Seems like a redundant title, doesn’t it? It’s not, sadly:
O’FALLON, Mo. — With three small children and her marriage in trouble, Pat Bond attended a spirituality retreat for Roman Catholic women in Illinois 26 years ago in hopes of finding support and comfort. […]
Ms. Bond separated from her husband, and for the next five years she and the priest, the Rev. Henry Willenborg, carried on an intimate relationship, according to interviews and court documents. In public, they were both leaders in their Catholic community in Quincy, Ill. In private they functioned like a married couple, sharing a bed, meals, movie nights and vacations with the children.
Eventually they had a son, setting off a series of legal battles as Ms. Bond repeatedly petitioned the church for child support. The Franciscans acquiesced, with the stipulation that she sign a confidentiality agreement. It is now an agreement she is willing to break as both she and her child, Nathan Halbach, 22, are battling cancer. […]
… Ms. Bond’s case offers a rare look at how the church goes to great lengths to silence these women, to avoid large settlements and to keep the priests in active ministry. She has 23 years of documents, depositions, correspondence, receipts and photographs relating to her case, which she has kept in meticulous files.
Those files reveal that the church was tightfisted with her as she tried to care for her son, particularly as his cancer treatments grew more costly. But they also show that Father Willenborg suffered virtually no punishment, continuing to serve in a variety of church posts.
It seems the Franciscan Order, to which this Priest belongs, is unwilling to pony up any money for the medical treatment his child needs if he is to have any chance of beating his cancer. They gave her her hush money and now they want her to just go away. As for the Good father, he doesn’t even seem overly concerned that the product of his sperm donation is suffering and may die. If anything, he’s playing the victim card in this situation:
On a recent Sunday, Father Willenborg affably led a morning Mass for about 300 people, adding a special blessing for the grandparents in the congregation. Afterward, in his office, he acknowledged that he does have a son, is aware his son is terminally ill, and said that he had tried to be attentive.
He said he did not want to talk about the situation, and pointed out that Ms. Bond had more to lose than he did because she had signed a confidentiality agreement that, if broken, requires her to pay a penalty. He asserted that Ms. Bond had shown no care for his needs and was only concerned about money, and that his son had shunned him. He said that he and the Franciscans had done nothing bad.
Nothing bad? Are you kidding me? Read this and then tell me Father that you and the Franciscan order have done nothing bad:
Before their baby was born, the Franciscans strongly advised Ms. Bond to give it up for adoption, the correspondence shows. She refused. […]
For eight months, Father Willenborg continued to visit Ms. Bond’s home at night. She said he would go right to the crib, pick up the baby and bring him to the bed to cuddle with them.
An unexpected turn of events brought their idyll to an end. A young woman showed up at Ms. Bond’s house in a rage. She told Ms. Bond that she had been in a sexual relationship with Father Willenborg for years, since she was in high school. (Reached by phone last week, the woman confirmed the relationship, and said it had caused her a lifetime of pain. She asked to remain anonymous.) Immediately, the Franciscans sent Father Willenborg to a treatment center in New Mexico run by a religious order, for priests with sexual disorders and substance addictions. […]
In a deposition years later, Father Willenborg said that the Franciscans had never disciplined him, and never suggested that he leave religious life. He was assigned to New Orleans to work with AIDS patients, and a few years later to the headquarters of his order’s province in St. Louis to oversee “spiritual formation” for priests, which includes educating them on how to remain celibate. […]
Father Willenborg had no contact again with his son until the boy was 13. Nathan remembers being so excited to finally meet his biological father that he insisted on getting a haircut. He remembers that Father Willenborg took him to McDonald’s and to see the movie “What Women Want.” […]
In the next few years, Nathan said his disappointment grew. Father Willenborg did not visit, though he lived only 15 minutes away. He had promised to take Nathan to a baseball game, but it was two years before he stopped by and later called to say he had tickets. Nathan finally told Father Willenborg he did not want to see him.
Any other “father” who acted this way would be at least on the the hook for child support and, had he married the woman, alimony. And if a Psychiatric hospital had permitted one of its male psychiatrists to act this way with patients over whom he exerted such profound influence, tried to cover his breach of professional responsibility when he engaged in sex with vulnerable individuals, and continued to employ him on their staff, they would be sued for gross negligence. Yet the Roman Catholic Church, in all its many manifestations, simply goes its merry way, using its political power and wealth to sweep the sins of its priests (and the consequences of those sins) under the rug, and fighting the people they harm tooth and nail, rather than ministering to their needs. It puts its reputation before their pain and suffering. What hypocrisy.
If the “culture of life” means disowning responsibility for the children of your priests, why should I, in good faith, listen to anything the Catholic Church has to say about family values, “traditional marriage,” contraception or abortion? Why should I respect their views on “sexual morality” and marriage, about honesty and truth and responsibility, moral lessons which they teach others, but refuse to practice themselves?
And no, I’m not just Catholic bashing here. You find this sort of thing among all organized religions, from small cults considered extreme (such as the polygamous Mormon offshoots) to respectable large denominations like the Baptists, Pentecostals, Lutherans, Episcopalians –you name it. Being a “Man of God” gives you no special pass to harm the lives of others and skate away with little or no harm to you and your career. Or at least it shouldn’t. Yet we as a society continue to allow these organizations, if they are large and respectable and entrenched enough, to get away with abusive practices that we would be screaming to high heavens about if these were sexual harrassment cases covered up by a Fortune 500 company. Or a community activist organization, like ACORN, let’s say?
So, next time, dear Moral Majority and Culture of Life Warriors, when you come to preach to me about the sins of “teh gay” and “teh godless liberals,” take a moment and pause first to consider removing the logs in your own eyes. Because I’ll respect you more if you put aside your own hypocrisy and deal with the wrongs committed by members of your own flocks before you go on another campaign to condemn the immorality of others.
Ps. Think O’Reilly and/or anyone else at Fox News will ever cover this story of gross injustice and scandalous behavior by a group of “do-gooders?” Yeah, me neither. Far easier to go after a bunch of High School kids for their “overly sexy” dance routine, than actually report on real sexual misconduct and abuse by a group of supposedly moral religious leaders.
