize the primacy of Rome, have you heard of the old catholic church?

[darkstar3]

51. And which schism was YOUR church formed in? n/t

[Green_Lantern]

54. at the 1st Vatican council officially...

But unofficially it was in 1700 when the Pope tried to claim primacy and remove the archbishop of Netherlands.

[darkstar3]

57. Would the real Catholics please stand up?

I'd never actually heard of the "Old Catholic Church" before, so I did learn something today.

It seems odd, though, that both the current incarnation of the Catholic Church, and the Old Catholic Church, claim Catholicity, while at the same time being very, very different.

So the question now becomes, where are your dogmas written? Are they wholly contained in the Bible, or are they written down and explained thoroughly elsewhere, like the RCC Catechism?

[Green_Lantern]

58. catholic just means universal....

I would think the church that is most universally accepted across Christianity is truly Catholic. Old Catholic church has a catechism but it isn't as rigid as the RCC.

[rug]

47. xoxox

[Green_Lantern]

41. no, it pretty much says hell is separation from God...

Punishment doesn't mean someone inflicts torment on you, namely god.

[darkstar3]

45. Separation from God is considered punishment,

because, as the Catechism says, it is God "in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs."

In fact, the Catechism repeatedly uses the word "punishment", as well as the word "suffer", and the word "eternal", in paragraphs 1033-1037. It is QUITE clear from these passages that Catholics believe in eternal punishment for sin.

[Green_Lantern]

49. yeah and I said it's not punishment the way putting someone...

In jail is. It's just a negative result of doing something. Hell is separation from God.

[darkstar3]

52. And you're simply repeating yourself. See #45. n/t

[rug]

15. Why is he held to a higher standard?

[darkstar3]

18. And the award for asinine question of the day goes to...

Either you are completely uneducated about the faith you are supposedly a member of, or this is one of the most intellectually dishonest posts you've made yet.

[rug]

20. Enlighten me. Why is a priest held to a higher standard than any other human?

[darkstar3]

21. I refuse to once again explain your own church's dogma to you.

If you REALLY don't know, which would be incredibly unlikely, then look it up yourself.

[rug]

22. Thank you. That was very informative.

[Green_Lantern]

33. he shouldn't be assumed be sinless....

He's only imperfect in his ability to administer sacraments.

[rug]

39. No, that was settled in the fourth century.

Donatism was a heretical sect of early Christianity, founded by Donatus Magnus, which believed that sanctity was a requisite for church membership and administration of sacraments. Donatists lived primarily in Roman Africa and reached their largest numbers in the 4th and 5th centuries.

http://atheism.about.com/od/christianheresyheretics/p/DonatismDonatus.htm

He's still a priest but a pig nonetheless.

[moobu2]

7. It has to do with countering religious and theological propaganda

Namely that Christians claim that there is some moral superiority in being Christian and without it society would fall apart, fake Christian family values, that Christians have an unwarranted and undeserved high level of respect in American culture etc... If a huge number of Christians didn't claim moral superiority directly emanating from the Bible and their particular religious superstitions, I could see your point, but they do.

[Green_Lantern]

12. that doesn't make sense....

Just because people choose to violate a moral code doesn't prove it's incorrect.

[darkstar3]

19. But when people are incapable of

adhering to a supposed moral code on a large scale, it becomes obvious that this code is fraught with problems.

[Green_Lantern]

30. well Catholics believe man is sinful by nature...

And that Christ redeemed our sins, its not a human effort.

[darkstar3]

35. Not a human effort?

What of "works"?

[Green_Lantern]

42. the Catholic Church....

Doesn't teach that people are redeemed through good works but through the grace of God. People are justified by good works meaning we show we're true disciples of Christ.

[darkstar3]

46. Actually, they're not very clear on that.

You see, many priests will tell you that "faith without works is dead" is a statement that means simply your works will reflect your faith. To these priests, "works" are not required for salvation, but will be performed anyway if your faith is adequate.

The problem, though, is that Catechism shows something different in paragraph 1033:

Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren.

This shows that "works", in fact very specific works, are required in order to avoid eternal separation from God.

[Green_Lantern]

50. no, if you quoted the entire passage...

You'll see it's not talking about earning your way into heaven but the consequence of rejecting God. It is saying that failure to treat others with love is rejecting God.

]We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: "He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him."612 Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren.613 To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell."

[darkstar3]

53. And all of the things listed IN that passage

are ways in which people can reject God, thereby earning them passage to hell. Failing to help the poor is explicitly mentioned as a pathway to hell.

And now, I'm confused, because if you are not RCC as you claim above, why do you now take the time to defend views on hell that you don't believe?

[Green_Lantern]

55. because there are certain teachings we at least consider...

Universal to all catholics. That includes the command to love others, including the least of God's people.

[darkstar3]

56. So would you call the doctrine of Hell "universal to all catholics"? n/t

[Green_Lantern]

59. yes as a separation from God...

nt

[darkstar3]

60. See #45.

[DeSwiss]

13. Hahahahaha!!!!

You religious apologists just crack me up!

Now let's see here, and I'll try to describe it to you my Categorically Blind friend, how it is that this is a religious story that is worthy of our particular scorn here in R/T:

(1) The antagonist is (as per usual) is a man of god better known as a Catholic priest. And he is a priest who apparently has deep-sixed his vows and become un-celibate and has fathered a child. Something that usually disqualifies one from the Catholic priesthood, and yet there he is.

(2) Then he further violates his covenant with the lord almighty by attacking, grabbing and choking the women he has impregnated with his child.

(3) And on top of all this just so's to give it the OLD AMEN TREATMENT to hush it up, the Archdiocese has attempted to make a cash hush-money payment to the mommy-victim on this holy man's behalf in another sloppy attempt in trying to keep us from laughing at their silly asses (as we are wont to do here in R/t), and as I am doing right now.

(4) And we laugh, mind you, to keep from crying you see. Because these assholes holy men claim moral superiority over everyone else because they have this direct line to god. Remember?

So why is this religious news, you ask??? Because all of the above behaviors are usually frowned upon by the church when we do it. So it becomes a religious story when they do it.

- It's called IRONY. See?

[rug]

16. I bet you enjoyed the impeachment.

[DrDan]

2. she met him at the strip club . . . i am sure that was some type of outreach program

trying to save the wayward souls.

Where does the pressure come from for priests to abstain - from the parishioners or from above? Do the "people" really care about this?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

4. Outreach Program - LOL. "Reach out and put that dollar bill right here, honey."

:rofl:

[DrDan]

6. or whatever else is close at hand

[DeSwiss]

14. I saw what you did there!!! OUTREACH!!! BWAAHAAAAAAAA!!!!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Gman]

3. Father, show a little class... Porky's?

If you're gonna do it, there's a ton of nicer strip clubs in Miami!

[customerserviceguy]

8. At least he's leaving the altar boys alone, n/t

[TheCowsCameHome]

9. Holy f**k! That's so bizzare.

:rofl:

[Mojambo]

10. So there actually IS a Porky's in Florida?