« Christians and the Death Penalty | Main | On the march »
July 24, 2005
A Father's Responsibility
Priests, children and child support
Single and unemployed, Stephanie Collopy asked a Portland judge this month to order her son's father to increase her child support and to add their chronically ill boy to his health insurance plan.
Sitting on the witness stand in a white button-down shirt, gray slacks and blue blazer with a small gold cross on the lapel, Arturo Uribe -- the 12-year-old boy's father -- had an unusual defense: He is a Roman Catholic priest.
Uribe, who was a seminarian when he fathered the boy during a consensual affair with Collopy, had taken a vow of poverty and therefore had no money to support his son, he told the court. Now pastor of the 4,000-family St. Mary of the Assumption Roman Catholic Church in Whittier, Calif., Uribe had never seen the boy, who was born in 1993.
And as for health insurance, the Whittier, Calif., pastor said his plan -- tailored for priests, nuns and brothers -- didn't provide for children.
Uribe's legal argument worked.
Multnomah County Judge Keith Meisenheimer ruled that Uribe only had to continue his $323-a-month contribution, paid by his religious order, the Redemptorists. And while the jurist instructed Uribe, 47, to formally ask his health plan carrier if an exception could be made for his son, the priest wasn't ordered to provide insurance
1. There is no excuse for the Redemptorists to be able to avoid providing health insurance for this boy. What a crime.
2. Why this guy was ordained - the affair happened and the child was born right before he was ordained, and they knew about it - is beyond me, totally.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
This man, ordained or not, is a pig. He should never have been ordained, since he had an immpediment, a child to support.
Posted by: michigancatholic at Jul 24, 2005 12:06:53 AM
And what happened to his habit?
Posted by: Samuel J. Howard at Jul 24, 2005 12:29:47 AM
"Uribe has never attempted to contact his son -- even after the boy sent him an album filled with pictures of himself or tried to interview him for an elementary school journalism project after Pope John Paul II died."
Can you imagine?!? The woman has told her boy that his father is a priest, told him his name and where he lives. This whole thing is not about what is best for the boy. No wonder he has ailments that sometimes have an emotional component.
As for the support, a poor woman had a child fathered by a poor man. The child will be poor. That's just the way it is in family courts across the country. But there are safety nets and why she doesn't avail herself of the excellent health, housing, nutritional and educational assistance most states provide must have to do with her own agenda and not concern for the boy.
Posted by: Regina at Jul 24, 2005 1:42:17 AM
I hope Rod Dreher doesn't see this post -- it will really drive him round the bend. It would seem that our clergy have figured out more than one way to abuse a child.
Posted by: David Kubiak at Jul 24, 2005 1:49:09 AM
But there are safety nets and why she doesn't avail herself of the excellent health, housing, nutritional and educational assistance most states provide
This is sarcasm, right? Right?
I was a foster mother to my daughters before I adopted them, and I got to learn first-hand of all the excellent benefits the state of California has for the indigent. Hah.
Medical exams at the local public hospital's clinic are with residents, a different one each time, so you have to constantly explain everything all over again. (Most doctors won't accept new Medi-Cal patients.)
Dentistry is emergency only (virtually no dentists accept Medi-Cal) at the local dental clinic. From 7:30am-10am, first come, first served. Now that was a lot of fun!
Mental health? Hah! The girls qualified for a limited number of visits with a therapist, who was reimbursed $35 for each visit. Angel that she was, she didn't charge me the difference of a usual $70 visit. After x number of visits, the girls were deemed "cured" and no more money was alloted for them. The therapist offered to continue seeing them for the same $35/visit, which I paid out of pocket.
Not that I needed it or qualified with the girls ( I have a friend who works in county housing), but section 8 housing has a list a mile long, and fewer and fewer units available.
When the girls were finally adopted, I thanked the Lord for the insurance that I have, and that I was able to extricate myself from the Medi-Cal hell I had come to know and loathe.
People, being poor is no fun, and you don't get any kind of "excellent care" anywhere.
Posted by: Laura at Jul 24, 2005 2:37:46 AM
No wonder he has ailments that sometimes have an emotional component.
Oh, it's the mom's fault he has asthma?
Here's a link on asthma and poverty. Or try this one.
Amy,
What Causes Asthma?
Genetic Background
Indoor Air Contamination
Outdoor Air Pollution
Have you lived with asthma? I have. As someone who spent countless hours in the ER while Grama was being treated for asthma attacks, going into respiratory arrest twice, I find the flippant comment that the mom is somehow guilty of this to be incredibly insulting.
Posted by: Laura at Jul 24, 2005 2:51:05 AM
Posted by: Laura at Jul 24, 2005 2:51:44 AM
I guess anything goes in the Roman Church these days - if the clergy shortage is that bad that they would ordain this guy, why not allow a married clergy who might at least have some sense of responsibility toward the children they help conceive. No - that would be too reasonable a solution.
On the other hand . . .
Posted by: Dan Crawford at Jul 24, 2005 5:11:38 AM
I forgot to mention that I am very intrigued by the tendency to blame the victims, while it is apparently ok for the clergy to sow their seed, so to speak, whenever and however they want.
Posted by: Dan Crawford at Jul 24, 2005 5:13:48 AM
Agreed that the man is a pig and should never have been ordained. Never to have seen the boy tells us all that we need to know about the man's lack of character. The court should have ordered him to find after hours employment to give him the ability to pay for health insurance for the child, although mother should have also been ordered to find employment and do her part in paying for health insurance. Having a married clergy would of course lead to more child support disputes. I have been involved in many, many child support cases and the vast bulk of them involve divorced couples, several where the fathers have been Protestant clergy.
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at Jul 24, 2005 6:31:08 AM
There is something wrong with the clergy-created theology that doesn't allow for this poor excuse for a father to be instantly laicized.
And as for the bishop who ordained him..........
Posted by: Jim at Jul 24, 2005 6:43:16 AM
1. Agreed. 2. Agreed.
If nothing else, I would even look into taking a part-time job in the side to help cover the insurance if I were the unfortunate priest.
Posted by: Richard at Jul 24, 2005 7:06:56 AM
I thought people were only accepted into religious orders if they were free of obligations. It seems to me that the Redemptorists should pick up the tab for medical insurance and for a level of child support commensurate with the income of a professional person.
I can't imagine what excuse "Father" Arturo has for not maintaining a relationship with his son. However, all we know about that relationship is filtered through the boy's mother. The fact that an adult woman would sue the diocese for damages (not just child support) over a consenual affair suggests that she is not simply an innocent victim in this affair. We just don't know the whole story.
Posted by: CRW at Jul 24, 2005 7:54:56 AM
You all,
There's been no increase in child support since 1998?
Posted by: Chris at Jul 24, 2005 8:07:32 AM
Murphy's Law times 100. As in the unfortunate circumstances leading to this courtroom settings. Unfortunate for the woman and her son, that is. The kind of story that could lead someone far, far away from the Church. Unfortunately for this allegedor priest and his more promiscuous brethren, sunlight is a remarkably successful disinfectant.
Posted by: Gerard E. at Jul 24, 2005 8:27:23 AM
It *is* hard to understand why the Redemptorists allowed this.
It could be whoever allowed it really didn't know, and the story is incorrect on this point; it could be the decision-maker for the Redmeptorists was misled to believe the child was provided for; it could be someone looked the other way, or was incredibly stupid (including morally) on this one.
What a black eye!
Posted by: Septimus at Jul 24, 2005 9:07:41 AM
David Kubiak writes:
"I hope Rod Dreher doesn't see this post -- it will really drive him round the bend. It would seem that our clergy have figured out more than one way to abuse a child."
Please don't impugn all clergy.
I would hope you, and everyone, would appreciate that when a story of this sort appears, lots of clergy, especially Catholic clergy, cringe and lament and pray. I know a priest who offers his every rosary in reparation for the sins clergy; he says, "there is not a day that goes by I do not think about the problem of abuse"; he seriously wonders if he has to avoid being "too friendly" to children, lest damaging suggestions be circulated; when children come to serve Mass, if there is not another adult in the sacristy, he steps out, into the sanctuary, to vest.
Clergy who haven't done wrong are far from the most injured of victims; but they are victims of this, too; and it doesn't help when "faithful Catholics," in their justified outrage over the sins of clergy, impugn ALL their clergy in one sweep.
Posted by: Septimus at Jul 24, 2005 9:15:57 AM
I know these people personally. Not "Father" Arturo, but Stephanie and her son.
The Redemptorists did indeed know about this child. In fact, they induced Stephanie (who was quite young at the time) to sign one of those infamous confidentiality agreements in exchange for the paltry child support she is getting, all this before he was ordained.
Then, at the recent hearing, the attorney for the diocese tried to have the proceedings sealed, on these same grounds, when she figured out that there was a reporter from the LA Times present. You can see how far she got with that argument.
Without addressing the relative fault levels between the priest and Stephanie, one does wonder what the Redemptorists were thinking. I am advised by my good friend the Carmelite Provincial that in order to have a member of an Order ordained, the Provincial has to make certain representations about the good character of the candidate and his freedom from impediments. These representations were false in this case, and known by the Provincial to be false at the time he made them.
All this was 13 years ago. All I can think is that the Reds thought they had shut this woman up, so that they could go on as before. Telling the truth apparently didn't rank high on the value scale, and as for the child, well, we know how concerned men like this are for the welfare of children.
Posted by: Nancy at Jul 24, 2005 9:17:32 AM
Again, you guys, it's not Arturo. He's at best irresponsible. It's the Redemptorists who are the scandal here. Sexual (and other) misbehavior will always be with us. But when those in authority collaborate and systematically cover up events like this, misbehavior multiplies. (Why not?) Every priest who knew about this - and there were at least several - are accomplices.
Posted by: Nancy at Jul 24, 2005 9:20:51 AM
Laura, it can't be said enough: you tell 'em.
And to Amy's questions: even if the Redemptorists "can't" provide insurance, they are responsible for non-insured health care costs. Medical insurance is a mechanism for paying, not an excuse for not paying.
And the guy was ordained because he's charming, persuasive, and personable, it would seem. How else does a seminarian convince a woman to have an affair, and how else does one convince a legal court one isn't morally responsible.
Posted by: Todd at Jul 24, 2005 9:25:42 AM
Todd,
I agree wholeheartedly with Laura's first post (if we are using middle America as the standard, rather than comparing to world-wide standards.)
That said, her second post obviously misunderstood Regina, hopefully unintentionally. She was blaming the emotional component of the boy's medical problems on his father (where the blame squarely lies), not his mother. Re-read Regina's first paragraph, please.
Nancy,
Right on!!! I'd like to think "only in California", but America's Religious are, on the whole, a reflection of America herself. No class, no values, no standards. (There are, obviously, exceptions, but they are few and far between.)
Hopefully the young man (you say he's 13 now?) will learn something positive from all of this, though for the life of me I can't imagine how, without anyone modeling positive behaviour in his life. I agree with whoever said "The preists have found new ways to abuse children."
Posted by: Boniface McInnes at Jul 24, 2005 9:38:02 AM
Unbelievable. It's appalling that the Redemptorists would let this happen. We hear so much about the responsibility of orders to support their priests. That has to include the responsibility to support their priest's children, especially if they were aware of the child's existence prior to ordination.
Here's the contact info for the Redemptorists Denver Province for anybody else who would like to follow up with them:
Redemptorists - Denver Province
1230 South Parker Road
Denver, Colorado 80231
Phone: 303-370-0035
Fax: 303-370-0036
Email: information@redemptorists-denver.org
The Provincial for the Denver Province is Father Thomas Picton: TPicton@redemptorists-denver.org
Does anybody know if the priest's health insurance would be covered by the diocese or the order?
P.S.
I'm the other Regina, the one who's been posting here sporadically for the past few years (the "hellofromregina@yahoo.com" Regina). I just wanted to unequivocally dissociate myself from the Regina above.
"Why she doesn't avail herself of the excellent health, housing, nutritional and educational assistance most states provide"
I don't know what state the other Regina lives in, but I've never seen a state with excellent benefits. And blaming the mother for the boy's problems based on the limited info we have is truly unfair.
Posted by: Regina at Jul 24, 2005 9:39:31 AM
What if the mother died, what would the priest's responsibility to his son then?
Posted by: marym at Jul 24, 2005 9:42:05 AM
It just seems to me that the priest used the Church to avoid taking responibility for his child. Regardless what the law says, he has a moral responibility to care for his son, both financially and emotionally. He should be forced out of the priesthood and forced to face his responibilities.
Posted by: DJP at Jul 24, 2005 9:50:45 AM
Again, from my Carmelite friend (who went apoplectic when I told him this story), this man should never have been ordained in the first place, and was ordained under false pretenses. (Did the bishop know? Anything is possible, I guess.)
Say a prayer not only for the child, who is an innocent party, but for the parishoners in Whittier, who are similarly innocent. This will probably drive some of them out of the Catholic Church. How many times can you be lied to before you leave?
Posted by: Nancy at Jul 24, 2005 9:56:15 AM
