AmericanPapist Comments
Why shouldn't we ignore the turn of events that propitiated his leaving the active ministerial priesthood.?
Do they impact any of us directly?
Are we involved personally in David Stone's life?
Do we know anything of what transpired?
Is it any of our business?
(I note, incidentally, that he's not charging for speaking engagements. I have no idea who would actually invite him to speak, but it's good to see that he's not charging anything.)
It seems that the home health business is the way he's earning a living for himself and perhaps a family.
So?
hey that's my photo! Nice.
Jesus, I trust in you. Help your people serve you as you deserve.
julie I think you are onto something. We need to pray for him not make fun or rashly judge.
Okay, I will admit I thought the good Fr. Francis Mary had given up his calling for the love of a (properly) good woman. As is so much the case, the truth is far than that.
Thomas, where do you get the notion that Zrii is a New Age drink?
Okay, now that we've registered the de riguer "judge nots" and "who knows what goes on the hearts of men" and "avoid rash judgments" admonitions (all of which I agree with) can I ask, what's so wrong about folks being ticked off that another priest has left the station he promised for life, and to boot he seems to be playing off the title of the important work he was doing to promote his own business (which apparently doesn't pay, but so what?)
If a married man walks out on his family, I reserve the right to get angry. I don't see why I have to mute that reaction just cuz the guy's a priest.
Fr. Trigilio put it well last November:
"If a married man falls in love with another woman, whether she is married, single or widowed, he is still covenanted to his original wife. He made a promise to be true to her 'for better or for worse ... until death.' Likewise, a priest in the Latin (Roman rite) Church makes an oath of celibacy because he takes as his bride the bride of Christ. The Church, which is the parish, the diocese, the religious community, and indeed is also the universal church around the globe, is the spouse of every ordained priest.
"Even if he discovers it was a mistake and he should not have been ordained or that he should not have taken solemn vows (poverty, chastity and obedience), like the married man (who may or may not have children from this marriage), he is still in a commitment which binds him for life. If there was an impediment to that covenant, then an annulment of matrimony or of holy orders can take place. Usually, however, it is more the case of the human heart finding someone at the wrong time and in the wrong place."
Anonymous - Fr. Joe did the research:
http://fatherjoe.wordpress.com/2...tn-is-now-dave/
But in deference to what Mr. Stone's website actually says, I've changed my wording. Fr. Joe' claim remains true, however.
Sad =-(
Tom, I don't know that you did need to change your wording. On the website, he promotes his experience in the "cult of the body."
This sort of thing happened in my home diocese with a priest with whom I was once a regular confessor. The emotions of anger, fear, sadness, and hope are all combined with prayer in these cases that God's will, and the vows, be honored.
There's another issue here, though. Is it that good of an idea for some priests to be personal counselors to women...most especially those who have just experienced the loss of a loved one?
I don't know...just a point to ponder
I always thought he was a nut. For example, I remember watching EWTN Mass once and it was 2 weeks before Easter when the priests wear a pink colored outfit and he said he wouldn't wear it and instead wore purple because pink was too provacative in todays culture. Obviously he was suggesting that it would make him look "gay". His new business ventures seem bizzare.
You know what?
There are several email addresses listed on the site. How about the comment box clique find some courage and actually write David Stone with your questions and concerns? there's even a phone number.
Will anyone do that?
I doubt it - it's far easier to slam from afar.
Maybe he'll write back, maybe he won't. But at least you'll have tried to satisfy your curiosity in the right way.
Ah, but who cares. Tom will get his blog hits, and that's all that matters.
Oh, and how about this -
If David Stone is as off and as whacked as the commenters seem to think he is...isn't it best that he be out of priestly ministry and doing something else?
this news greatly saddens me. We need to keep praying for our priests and the religious.
It just seems so weird; going from a priest to promoting an obscure energy drink? There must be more to the entire series of events than we actually know about.
I still think that maybe EWTN shouldn't have been so hush-hush about it. Couldn't they have used this event as a teaching point about these kinds of situations? It just doesn't seem fair to those young people--particularly young men--who looked up to him in the area of discernment and religious vocations. What if those young people aren't as blessed as the rest of us in that they don't have someone they can go to to explain the situation to them?
Anthony,
I understand what you're saying, but but grieving women should be able to find comfort in the Church and her priests.
"I understand what you're saying, but but grieving women should be able to find comfort in the Church and her priests."
I also understand that grieving women should be able to find comfort in the Church and her priests, but not find a husband or lover among those priests.
I also understand that another person's grief or other emotional desires are not excuses for ignoring the Church's teaching on priestly celibacy and chastity.
I also understand that grieving women are entitled to pastoral assistance from priests who respect not only their own vows to God, but who respect the people to whom they minister by eschewing a "hyper" intimacy in their pastoral ministry.
I also understand that grieving women are entitled to competent pastoral ministry from the Church's priests who exercise self-control, who avoid scandal, and who excuse themselves from emotional situations over which they have noted in themselves a lack of self-discipline, deferring to other priests who remain objective and professional.
I also understand that those who seek pastoral care from the Church are entitled to find it in priests who follow the evangelical counsels, who in their commitment to God in the promise of celibacy, show us the chaste love of Christ, and who in receiving the gift of celibacy from God cherish that gift and seek to nurture it and sustain it in communion with Christ.
In other words, he popped his cookies.
Father,
That's what I was aiming for. Sorry if it came off as oversimplistic.
What struck me is how his priestly experience is described almost as job experience on a resume rather than as a calling from God.
And perhaps therein lies the problem.
mark, no. the abandonment of basic duty often disintegrates into nuttiness in general.
Mark, he left his original wife. Read Ed Peter's posts.
And yes, I do think we should ask the question "why", or at least those souls he was responsible for should be able to ask "why" and find out what was going on. He is a public figure, as a priest. He wears the garb, he becomes Christ in persona, he IS changed, he is a minister of the Church, which we all understand is Universal.
Do we need to know intimate details? No, and frankly, I didn't look him up to know what he put out there. But I think EWTN does a disservice in keeping things in the dark and the generality still stands: A priest serves in public. The bride, the Church can ask the questions. There are some answers that are entitled.
Grieve over the contempt cast upon Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, and try to make amends for it by a greater and more ardent LOVE!
What will convert X will be the sanctity of your own life.!
Do not be like the PROUD...who always want to assert their own opinion...I have known people with whom this had become a daily habit.
...St.John Vianney
I have a practical comment. If Dave Stone was an unhappy as a priest, might that unhappiness have turned him into a dissident who would have caused more problems for the Church by remaining at his post? That being said, I agree with Ed Peters he should have applied for laicization. Tom
If celibacy is at the core of the priestly vocation why are there married Catholic priests?
What happens to the theology of vocation then?
(No talking about "exceptions." In terms of theology there are no "exceptions." Either celibacy is a core element of the priestly vocation or it's not, theologically speaking.)
Speaking of scandal, what the heck is this quote doing on his "Speaking Opportuninties" page???
"Christ's refusal to be scandalized...
Of the sinful woman who bathes his feet, Jesus says, "Her many sins have been forgiven; hence, she has shown great love." Christ's refusal to be scandalized by our sins is what gives us the courage not to be either. Rather, we revel in the recreating effect of mercy. As Saint Paul puts it, "By the grace of God I am what I am." – Magnificat, September 2008, p. 264"
Also, what's up with this regarding audio & video???
"No planting of any video or audio on YouTube type sites or Blogs, please, without Dave's permission. Please work with me on this one!"
I'm all for helping people improve thier relationship w/ God by improving their health & well being *(shameless plug, www.slave2freedom.com/blog)*, but this just all seems so strange.
James:
That makes sense to me. David Stone obviously knows how the Catholic blogosphere is going to react to him and he'd rather not have whatever he does used as fodder for viciousness.
Maybe the guy has really learned something. Sure, the website seems a little goofy, but maybe he really feels as if he's got stuff to say about sin and mercy and forgiveness, based on his experience.
At least he's not charging anyone. And if you never want to hear from the guy, don't visit his website again. It's that simple.
There are email addresses on the website. Has anyone actually written to David Stone to get some comment from him?
Julie, the first commenter, denied that David Stone's actions affected us directly. I must reject this opinion. Since all the baptized are members of the mystical body of Christ, our actions good or bad--while not affecting us directly physically--do affect the whole body in a real and direct way. Remember St. Paul's words: "If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it" (1 Cor 12:26-27).
By the way, my opinions may be read on my own blog.
David:
So do we have permission to blog about your sins and tear you apart in comments boxes and garner blog hits from referring others to our blogs where we further comment on your sins?
Love of our neighbor consists of three things: To desire the greater good of everyone; to do what good we can WHEN we can; to bear, excuse and hide others' faults.
The problem is that Stone is/was a public figure of a prominent Catholic network. Mr. Wallace (above) is not.
So...anyone in the public eye deserves to have their dirty laundry aired by their fellow Christians?
That's the Christian way?
Being ordained is a public acceptance of public duty, going on national tv for many years is a public act, and promoting one's public speaking on the internet is a public act. At what point does all this publicity render one immune from public criticism?
I note that Stone has now placed a message up on his site for us to read...in it he attacks Fr. Joe's comments about "cold harsh reality" which taken in context should not be understood to be a negative thing; he also pre-emptively attacks all of us who are talking about him, saying not to hinder him etc.
I have a rather lengthy analysis of it, on my blog, which you may read. I won't judge the man, but my cynicism makes me judge the actions (he's got a book deal now apparently) and the methods (using us bloggers as a marketing tool for example.)
Doesn't say he's got a book deal. Says he's writing a book. Self-publishing is very reasonable these days. He could just put it out himself.
Maybe he's got some good dish on EWTN. That would be entertaining. I'm sure there's a lot there.
One of the ideas proposed in comments above have to do with Fr./Mr. Stone's happiness, and that because he was in some way unhappy, that his departure from the priesthood is a good thing, because an unhappy priest is a very bad thing, the ministry of an unhappy priest is a very bad thing, etc.
I cannot articulate clearly enough my exception to this train of thought, the logical conclusion of which is that a priest should be happy every moment of every day following his ordination. The suspension of reality required for that kind of supposition boggles the mind, and is worthy of the late Douglas Adams and his comic take on a very skewed universe.
That every priest [note: really, every human being] has times of unhappiness, disappointment, and myriad other less-than-pleasant emotional responses in the course of one's life is no excuse for the abandonment of the promises, commitments, vows that priest has made to God. So Jesus was happy in every moment of his ministry? Really?
The lack of the use of the virtue of perseverance is to be noted here. In an age of instant gratification, of the "Burger King" mentality of "having it your way" served up in three minutes or less, one should be appalled at the lack of perseverance in so many who have walked away from solemn commitments, marriages as well as ordinations, because one has encountered a rough patch of unhappiness in one's life.
The notion that somehow it is better to drop those solemn commitments so that one can achieve the elusive state of perpetual bliss is so self-serving as to call into question any further commitments that person might make in the future, commitments that are dropped because it has become emotionally inconvenient to maintain them.
Instead of recognizing this lack of perseverance as a serious character flaw that should be a red flag warning to others entering into commitments with the fickle individual, we read here in some comments how we are to register our sympathy and tacit approval for this person, who has "moved on with his life" to seek a positive resolution and personal satisfaction, and that this is all praiseworthy.
This is, sadly, a casebook instance of moral relativism. I certainly pray for such individuals -- and recognize the temptations in my own life to seek "ways out," to rationalize the times I want to walk away from the very difficult situations that have come my way as I have commited myself to Christ in a particular way [as a priest] in a particular environment [in this parish here]. This is the cross, to be sure, and I am called to embrace it and carry it, sometimes joyfully, sometimes with a very heavy heart. But to set that cross down and to walk away from it is not something praiseworthy. It is something that is not to be advertized in one's internet biography, and presented in such a way as to suggest to others that this is just one more line in one's curricula vitae, no different from any other line.
This kind of moral relativism applied to one's sacramental commitments demeans the significance of the commitment that was once made and is now set aside. What has changed here? The truth of the commitment? The Truth does not change. I need to pray that I remain strong in my commitment to Christ, to follow the Truth of my life in Him. I invite you to pray for me, for this priest Fr. Stone, for all priests and religious, for all married folk, that we remain firm in those promises we have made before God and in his presence, and which call us to be present faithfully and lovingly to Him and to one another in the midst of these commitments, to quote a line from the Ritual, "in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health, ... all the days of my life."
I know I have a much more "nuptial" perspective of my vocation as a priest than some of my peers. Such a perspective has been a challenge for me, but ultimately it has been a source of great comfort and led me to a deeper understanding of my discipleship to the Lord, and helped me greatly in my service to His people.
Beautifully said, Fr. Stanley.
Amen Fr. Brian--TESTIFY!!
Very nice, Fr. Stanley, and God bless you. But what I don't understand about he comments is that they are all about the past. What about the present? Stone's life has changed. He is where he is. He has responsibilities. Other than the "life on the rock" references, what is he doing wrong?
Has anyone communicated with him? His emails and phone# are right ther. I don't understand why folks are so willing to analyze the guy behind his back rather than directly engage with him, when he is so accessible.
Father?
Edward,
You keep asking us to write him personally and email him, etc. What is this going to do to improve things? He has chosen to walk away from his ministry; what will change if we all reach out to him via phone or email? What can be said? What will be the result?
"Hello, Dave? Yeah, James here...Hey, I'm pretty disappointed in your decision."
"I understand James, but at this point in my life...Anyways, have you heard about Zrii, the oganic drink for those living Life on the Rock?"
(awkward silence)
"Anyways Father, good luck with all that."
"That's the Christian way?"
Edward, viewers, the youth especially, deserved answers when this news came out. All they received was a'dear john' note, if you will, that unfortunately didn't say much about their concerns. He now says that he is writing a autobiography that will explain things. I wish he had given those who felt betrayed the explanation they deserved at the time.
Father Stanley,
Thanks for that mini homily there. You made the best points, bar none. I'll certainly remember you in prayer, and I would very much appreciate your remembering me in prayer.
No, I'm saying that you have all kind of questions and instead of hashing them over here, why not ask him directly.
I wish he had given those who felt betrayed the explanation they deserved at the time.
The choice of how to respond at the time was not up to him - at that time - it was up to his bishop and EWTN.
If, as I assume, Father Francis Mary stone was free to issue the original statement he did, he also was free to issue a fuller and better one that, in my opinion, he owed faithful viewers who felt betrayed and scandalized.
"behind his back"? what a silly characterization of blogging comments.
1) Mr. Peters: When an individual has made himself available for contact, yes, I would say that posting a story about that person, commenting on that person's decisins and refusing to engage the person (who is accessible via email) directly in the conversation is, indeed, talking about someone behind his back. Unless Dave Stone sent Tom a note with a link to his site (and perhaps he did), Tom picking this up and the commentors raking through Stone's life and asking all kinds of questions about it without even trying to contact the man directly with their questions is childish and cowardly.
2) David B: You're not understanding. At that time it is highly doubtful that then Fr. Francis Mary Stone had any control about statements that were released. He was under obedience.
Ed, ok, then we just have very different ideas about what "behind his back" means. I'll just say, I see no obligation to contact an individual privately before publically commenting on his extremely public actions. Perhaps I am wrong.
I see him as a public figure either way. When he was Father Francis he was on a television program. As Dave he is putting himself on the internet to sell himself as a speaker and sell his drink product. It is not like posting comments about a truly private person...your neighbor, for example...on the internet.
Ed Peters --
I don't think you are wrong at all. When a public figure [and one who regularly hosts a nationally broadcast television program is a public figure] continues to present himself to the public [and having a free-access website with a mini-biography is public presentation], there is a public accounting that follows as part of the normal course of public reaction. If Fr. Stone did not want any further public discussion of his former state of life, then he could have opted for a less public form of self-employment. As it appears that he wishes in some way to trade upon his former state of life and his public role from EWTN, then there are questions to be answered, and he has some obligation to explain himself. It is entirely regrettable that there is much speculation concerning Fr. Stone. It is also entirely avoidable on his part. In the Internet, there is no "going behind one's back" -- everything is hanging out there in public for all to see. This isn't a Facebook or Myspace page, with limited access. He is advertising. There will be reactions.
My suspicion is that what is being applied here is that old Hollywood Agent maxim, "There is no such thing as bad publicity." By posting part of his story on the Internet, Fr. Stone is inviting public interest and subsequent public reaction. That is what makes the claim that somehow this discussion of his departure from the priesthood is inappropriate: Fr. Stone's Internet website INVITES this discussion, and the manner he presents it to the public demeans his former commitments, IMHO. In short, I think he is compounding the scandal, and needs to be called on it. That is the purpose of this blog discussion. That being acknowledged, I don't think I have written anything here that Fr. Stone doesn't already know and understand completely. I give people credit for knowing what they are doing, until given evidence to the contrary. I [and many others] take serious exception to the public manner he has chosen to portray his departure from religious life, and that it promotes and magnifies the scandal, if I might be so bold as to characterize this as scandal. I defer to Dr. Peters, an eminent canonist, as to whether this qualifies legally as "scandal." But popularly understood, I think scandal is given by Fr. Stone's website, IMHO.
Fr. Stanley:
, then there are questions to be answered, and he has some obligation to explain himself.
Then write to him and ask him. That is my point. Stone is not inaccessible. There are several emails on his site, plus a telephone number. If you are so keen on demanding accountability and an explanation, get it contact with the man and ask him.
That's why this conversation is so tacky and unChristian. You are treating the man like an issue, not a human being. If you would write to him with your questions and he refused to answer, that would be one thing, but as far as I can tell no one- not a single soul going on about this on the Catholic blogs has even tried to address him personally.
In the absence of that, then yes, this is gossip. And I don't think the "fraternal correction" thing works either because in the Gospels, "fraternal correction" involves dealing personally with the person involved, not typing from the safe distance of a keyboard, chatting and clucking with the like-minded.
Have some courage. If this is a scandal, go to him directly, and see what he says. And if your response is, "Oh, it's not my place to do that," I'd respond in turn, "Well then how is it your place to put his life under a microscope from a distance?"
Edward, it seems that you are "Mr. Anonymous" on my site.
I have e-mailed Mr. Stone. I await his response. If he agrees that my question and his answer be made public, I shall send it to Thomas Peters and post it on my site.
Is public criticism rightful Christian criticism?...who are to be reflecting the light of Christ.
My brothers, you were called, as you know, to liberty; but be careful, or this liberty will provide an opening for self-indulgence.Serve one another, rather, in works of love, since the whole of the Law is summarised in a single command: LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF. If you go snapping at each other and tearing each other to pieces, you had better watch or you will destroy the whole community.
Let me put it like this; if you are guided by the Spirit you will be in no danger of yielding to self-indulgence,since self-indulgence is the opposite of the Spirit, the Spirit is totally against such a thing, and it is precisely because the two are so opposed that you do not always carry out your good intentions.
You cannot belong to Christ Jesus unless you crucify all self-indulgent passions.Since the Spirit is our life, let us be guided by the Spirit.When one misbehaves, the more spiritual who set him right should do so in a spirit of gentleness, not forgetting that you may be tempted yourselves.You should carry each other's troubles and fulfil the law of Christ. It is people who are not important who often make the mistake of thinking that they are. Let each of you examine his own conduct....
When an issue is brought out on the internet, unbidden and unsolicited, and put in an ADVERTISEMENT, it doesn't require me to make some kind of personal intervention. He is, in this website, in the marketplace, and just as there are people who react or respond in the public forum about downside of McDonald's "super-size" upgrade, or question the lending practices in poorer urban communities by Wachovia, for there to be some public debate about Fr. Stone's status or activity is no different, and it does not warrant condemnation as un-Christian.
I can't stress enough -- Fr. Stone has gone out of his way to advertise himself, to trade upon his former association with EWTN and "Life on the Rock." He does this explicitly, and so I openly question: does he do this with the consent of EWTN? He has already been contacted by e-mail by others, and has not posted any public response on his website. The obligation rests on Fr. Stone, not on the public. You have a strange sense of accountability in the face of public scandal. If none of this had been posted in a website by Fr. Stone, I think you'd have a great moral argument. But this is a mess of his own invention, and so he is being called out in public.
This reminds me of a story that is told about Bp. D'Arcy of Ft. Wayne-South Bend. When the Vatican promulgated an instruction from the CDF concerning the theological impossibility of the ordination of women, Bp. D'Arcy discusssed the topic briefly to his diocesan consultors, all of them priests who serve as official advisors. He gave each of the consultors a copy, and said that he was doing this as courtesy, so that they would have advance notice, and be able to respond to any questions with the Church's official statement. The instruction was distributed at the meeting, and the bishop intended to procede on to the next topic.
One of the consultors, however, spoke up and said that he thought this official instruction was wrong-headed, and that he could not support it, and that he wanted to discuss this topic further in the consultors' meeting, and to explore alternatives. The priest went on for a time, making clear that he was not in favor of this teaching, and that he had no intention of defending the Church's position, and was quite likely going to speak out against it.
Bp. D'Arcy let the priest have his say, and then responded [allegedly]: Thank you for your comments. Unfortunately, as this is an official meeting of the consultors, this is a public forum, and minutes are recorded. Your statement is duly noted. As you have made a public comment in direct contradiction to the magisterium's instruction, you leave me with no other course but to respond in public to your comments. You are immediately suspended from your pastoral duties and from membership on the board of consultors. You will not return to your pastoral duties until you have met with me privately and resolved your objections to the Church's t
Church's teaching. I share this because once something is placed in the public forum, it requires public response. Fr. Stone sought to advertize, to trade upon his former relationship with EWTN and Life on the Rock. The time for private intervention has passed a long time ago.
I disagree, Fr. Stanley.
Read Matthew 18. Before you, as a priest, take to the airwaves to slam him, it strikes me you would, as his brother priest (and I sincerely doubt he has been laicized yet - it's only been a year), have the charity to email him or call him and share your concerns.
The difference between the D'Arcy story and this situation is..guess what? None of us here are Stone's bishop. None of us have the responsibility to discipline him. He is not under obedience to us.
This is not an argument for the propriety of what Stone is doing. It's an argument for an appropriate approach. Somehow blasting someone on a blog post or in a comments box doesn't seem to be what Jesus or Paul call for - they call for individual, direct, personal contact and prayer.
i did not find email address on his sit would like the address please, thank you
So the public identification and repudiation of certain actions -- actions that have been publicized by Fr. Stone on his website -- is now called "blasting."
This is the problem with the "children of the Spirit of Vatican II" -- they claim we are not allowed to address public sins. We are not allowed to discuss sin if only in the most general, generic, vague and abstract fashion. Scandal is scandal -- and to lament in public that someone who should know better doesn't "get it" but intead persists in presenting himself as an innocent -- isn't scandal-mongering. It's giving the public fair-warning to stay away from this individual.
If you want to associate with Fr. Stone, it is your choice. But let's not pretend that what he did isn't a scandal, and what he's doing now isn't scandalous. Identifying and defining the scandal here isn't a sin, and it doesn't require the nuanced approach that you are suggesting. And I recall many times that Christ, John the Baptist, and the disciples publically repudiated sin, in the marketplace.
The other thing here is that some are assuming that Fr. Stone doesn't know what he is doing, that the charitable thing is to make other assumptions that present him more as hapless or oblivious or confused. I don't make those assumptions because they aren't obvious. What I see is someone who is methodically attempting to remake and "rebrand" himself in an advertisement. I'm less concerned about my approach to Fr. Stone -- who keeps his own counsel, I'm sure -- than my approach to those who will come under Fr. Stone's spell, as some seem to have in this comment box.
No, I'm not Fr. Stone's bishop, nor his religious superior. I am a pastor who is seriously concerned about how this man is presenting himself to the world, and concerned about those who think the best approach is to keep silent and work behind the scenes while Fr. Stone continues to solicit business on the Internet using his former association with EWTN/Life on the Rock. It seems to me that the best way to address this is in the public forum, where Fr. Stone has placed all this on the Internet.
By the way, I do recall that I have previously called for prayer for him, and for all priests. Prayer is not merely a good idea in this instance -- it is absolutely essential, as it is more in God's hands than in anyone else's. We should pray for the virtue of fidelity in our priests, not a false fidelity to one's pursuit of bliss, but a fidelity to the Lord Jesus, and for perseverance in our commitments to Him.
Julie, you make one great assumption that I do not -- that he has not already been counselled by the Church. I have known [too] many priests who have left active ministry, and I do not know a single one who did not get that counsel, and get it repeatedly. To assume that Matthew 18 has not already been practiced in Fr. Stone's case is a most uncharitable assumption you have made regarding his brother priests in Hanceville and Irondale. I maintain that the time for that kind of personal intervention passed a long time ago, and that Fr. Stone has exacerbated this scandal by his advertisement. This isn't about "slamming" Fr. Stone -- it's about warning others not to be duped about what he's done, and what he's attempting to do now. Pray for him and for all priests. But don't be misled.
email addreses please thanks i will write and tell him of prayers and my objections to his actions thanks
"At that time it is highly doubtful that then Fr. Francis Mary Stone had any control about statements that were released. "
Didn't Stone write the note? I don't think they would force a friar's hand.
I want to clear up one more point about the Bp. D'Arcy story I shared. The reason the bishop responded in public to his dissenting priest among the diocesan consultors was also to make certain THE OTHER CONSULTORS would not be misled by the actions of their colleague, that the other consultors present at the meeting would not assume that the bishop silently approved of this individual's dissent. Had the dissenting priest taken his concern to the bishop privately, we would never have known this anecdote. When dissent or error takes to the airwaves, or to the Internet as in this case, and others begin to respond in public support of the dissent or the error, someone must speak out against the dissent, against the error. To remain silent in the face of such error would be unconscionable. And I thank God I am not a bishop or a religious superior. But because I do not wear a mitre doesn't cancel out my responsibility to teach the truth, even in some comment box on a blog. I believe I have done so here, and with charity. If Julie or others have been offended by what I have written here, I beg forgiveness, as it was not ever my intention to "blast" or "slam" or offend. My intention was and is to instruct in the truth of our Catholic faith, and in this instance, the truth of priestly chastity and of vows in the consecrated life and promises of celibacy by priests, and to warn others not to be misled.
'there but for the grace of God go I'
While I cannot condone any priest or husband abandoning his sacred commitment to his spouse (the church, for the priest; the wife, for the husband), I can only hope and pray that I myself would never give in to such temptation. That being said, we must pray for Father Francis (David) Stone as he is in great need of divine assistance and guidance. No bad choice, rash judgment or imprudent decision is beyond repair. Divine Mercy, as found in the Sacrament of Penance and even within the Code of Canon Law allow for repentance and reconciliation. Mistakes can be rectified; sins can be forgiven; commitments can be RENEWED and hope restored if one is willing and ready to embrace the Divine Will and abandon our own.
It is always sad to see any priest leave his public ministry. As I said before, the People of God, the lay faithful, are the spouse of every priest since he acts IN PERSONA CHRISTI as an ALTER CHRISTUS. The Church is the Bride of Christ, ergo, the faithful of the Church are the bride of the priest. They are his beloved to whom he committed and covenanted himself on the day of ordination.
When a husband is unfaithful to his wife, he is not encouraged to abandon the former and begin a new family with the latter. His first commitment, if valid, remains intact. Adultery is very wrong and very bad but infidelity can still be forgiven if there is true repentance and firm purpose of amendment. Likewise, priests who strayed from their vows are like wayward husbands who can and must clean up their act and come back to their legitimate spouse. It will not be easy and will take time to heal, but the sacred bond of matrimony (and the grace of Holy Orders) makes a permanent connection.
PRAY FOR FATHER FRANCIS AND FOR ALL FALLEN AWAY, INACTIVE and A.W.O.L. PRIESTS. (they need it)
Fr. Trigilio:
Even when a priest has the responsibility to support a family? Dave Stone himself says on his website that he has a child.
I think the later commitment trumps the former. Don't you?
I wonder, Father Trigilio - if you met a laicized priest who was married in the Church and had a family of children baptized in the Church, faithful, practicing Catholics all, would you still define this man as "AWOL?"
I'm just curious.
C'mon, Greg: you're leaving out an important part -- what led up to the laicization? That's where the problem is -- that's where the problem always is. The Church doesn't rush into laicization, because the Church first and foremost wants her priests to be faithful to their original commitments. So, there is no sense of "AWOL" from the beginning, at least not in the sense that the military uses the term.
The other huge assumption you are making [or at the very least, what you are implying in this case] is that Fr. Stone has been laicized. That is not obvious at all, and in fact, has not been published anywhere, including on Fr. Stone's own website.
It is possible -- and both charity and morality demands it -- that a priest make financial arrangements for his family. But there is no canonical requirement that he foresake the priesthood to meet his familial responsibilities.
Think about this case: a married man with a family has a mistress, who becomes pregnant. Would you counsel the married man to divorce his wife and abandon his family to see to the needs of his mistress? Or would you counsel the man to remain with his wife and family, and make financial arrangements for the mistress and her child, but to break off all other contact with the mistress and child?
In your hypothetical case, exactly how much do you personally value the original commitment of the priest? In discussing this with other laity, I frequently encounter people who are willing to set aside very quickly the priest's ordination and pastoral commitments, as they perceive these as secondary or tertiary to the individual's personal happiness and pursuit of "bliss" in an intimate relationship outside of celibacy.
That so many people are so willing to set aside one's solemn commitments to God in His Church, in favor of one's personal desire for social and physical relationship and the satisfaction attendant to it, indicates how much more catechesis has to go on in the Church, to get people to recognize that there are spiritual and moral priorities here that have been skewed by a very flawed view of the human person, a view that elevates physical and emotional gratification over one's moral commitments. This has not only been a problem among celibate clergy, but among married folks as well, and it leads to a lessening in respect and understanding for such solemn commitments and vows.
Laicization is never a "happy" solution -- it is a process of last resort, when there is an admission that a cleric is no longer capable or willing to continue in his sacramental commitment, and is ultimately given leave of that commitment despite the prior counsels and ministrations of the Church. There is no "AWOL" here -- but there is an admission that one no longer is required to maintain one's previous sacramental commitment, and that public ministry is prohibited [except in grave emergency, for the sacrament of penance].
How is Mr. Stone supposed to support the child? I saw a website where women had babies with priests and how they were left out in the cold because the church couldn't support them (not like a working man could) It takes 2 to sin, if he wants to leave to marry, then it's probably best he does. Longing for his son and having it grow up knowing he is a priest, probably isn't the best thing either.
http://articles.latimes.com/2005...cal/me-
oregon24
There are many articles about this...no easy answers. Some sins we do alone, some involve others for a long time. I really don't have any answers, but unlike a married man who can hopefully support another child elsewhere, a priest, especially a non-diocian one, would have a hard time, especially with a vow of poverty.
YES, David Stone has a moral obligation to support his child and the mother of the child, too. Marriage, however, may not be the solution. Pregnancy alone is insufficient grounds to get married as many so-called "shotgun weddings" are annulled since there was a lack of full freedom. Marriage is as much a vocation as is priesthood. Both require sufficient maturity, freedom, knowledge, competency and discretion and neither should be casually entered or abandoned.
I agree, you don't have to be married to support a child, doubling a mistake (no insult to the child) isn't right. That's why I cringed when the VP candidate announced her daughter would be married when they are so young...it's a knee-jerk reaction, but not always the best one when we are still immature or in a crisis. Hopefully everyone takes a breath and really thinks about what they are entering first.
I've certainly not talked to hundreds of priests, but ones I've known, who have stuck it out, complain of lack of support from within and out. I think that adds to the confusion when you are feeling dry or having a spirtitual crisis. I pray for more support and fraternity among priests, especially ones that are alone and not in a community setting. I don't know what happened with Fr. Francis, but I know he had more support (at least from the perspective of looking in) but so many don't. We are are worst enemies though..that I know well.
That's why I cringed when the VP candidate announced her daughter would be married when they are so young...it's a knee-jerk reaction
Actually, in my experience the knee jerk reaction is, "They are so young. tsk, tsk." It reads like, "I couldn't have had a sucessful marriage at the age, so no one else can."
I think some can, but in today's world it's very hard. You need a lot of support and have to pray one doesn't change a lot more than the other...maturity isn't done at 17 and it varies person to person. That's why some religious organizations don't want people entering that young...and even then they have years to discern.
Fr's, So, you are saying that it is better for a child to grow up fatherless than for a priest to leave his vows? Wow! It's comments like that (from priests, no less) that has made it difficult for me to remain Catholic. I have a real problem with the reality that there are thousands of dead beat dad priests hiding behind the skirts of their Bishops, abandoning their primary responsibility, which is the child they helped to create. Do you hear what you are saying? It's the old boys club mentality. You cannot compare his situation with that of a married man with a family who falls in love with another woman and impregnates her. It's not the same thing at all. He didn't have other children. Parishioners are not considered in the same respect as biological children. As for all the speculation on "Dave's" website, he says he will speak for free. Why doesn't someone invite him to speak? He apparently fell in love, and is apparently making the efforts to do what is right. Now everyone is upset with the way he is trying to make a living to support his family. If you want to know what is really going on, stop blogging and speculating,and lets hear what he has to say.
Gee, I think we need to do an intervention and help all the elderly nuns who are thinking of voting for Obama.And the young ones too! And what about all the religious who have abandoned their calling? They certainly can't be thinking clearly?
Just listened to the first podcast. Gotta say, I was kind of moved.
He's a brave guy. Maybe kind of nuts. But brave.
I'm glad he finally put to rest any doubts...as I said before 18 years is a long time to be "out of regular work". I'm glad he isn't shriking his duty as others have, hiding behind the church. I remember Fr. Groechel said he was talking to him back then and then he told us not to do detraction...he wanted Dave Stone to be the one to tell, not anonymous posters. Well, now he is...
On priests who are "alone" --
Priests do not appear "ex nihilo" -- out of nothing. Men are educated in seminaries, participate in a formation program, live in community, are accountable to instructors and superiors and fellow classmates. A specific discipline is expected during this time of formation, and the goal is to form life-long habits and friendships among fellow clergy.
When I hear that a priest is "alone," I wonder and ponder this. In light of our formation, I have a hard time concluding that this particular state has come about by external circumstances, especially those priests in religious community. More often is the case that the priest has withdrawn from those supports which the Church has provided. The priest is alone because he has made choices that lead to being alone. (Too) Many times I have seen priests withdraw from other priests, and then complain they are alone. I have made attempts to reach out to priests, and have seen others reach out to these same priests, and in each instance the offer has been rebuffed. In the instances I am thinking of, the priests have admitted that they do not have spiritual directors. This is a huge problem. Every priest should have a spiritual director, and ideally, a spiritual director who is also a priest.
I cannot stress enough how important it is to pray for priests, especially those who retreat into a self-imposed exile, who avoid the accountability that comes from regular spiritual direction, who succumb to a the prevalent pop-psychology of victimhood, and who need to mature into responsibility. There are some aspects of religious formation and religious community life that permits a person to remain in a state of "arrested development," as one gives obedience to a superior for the wrong reasons, i.e., "so I don't have to make a decision," rather than "I trust in God and believe I am fulfilling His will." There is little doubt that the Church has ordained men who are not fully mature -- the many requests for laicization indicate in some an "evolution" in the person's self-identity and relationship to the Church [if not to God]. That there is an unwillingness in some to pursue maturity within the priesthood or religious life is a mystery to me, and brings me to reflect more deeply upon my own commitments I have made to God, to my bishop, and to the people I serve. I have certainly grown as a priest, and have had to make conscious efforts to grow. It can be too easy at times to retreat or otherwise avoid those experiences in which I am accountable and out of which I gain not only self-understanding, but come to know God more fully, more deeply. But it is a choice to grow, and I must re-commit myself to this every day. God's grace is always there to lead me in this growth.
There is always a "reaching out" in the priesthood -- it is in the very nature of presbyteral service. A priest must remember that he reaches out not only in service to ot
in service to others, but in service to his own continuing formation and discipleship in Christ.
Fr. Stanley, that is a very wise and honest statement. The church can't be perfect in ordination,but hopefully will be a little more wise in the future and more helpful in guidance and advice. The "arrested development" can be problematic, with priests and sometimes nuns also. An old priest I talked to once loved being a priest but knew that some "priests of old" his old group, had the "3 squares and a bed" mentality. They didn't have to make decisions, had most needs taken care of and didn't grow in their faith beyond the initial formation.
He found his group of priestly friends dwindled as the parish's cut back and there was one priest when there was 2 or 3 before. He also found that some were not as dedicated and just because you were a priest, doesn't make another a good friend or mentor. I think time is stretched, but it is important to have that growth and companionship. Having outside friends is wonderful but no one "outside" can understand fully what you are going through.
I think some communites like Fr. Groechel's understand how much you need guidance, retreats and an advisor. Being a diocesan priest might be more challenging but not impossible.
Anonymous:
There is a heck of a lot of difference between being a father to a child [spouse to the mother comes to mind, first of all] than merely being a "sperm donor," which accurately describes so many unmarried men [non-clergy, mostly] who impregnate their girlfriends or women in even more vague and ill-defined relationships. Before you get in a high dudgeon about clergy shirking their responsibilities as fathers -- and by the way, neither Fr. Trigilio or I said that the priest/sperm donor wasn't financially obliged. But, if I'm reading you correctly, the priest is supposed to leave all the other responsibilities he has previously taken and make this child his sole responsibility, and the Church is supposed to allow him this without argument or other options. I think the child should be provided for, and actually, the child should be given up for adoption, so that the child can experience two parents who are already married and committed to living their love in a sacramental marriage. A priest who breaks his vow of celibacy is already a huge question mark, at least in my mind. Having donated sperm in some tryst hardly qualifies one for fatherhood. He certainly has moral obligations to the child, but I happen to think the child deserves better.
You're going to have to try harder to convince me about these priests who impregnate their parishioners. I see them as no different than husbands who cheat on their wives and get their illicit concubines pregnant. Would you counsel that these husbands leave their current wives and families to devote themselves totally to their second families? You don't see the celibate commitment of ordination vows as morally equal to the fidelity and exclusivity commitment of marriage vows. I do see it that way, and you'll have to try harder, as I'm a tough case in these matters. You see this priests who cheat on their celibacy as flawed men who need release from their first commitment to God; I seem them as flawed men who need reform within their first commitment, which needs to be kept.
And please don't tell me that having married clergy is the answer: if a priest is going to cheat on his celibacy, he'd be likely to cheat on his wife as well. I'm not anxious to take on the issue of infidelity among married priests, and the ensuing divorces attendant to such infidelity [at least as our current post-Christian culture presents as the "remedy" for infidelity].
After some more prayer and a little sleep, I have one more important insight about priests who break their vows of celibacy. I had described them above as "priests who cheat on their celibacy." Upon reflection, that is far too abstract a description. They are not merely cheating on an idea[l] or a vow; they are cheating their parishioners, their fellow priests or fellow religious, their Church -- the people of God, and ultimately they are cheating God. All these deserve better from these men, and you would release these priests from their commitments to each of these important constituencies. All priests made their promises before Him [just as married couples do in the rite of Marriage], and these promises do mean something important and should take the priority. Arrangements can be and must be made for the children born out of wedlock. [By the way, do you know of some other private institution that takes care of more children born out of wedlock than the Catholic Church? This is not a rhetorical question, and it deserves an answer.] But I have a huge problem when Anonymous makes a blanket criticism of the Church's priests and the hierarchy in asserting that we don't care about these children and these situations and we don't take care of these children.
Your proposed solution, the immediate laicization of these wayward priests, gives short shrift to the role of conversion and personal moral reformation in the lives of these men, who, above all, need to be called back to their initial commitment, no matter how imperfectly that commitment was made. There is an important spiritual reason for priestly celibacy: it leads these men into lives more closely conformed to Christ Himself, who foresook married life and family life to give full effort into the proclamation of the kingdom and ministry to the people -- ministry to all of the people, not just to one's offspring. Every ordained priest is taught this -- it is no surprise or new development. And it is to this level of commitment and service that every priest must strive, and for which he must daily ask God for grace to persevere. Please pray for your priests.
ADOPTION for the child involved - given the great desire among so many good, stable couples for a child to love - is the most loving option that people never seem to think of.
Thank you Fr.Stanley for mentioning it!!!
Both Dave Stone and the mother of the child very apparently knew what they were doing, are not opting for adoption (which would be ridiculous, given the fact that the child was NOT an accident, but was in the mind of God and planned even before He created the earth.) This baby was loved into existence, was loved and wanted even before conception, and was a product of the love between two people. This child is surrounded by a whole family filled with love. This child is a blessing straight from God, and God blessed THIS family with that child. Not the smith or jones family! I think that you can give all the opinions you want, but keep in mind that you know nothing, NOTHING about the situation in which you are speaking! I understand that people were hurt, but life happens. I think people need to put everything in the right perspective for once. It may effect you on a certain level, but not to the degree that some are making it out to be. Dave has his life to live, he is very apparently embracing this blessing he was given. I think you should all say a prayer for Gods continued guidance and blessing in his life and the lives of his family. To do otherwise is selfish, and that is also a sin. Stop gossiping and speculating. You are never going to figure out all the "why's" and all you do is cause hurt. First to yourself, because this blogging is not only gossip, but also a waste of the time God has given you to serve him, But it is also hurtful to the family in which you are speaking of. They deserve their privacy, and this is a violation. It is indecent of you to make speculations on the circumstance in which all this has happened. It is wrong. God bless you!
One last thought: I believe that the majority of men who have fathered a child out of wedlock, most especially those who have been intricately involved in the raising of the child, would take offense at being referred to as a mere "sperm donor."(irregardless of their marrital status.) I'm sure a man like Dave would take offense to that statement, as well, but I doubt he reads this garbage. Maybe you should listen to his podcast. I did.
Anonymous -
It is not correct to say people know NOTHING about this situation. Not everything? Certainly. Maybe not most of it. Nothing? Not by a long shot.
If Father Stone does not want these things discussed and wants to protect his new family, he should take down his website and seek to work quietly for a living in anonymity.
This is this the widows daughter. And all of yall are just a bunch of jealous people who have nothing better to do with your life nor time than sit and gossip about people. Dave Has sined like everyone else in the world, no one is perfect and never will be. These bolgs are nothing but the creation of Satan and all of you are his little workers.
Its very sad and pathetic there are people out there that are so fixated with this whole situation. Why worry about his life, when you have one of your own to live. All of yall say how christian you are and then you turn right around and do exactly what the bible says not to.
And Marie adoption is for people who are young and not mature enough to take care of a child, or who are not ready for the responsibilty, or someone who is raped. I love my sibling and the baby is a blessing from God. My mother is a great mom! And I'm tired of people always telling EVERYONE to give there baby up for adoption. Yes, there are good people out there that cant have babies, but that doesnt mean for someone who is responsible, and prepared for a baby to give it to someone that cant. There are babies all over the world who are in foster homes and different countries who need a family.
Dave is a great person and a great father, his baby needs him, the church doesnt. And for him to stay or come back to the church is a very SELFISH thing to ask.
No he shouldnt take down his website! That is an idiotic comment, should movie stars quit there work just so people want talk about them, yall are like Dave's paprazzie how sad. He could care less about these blogs because nothing you can say will break his spirit.
Live your life:
These blogs are the work of Satan and we're all his little workers?
I advise you to go take a peek at the Huffington Post and the Daily Kos and get back to us on that.
I would have to agree with "live your life." God has nothing to do with spreading gossip, or sitting around wasting time giving your opinion on something that is TRULY none of your business. You are accountable to God, just like every other person in the world. Do you think what you are doing is ok? Gossip, detraction, slander, defamation. I wonder if blogs can be held liable, because this is very damaging to the persons whom it is referencing. I would think that any good Catholic would know the Ten Commandments. This could be considered "murder" according to a confessor I once knew. And, Who really cares about the Huffington Post or the Daily Kos? I certainly do not. It is irrelevant to the topic of discussion on this blog.
Anon,
Gossip is talking idly about another's private matters. Stone's exit from LOTR was not private. Further, to circumstances surrounding his exit gave scandal to several faithful viewers.
The Church's prohibition against idle chatter is not meant to muzzle scandalized people from dealing with the scandal.
"...given the fact that the child was NOT an accident, but was in the mind of God and planned even before He created the earth..."
Given this line of reasoning, isn't EVERY child in the mind of God and planned even before he created the earth? If every child is planned in God's mind, then no child is an accident. If no child is an accident, then the child should never be adopted, as you previously assert that adoption is only for "accidents."
Now I point this out because of the use of faulty logic, fallacious reasoning. I'm really not interested in which children you would identify as "accidents," an identification which would be most unedifying.
Another poster asserts that "the church doesn't need" him [Fr. Stone] anymore. That's quite an assertion, but like the explanation of which babies are "accidents," I'm not really interested in why this person thinks s/he can determine which priests the Church no longer needs, as I'm pretty sure that's a decision made well above that person's pay-grade, to quote a presidential candidate. I was of the impression that the Church needs every priest it currently has, and needs those priests to do their jobs well, with holiness and humility.
shouldn't you people be spreading the gospel instead of spreading the gossip? Or, is that just what the Protestant's are for?
I think assuming you can give advice on who should and should not be given up for adoption is way above your pay grade.
Anon:
You conveniently ignore Live your Life's comment about Satan and his little workers.
That's over the top, and my directing him/her to the HuffPo and Kos IS relevant.
One last thought for you, Brian. You do not know if Dave's ordination was valid. That is something to be determined by others Way above your "pay grade", and will not be known until the laicization process has been worked through. I believe Dave is not the only one in need of prayer. I will pray for you, also.
And, Dave B., If you want to speak of Dave, that's one thing. But to speak of his child and the mother of the child is an invasion of their privacy. It could be considered harrassment.
No, I agree with the widows daughter because she is correct. Only God has the answers, and God knows what his will is in their lives. To get on these blogs and write the things that you do is not Christian in the least. F. Brian seems to have a God complex.
Part of spreading the Gospel is defending the Church, the Priesthood, etc. Unfortunately, this is a very public situation which causes a lot of people to say things that aren't true about the Church, the Priesthood, the nature of a vow, etc. Part of the problem is that a website has been set up by Father Stone, using terminology referring to "Life on the Rock", etc. and it makes it look like "Hey - this is all ok". But, acting as if it is all ok doesn't make it all ok.
It is never wrong to remind people about the permanence of ordination - it imparts a character on the soul - "You are a Priest forever, according to the order of Melchizadek". We should be praying for Father Stone - but in particular that he must come back to the Bride he has left. Running a public website is rubbing salt in the wound that has been left in the heart of the Church.
I agree with Fr. Trijilio - there but for the grace of God go ALL of us... but I also agree with him that this situation need not be over... "priests who strayed from their vows are like wayward husbands who can and must clean up their act and come back to their legitimate spouse. It will not be easy and will take time to heal, but the sacred bond of matrimony (and the grace of Holy Orders) makes a permanent connection."
Anyone who proposes an argument claiming that this family needs Father Stone more than the Church does has just claimed that vows to God mean nothing and we can break them if we think there is a good enough reasons.
That is a tragedy. Vows are ALWAYS hard to live by. Thats why we have to make them solemn. Sometimes, when things get tough, it is the fact that you have MADE A VOW that keeps you faithful.
Marie, that is why the Church in her wisdom has allowed for laicization of priests who, for whatever reason, were not validly ordained. Since none of you know if he was validly ordained, then you do not have a right to speculate on what anyone involved in this situation should or should not do. Maybe you believe the site is in poor taste, or causes some kind of scandal. If you believe that, just don't look at it. Use self restraint. Maybe you all should be praying for God's will instead of acting like you have a direct line to God and know what He is doing in all of this. If you are having a difficult time processing what has happened, go see a therapist. At least have the decency to not comment on the family or his child. Keep the blog strictly related to the subject, which as you pointed out, is the website he has up.
Even if it is shown ultimately that Father Stone's ordination was not valid for some reason (and that is for Church authorities to determine), in the meantime, you err on the side of caution and assume validity.
Actually, Marie, you should err on the side of caution when giving your opinions on a public blog, dear. It would be prudent for all to just leave this alone. In time, God will work it all out. Until then, pray and stop rehashing something that really has nothing to do with you personally.
Anon - it is the same with married people who go through with annulment proceedings. Time and time again, I have seen people who want to "jump the gun" so to speak and contract a marriage for a second time because they "know" that their annulment is going to come through - but it doesn't work that way. Patience. And patience can be hard.
One couple I know waited FIVE YEARS for a determination on the previous marriage of the boyfriend.
It may be prudent for Father Stone to remove his website until this are clearer.
Marie:
I disagree with your statement that the Church needs this priest more than his family does. The Church does not need faithless priests.
Furthermore, why should that baby pay the price for his mistake? He has a duty to care for his temporal family, regardless of how he created that family.
I agree with the principle that you espouse, but should a child's welfare be sacrificed for said principle? I suppose one can recall our Lord when he said of the Sabbath that it was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.
I am deeply disappointed in Fr. Stone's conduct. But I cannot condemn him for doing his duty towards his child. Priestly vows have been broken for far more egregious reasons, and I for one am less troubled by one who leaves his faith for the illicit love of a woman as Fr. Stone has, than by one who leaves it for some self righteous ideology contrary to the Faith, as we witness so frequently.
I believe that Dave said on his site that he is still "in the heart of the church." That would imply faithfulness to the church, and to what the church is asking of him. I have not seen anything that has remotely suggested that he has "contracted marriage" prior to receiving his laicization. Have you, Marie? Apparently, he is exercising the virtue of patience.
No one should say he should take his site down, that's his business. I think some would think this site should be down too...that's our freedom. Nothing evil has been on it, he's trying to survive and qwell any rumors that people are saying.
No one is considering since we don't know him, any number of scenerios...some would make his leaving EWTN not as bad.
First, he might not have wanted to stay a priest or at EWTN...maybe this would have happened, baby or not.
Second, maybe he wants to get married one day, maybe he doesn't...he never said anything about that, he wants to support his son,something the church doesn't do much anymore. (he quoted Fr. Groechel on that)The widow has other children, that's quite a responsiblity to take on without a real job.
He was a community priest, not in a parish one, where would he go? He couldn't stay in that town and be a priest, were they to send him elsewhere to hide in a strange, unknown area, away from his son? I doubt he would want that even if it was offered. The church has moved enough priests around in the past.
He can be in full communion as long as he is being a good Catholic and not having an intimate relationship with the widow or anyone else. EWTN wanted him to leave, it was for the best, but his role was complicated, not your "average priest" in many ways. Let him feel things out and falter like the rest of us, but don't assume what he wants....you really don't know. Maybe his book one day, will tell his tale better than us.
Sounds like you have him pegged, Gabrielle.
Gabrielle, I haven't seen anywhere that the "widow doesn't have a real job." Is that an assumption, or do you know Dave and the widow?
Anon,
I didn't say anything about Stone's family once. Perhaps you were talking about others' comments.
"F. Brian seems to have a God complex."
I don't think it helps to attack a priest that you disagree with.
You are right, but I was simply expressing my opinion of Fr. Stanley, as everyone else has expressed their opinions of Dave Stone. There really isn't any difference.
I don't know if the widow has a job or not, she was "struggling" according to him, and the anonymous poster that mentioned the baby originally, said she worked at EWTN but didn't think they had her stay. Her words though not mine. My point was that marrying her would be taking on 4 or more children,not just one which is a huge responsibility, not impossible, just challenging.
I read nowhere that she worked at EWTN, or that her "struggles" were financial. Nor did I read that she had 4 children.
I never, ever said Father Stone had contracted marriage. What I was responding to was the argument that since "none of us know if he was validly ordained", then we really can't say if a man should be obedient to his vows. And this is the argument married people often make when they assume that they are going to be granted an annulment... but we MUST assume validity until proven otherwise. To assume invalidity is to jump the gun in thought.
BTW - I am only responding to those making arguments here, because I think this is an important discussion in principle. I do not know what Father Stone thinks about the validity (or not) of his ordination.
BTW - taking the site down or not is entirely his decision. I am just saying that it might be prudent to do so if he would like to prevent public discussion of the content of the web site.
Anon:
I have consistently asked for prayers for priest. I have included asking for prayers for myself.
I have spent sixteen years in seminary formation prior to my ordination. I don't have a "God complex" -- I have knowledge of priestly formation and seminary training. I have seen too many priests leave the priesthood since I began my formation in '80. I studied in South Bend, in Berkeley, in Detroit. I've seen a lot. I began my priestly formation with a religious order; I was ordained for a diocese. I've had substantial experience in both religious life and diocesan life.
I find it very disturbing that a lot of commentators here chime in very authoritatively on matters they clearly have not studied nor have they experienced.
Not every priest who applies for laicization receives that laicization. Sometimes the very reason for a man being relieved of his priestly duties is also the reason that interferes with his pursuit of the married life. I'm assuming that readers here have encountered men with "commitment issues."
The presumptions going into the laicization process are that the priest in question has in fact been validly ordained but is currently encountering a problem. To assume the priest has an invalid ordination is incorrect. It needs to be demonstrated that the priest concealed important information during his formation, or that the bishop and others charged with the priest's formation acted invalidly or inappropriately.
It is interesting to see how many dismiss the option of adoption. An adoption can be arranged within a priest's immediate family, so that a connection may be maintained. It is also interesting to see how many are willing to tell the Church that this priest or that priest is no longer needed or useful. I also find it interesting that among some here there is no concern that priests who leave the priesthood begin carry on with relationships without the laicization process being started, let alone completed. It speaks mounds about the respect or lack thereof for the Church.
This not-yet laicized priest is trading upon his former associations with EWTN and "Life on the Rock" on his website. His position is at best ambiguous and it is obviously misleading to some of the faithful, as amply demonstrated here. Once again, this is not merely a matter of gossip or rumormongering, but of warning the faithful not to be misled. This is a very sad situation; that Fr. Stone has chosen a very public forum for pursuing his career is exacerbating to this situation. Please pray for him, and pray for all priests.
I don't know the number of children, perse, just that it was more than one. Steve Ray before he took his blog down, had an intelligent, but getting heated debate. An anon blogger seemed to have accurate information on Fr. Francis,(and I think Steve checked it ) but he chose not to keep it up because it was causing more scandal. I vaguely remember the number of children, but am sure it was at least 2. It doesn't matter really, any "ready made" family has it's challenges although it can be wonderful. The employee part again is vague after a year, and I wont comment on it again because I can't check it anymore. That also, doesn't matter at this point. Fr. Joe has some old post on that too but since they probably range in the 100's now, again, not worth looking. Nothing changes the facts now.
I don't think Dave Stone thinks his site causes scandal, it's mainly on his products and he is answering what the blogs have been writing about. If he didn't, the speculation would be worse. Using you past to help your future might not be a perfect solution, but since he probably isn't getting any real results or help from others, maybe after a year, this in HIS mind, the only thing he can do. Strike while the iron is hot as they say. I can't judge, I don't know what is really going on, but time has a way of making things clear.
Article I found on why some priests leave:
http://findarticles.com/p/articl...39/
ai_102554601
Wonderful site for prayers for priests and seminarians:
http://www.2heartsnetwork.org/pr...org/
priests.htm
One last thought, I don't agree with doing away with celibacy...I do believe if God wants it, the church will survive with it. I used to do those prayers more faithfully, I will go back to that now.
When I posted that the church doesnt need Dave by that I meant they do not need HIM, there are tons of men who would love to be a preists. His baby needs him more than the church the church can always replace the preist, but the baby has only one father.
Father Stanley, I take great offense at your commentaries. I would like to make a little suggestion. You need to stop bringing up the child and the mother. If you want to talk about Dave and his site, then by all means, have fun. But, leave the family and their personal business out of it. Comprende?
I didn't "bring up" the topic of the mother and child -- others did, and I responded to it. The Church was accused, and I responded. The accusation was out there that the Church doesn't provide for these children, and it does, and the burden rests on those who make the accusation to prove it. My intention is to instruct, not to offend. This isn't "fun" -- it is especially sad.
W, I take great offense at a lot of things here, including Fr. Stone's website. Si, yo comprende. Y tu?
She is my mom and all you have done is sit here and talk about her and my sibling so I find that offensive. I am an adult and I do not need you telling me what to say. But I am so please to hear no one on this site will be talking about them anymore. thank you! Amen!
I agree with the widows daughter everyone on this website has gossiped and made insulting comments about her mother and sibling, what is sad and pathetic is how you as preists sit here and talk about how holy you are and preach the bible then turn around and do exactly what it says not to. Why do you care so much about Daves life? Sins? Or his website? You have sins of your own! Why judge? thats gods job. Why even bother stating your opinon when all it is is a waste of your time and life. Do something productive. Help people who are in need! PLEASE! This blog is so immature yall are living your life gossiping about a man who is trying to get his life straight with God and so on. His website is wonderful! And the people who are talking bad about Dave you are just JEALOUS. He is a good man who is trying to support his son! And how do you know that there is
support going to her from the church? Please go do something more than gossip yall live your day on this stupid website living your life around Dave's how sad.
Has the church given any support to the child? Why don't some of you ask Bishop Baker if anyone at his office has made even one payment of child support? Has Dave's community paid one child support payment? Why don't I just start a blog about that? How many would be interested?
Oh, and Father Stanley, maybe as a priest you could have thought of another response. Like maybe "We are getting off topic. We shouldn't be discussing this area of Dave's life." Or maybe "this family has not put themselves in the public forum, so it is not right to discuss them." All of your "education" and "years of training" should have taught you that much, even if common sense was lacking.
Fr. Stan
Why should you be so concerned with how he presents himself, you are not him you do not have to walk in his shoes. He is a grown man he doesnt need you to tell him how to live his life. He can make his own decisions.
Fr. Stanley, yes.
"His position is at best ambiguous and it is obviously misleading to some of the faithful, as amply demonstrated here. Once again, this is not merely a matter of gossip or rumormongering, but of warning the faithful not to be misled."
Let those who have ears, hear.
What I am saying, and now reiterating is this. Please, for the LOVE of GOD! Do not mention the child, the widow, or their family again. You can speak of Dave and his website all you want, but leave the rest alone. I am speaking mostly to Marie and Rev. Stanley, but am asking all of you to do this one act of charity. I'm sure it would be appreciated. Marie, I think the faithful has enough information on situations involving priests. Do a search on priest scandal. You would have weeks worth of reading in front of you. Not that many people are concerned about this particular situation anymore. Most were only concerned of getting all of the dirt. There are only a handful who look at this blog, and quite frankly, I am only on here because I find it very concerning that some of those on here are discussing things that are of a very private nature. As I stated earlier, the widow and her family have kept their lives private. The network issued a statement calling attention to a situation that should not have been made public. For the sake of that family and their privacy, that letter should never have been read. I doubt Dave would have mentioned his child if it had not been for the sake of putting all the gossip to an end. Why don't you all do the Christian thing here, and say a prayer for God's will and be done with it. This is all a bit obsessive.
"You are right, but I was simply expressing my opinion of Fr. Stanley, as everyone else has expressed their opinions of Dave Stone."
That Anon was me, BTW.
I may be wrong, but I don't remember any regular users accusing Stone of having a God complex, or anything approximating that.
david, i am not trying to argue with you. but, i do not see mr. stone telling people that they should give their children up for adoption, or telling priests that may have good cause to be laicized that they should remain in the priesthood. I do, however, see Fr. Stanley doing that. He percieves to know more than God in this matter? That is what I see here, and that is what I was saying.
This website is a sick obsession with Mr. Stone. No matter what is your excuse. This is a very sad way to spend your time. All of your lives revolve around what Mr. Stone is doing, saying, and living.
1. A laicization is not a declaration that a priest's ordination was "invalid" - that would be pretty horrific for all those who thought they had received the Body and Blood of Christ at his Masses, etc.
No, a laicization is a "reduction" to the lay state. That's all. He is still ordained, he is still a priest. That is why "ex-priest" is not an accurate term. In fact, if a laicized priest is in the presence of a person in danger of death, he is REQUIRED to give that person whatever sacraments he is able.
2) That said, if Dave Stone fathered a child, neither the bishop nor the community have any obligation to provide child support unless a) the priest exploited the girl/woman in some way b) abandoned her..or just is a total wreck and has no way of providing for the child. This sounds consensual, and Dave Stone has left and is functioning as a layman in the world. It is his responsibility to provide for his family.
So...Fr. Stanley, when you meet seminary classmates who were ordained and have since left and entered into married life, how do you relate to them? Do you sniff at them as "fallen" and lecture them about the scandal they present?
"...when you meet seminary classmates who were ordained and have since left and entered into married life, how do you relate to them? Do you sniff at them as "fallen" and lecture them about the scandal they present?"
I "relate" to them as a friend and classmate. I don't "sniff." There is no need of any lecture from me or anyone else. Then again, they haven't gone posting their "life change" on internet websites, either, nor do they attempt to trade upon their former status as priest. None of my classmates hosted a nationally broadcast television show on a religious network. None of my classmates have been discussed on Steven Ray's blog, or this blog, or elsewhere on the internet, to my knowledge. So, none of my classmates have drawn attention to themselves, and to what they have done, which is essential to understanding the use of the term "scandal."
I think it is important to remember who started this: no one made Fr. Stone create a website for the purpose of advertisement and self-promotion. There has been, understandably, reaction. There need not have been -- and Fr. Stone knows this -- because no one needed to know anything more. But when he created a website and advertized, he opened this up for public commentary. He was a public figure and he continues to be through his own efforts. He obviously has "fans" here in this comment box and throughout the internet. This is good for him and for his business, I guess.
There are some here who are intent to make the Church or the hierarchy or me or Fr. Trigilio be the villains in this story, and that Fr. Stone is some kind of victim. There are plenty of victims in these cases, but I don't see Fr. Stone as one of them. I agree with the comment above that Fr. Stone doesn't perceive his website to be a problem. I honestly wish him well, and offered Mass this morning for his intention. I do so not because I think I am holier than anyone else. I do so because it is needed.
Dear Fr. Stanley -
I for one have been edified by the time you have taken to defend the Church and the dignity of Her Priesthood. God willing, others have been, too.
I was not intending to post on this thread again because so few seem to have ears - but I did want to say thanks and God bless you.
I understand that in this current age, the media plays a huge role in all of our lives. But, where does God give us permission to make judgements? Where does God give any of us permission to discuss this mans life? It makes no difference if he has been, or remains to be a public figure. Read the book of JOB. His "friends" came to give him comfort. They made all sorts of innaccurate accusations and gave all sorts of "advice." They were wrong in what they said. None of us know the mind of God. He is obviously in control of the situation, you are not. I would suggest that people pray, but not continue this discussion. It IS the work of Satan to tear down another human person, especially when they are trying their best to do what God is guiding them to do. I believe Dave is a man of prayer, and I do not believe that he would do anything without praying and feeling the peace of God that comes only when you are doing HIS will.
Everyone just give it up, let it go , forgive, and let the past be the past. Why go on and on about Mr.Stone this is like highshool, very immature gossiping. Call it what you want stating you opion, gossip, ect. God forgave Mary Magdelen and she did worse things than Dave. I am for Mr. Stone he is trying to make things right with his life. He left the church for the right reason, His baby. Dave is a real man who is taking is responsibility. And I admire him for that many men that would be in his situation would sweep it under the rug. And forget about the child, but the child will never forget that he left. And that would have a big impact on the child. Dave we all love you.
I agree with you, but on a lot of blogs/sites, people will keep posting about how this one and that one shouldn't be talking about someone, and they are really doing the same thing...they are on the site and talking about it, giving advice still counts!: )
I think for some it is a way to discuss aspects of the church they don't understand or to get a look into a part they don't see much.
I know for my family, we watched Fr. Francis for many years at mass, LOTR, specials, etc. Like Mother (although not as popular of course) he became part of the EWTN family. It's not uncommon to want to find out what is going on when someone is there one day, gone the next and a vague "discerning" is given. Now you know though, he has a site, email, etc, soon to be bio and letter published, so I agree, the comments can stop....but debate on marriage,church laws, etc. can go on without him.
Yes, Gabrielle! You are a person of reason and wisdom!!! :o) Now, who wants to discuss something else?
"Mr. Peters: When an individual has made himself available for contact, yes, I would say that posting a story about that person, commenting on that person's decisins and refusing to engage the person (who is accessible via email) directly in the conversation is, indeed, talking about someone behind his back. Unless Dave Stone sent Tom a note with a link to his site (and perhaps he did), Tom picking this up and the commentors raking through Stone's life and asking all kinds of questions about it without even trying to contact the man directly with their questions is childish and cowardly."
Edward--when an individual creates a blog and posts on that blog, it is open to public discussion. Clearly, each individual engaging in discussion should make every effort to be charitable. If Dave Stone had created his blog with the possibility for the public to make comments on his website, I believe many of us would do so. He did not. Some may decide to send him a personal email. Some may not. Dave Stone has selected a public forum by his own choice. People are free to comment in other public forums. In and of itself, blogging on blog B, in response to blog A, particularly when blog A has provided no means of public commentary (that is, an email to Dave is for Dave alone, it doesn't provide a means for public discussion) is not, by any means, by it's very nature, uncharitable. Dave Stone is addressing the church at large--that is, any one of us who wishes to read his blog. We are in turn free to respond, publicly, so that others may read our reflections. That's how internet communication works.
"I agree with you, but on a lot of blogs/sites, people will keep posting about how this one and that one shouldn't be talking about someone, and they are really doing the same thing...they are on the site and talking about it, giving advice still counts!: )
I think for some it is a way to discuss aspects of the church they don't understand or to get a look into a part they don't see much.
I know for my family, we watched Fr. Francis for many years at mass, LOTR, specials, etc. Like Mother (although not as popular of course) he became part of the EWTN family. It's not uncommon to want to find out what is going on when someone is there one day, gone the next and a vague "discerning" is given. Now you know though, he has a site, email, etc, soon to be bio and letter published, so I agree, the comments can stop....but debate on marriage,church laws, etc. can go on without him."
Yes, Gabrielle! You are a person of reason and wisdom!!! :o) Now, who wants to discuss something else?
"Forgiveness is unlocking the door to set someone free and realizing you were the prisoner"!
-Max Lucado
I like that quote...it's so true. So many of us are in a prison, not wanting to forgive. In my own family, people wont go somewhere if "this one is there" or still get angry when something was 25 years ago. It's hard, but a good feeling to let it go...you don't forget, but let it go.
Yes, it's the same in my family, too. Forgiveness is an act of the will. And, sometimes we have to make that act of the will everytime we think of the person who hurt us. I think it's a process. But, God has a way of healing us in time if we are able to let it go.
I understand that he has to provide for his family, but must he enter the public limelight again? Considering the scandal he has caused, a life of penance, silence, and mortificationm, aka a private life, seem to be what is called for. From his writings he does not appear to understand the gravity of sin that he committed. God can and will forgive him, but every sin must be accounted for in purgatory, we cannot forget that.
Just let it go and say a prayer. Forgiveness, Kristin, is what's called for here. That, and the ability to not play God and judge another persons actions or motives. Now, would you like to discuss something of greater importance? How about abortion? That is a far worse thing.
W,
I agree with you, but if this man continues to procure scandal, we have a right to say something. I have no problem with him seeking work to support his child, but I do have a problem with him continuing to preach and writing a book for profit. His latest podcast is a bit disturbing. God will forgive, he has forgiven him, like he forgives all of us, but we have a right, rather a duty, to protect those who might be harmed.
God Bless,
Kristin
Isn't Dave the one who is inviting comments by making his "story" public?
This blog makes me sad. Our Church is a family, bloggers! This is no way to treat a brother! What does *he* need right now? Is it benefitting *him* to be analyzed like this? (And -- to be honest -- is it benefitting us??) If the answer to these questions is "no," perhaps we would do well to ponder ways we might help Mr. Stone to continue on -- to encourage him without bringing down the spirits of our brother during this time.
Let us not forget that Christ's heart is filled with tenderness for those who find themselves "between a rock and a hard place." Has Christ not shown us compassion during times financial or personal or relationship struggles? Has He not been patient with us when our bad decisions have caused "right" and "wrong" to become momentarily fuzzy or have overwhelmed us for a time? Let us remember how Christ has been gentle with us, and oh! let us be gentle now with Mr. Stone!
For if we -- his family in Christ -- cannot find compassion for him in our hearts, who will? The world can be a harsh place -- I'm sure especially so after eighteen years in a friary. Mr. Stone is not a young man -- and yet he has a baby child and is trying to start up a job from scratch. Think how many transitions he is experiencing right now, and remember that transitioning often becomes more difficult as people age. Think how courageous he must be to keep up hope in the face of these very earthy changes... not to mention in the face of consternation from "his own in Christ."
But if we cannot be moved by compassion just yet, let us at least remember that he served us well for eighteen years. He was our spiritual father. And if we see the error of his choice, it is partly thanks to his guidance and teaching in the past that we know our Faith well enough to name this error! Let us not laugh, as Noah's son did, at the father's frailty.
Yes, Mr. Stone has tripped on his way to Christ. He has fallen down, and -- according to himself -- gotten up. Blessed are we if we consistently do the same thing throughout our lives! Perhaps our falls will never be as consequential or as public as his... but if ever they are, I pray to be as courageous in persevering as Mr. Stone has been!
Yes, persevering. For he is not burrying his head in the sand and pretending this did not happen. He is not making hasty decisions for the child, he is not getting stuck in the past and in the "what if's" and "should have's."
It is we who are getting stuck in the past! In this, let us be careful, lest we be guilty of making his path harder -- not smoother. It does little good to point out that Mr. Stone let his flock down once-upon-a-time. We are now the ones letting him down!
Let us not forget that Christ died for us while we were yet sinners... and, having once experienced this jaw-dropping love, let us not harden our hearts to one who needs a living reminder of the Father's constancy and devotion.
Come, let us m
ove on -- like Mr. Stone himself! -- and accept the reality of what *is.* We need not bless Mr. Stone for what he did. But we also need to behave like the Elder Brother and scorn the Prodigal -- so dear to the Father's heart -- because he can do no better than eat husks right now. Let us reach out to him -- in prayer! with uplifting and encouraging comments! even with monetary aide if we feel comfortable doing so!
But, above all, by refraining from stirring the pot of the past in an fashion that helps neither Mr. Stone nor ourselves nor the readers of this blog.
I don't see how I'm lacking compassion when I call on Dave to live a quiet life, or at least not pubish a book about what happened. Human nature, is what is it is, and right now people are very cynical about the faith. There are some who never heard of EWTN or Mr. Stone, who don't know the circumstances, and now he is going to draw more attention to it?
I'm not judging him, what happened is between him and God. Yes, he needs to support his child. I'm sure someone out there in the corperate world can give him a job. We have a responsibility to help him, but he has a resposnsibility to live a life that will minimize future scandal. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Catholic tradition contains precepts according to which former priests are supposed to conduct themselves.
What would someone hire him to do?? I know men that had to move out of state, worked for companies 10 or more years and couldn't get jobs after being laid off. He never really worked for long and almost 2 decades is a long time to be "out of the loop". He didn't run EWTN, wasn't the head of the friars,etc. I know scandal shouldn't used for profit, but bills have a way of piling up and "maybe" Mr. Stone doesn't think it's scandalous. I might not agree, but he has his opinion.
I agree faith today in some areas is weak, but Mr. Stone's departure shouldn't make it worse. When I heard some vocation sites didn't want to mention it, I thought, that's one of the reasons vocations fail...the reality of what happens to some priests and nuns are "teaching moments" really,they shouldn't be hidden. I don't know why EWTN has such a hard time with men, although the women flourish....is it the TV angle, you're not feeding the poor, aiding the sick, not in a "face to face" way. Why do friars leave the priesthood, he wasn't the first, why do some go to parish's? Is it just not a fit or does something have to change? They have one postulant now that I pray for, I hope they can one day fill up like the sisters, but you should never pretend the pink elephant isn't in the room. Dave Stone is human, they erased him at EWTN, he probably feels, he should have a chance to have his say, whatever it is. He is definitely not going to hide, he never struck me as that type. There are a lot of emotions going on...I don't expect him to think clearly for a while.
I'm sure that during his time as a public figure he made lots of friends, I'm surprised no one has offered him a job. That would really be a work of mercy. If I could, I would! :)
But even if writing a book was the only way to support his child, it would still be wrong, Catholic teaching says you can't support a moral evil even if you intention is to bring about an ultimate good.
I feel for Dave, I honestly do, but I have greater concern for the kids who looked up to him and were let down. Remember what Jesus said about scandal...sometimes we need to prioritize our compassion.
We are assuming the book is about "hidden stories of the working of EWTN" and his affair....it could just be as he said, his journey from secular to priesthood and what happened to him. That, depending on how he portrays it, is not really scandalous, it's a fact....him being on his website or writing it in a book, isn't against the law. Everyone knows he left that knew him, no stories there. If he portrays it as his life and mistakes, that's fine...how to avoid them..or if he really felt after being ordained a few years, that priests should be married (again, he didn't say this as of yet) then, it's scandelous in a sense, but he's not a practicing priest saying it. He's not in a church pulpit and in America, he has the freedom to speak his mind.
I agree he must of met a lot of people, but as a priest, most of them were probably staunch Catholics and maybe not heads of companies that do the hiring...and again, hiring is not in abundance right now. What could he do? He's not a manager, accountant, etc. Salesman is the closest and maybe he'll grow into a different avenue of that if this doesn't pan out. He said he was a recovering narcissist a few times...it must be hard not being in the forefront, but many, many, many people have it worse and he'll survive. Dont judge his actions before he does something. Some people thought EWTN handled it badly, some will think he is, but it's nothing compared to real problems we have. He might even shed some light on how to make formation better?
A lot of communites need to look into formaton and how they are failing or working...each community will have it's own flavor, but something is wrong in some of our seminaries. Reading boooks from different priests, some who stayed and some who left, on their views, gives you a lot to mull over but implementing change takes time.
I'm sure there are problems at EWTN, like there are in every family, but given the times we are living in, EWTN is really the only voice of reason, light, and Truth. And from what I've read on his website, it sounds like he is rationalizing. Someone who is truely repentant, who understood the gravity of his sin, would not seek attention, or even to defend himself or provide context. He would do everything within his power not to cause further scandal. For example, if you were a chasity educator, who happened to "go to far" with your sig other the night before a big talk before hundreds of teens, do you think it would be a good idea to share that? We don't need to air out our dirty laundry for eveyone to see. There is a reason why the confessional is private. People are looking for heroes and not everyone is at the same level of spiritual development. Does this scandal shake my faith, now, at 30? No. Would it have caused damage at 16, yes!
If he wants to make suggestions on how to reform seminary life, he can do that privately. But ultimately, no life is w/o suffering and trials. We must embrace the cross.
Also, Gabrielle, I am speaking from a Church context not a legal context. Yes, as a citizen he has a right to free speech, but as a Catholic, esp. as a priest--which he still is, btw, he has an obligation not to speak heresy, and protect the young. He made a choice, and choices have consequences. This is where faith in God comes in. If he really trusts in God, he will trust that God will provide for him and his family someway, somehow.
I agree, but I don't think hiding is right. When I was 16, Fr. Ritter of Covenant House came to speak at my church...he was very inspirational and I gave from my first paltry part-time checks to his organization. When he was caught doing inappropriate things (albeit consensual) with young men, I was very hurt. My aunt refused to believe it, sent letters, etc. For me, it showed he was human and I felt betrayed, but recovered. He wasn't the church. When the church hid things, that made me leave...I hated the pretending, the wanting to be "perfect" and better than the other religions. It took a great grace and much prayer to come back 4 years ago. I don't like hiding things...show the good, show the great things priests/nuns/brothers do, but don't pretend anymore. These men are real. When I was a child, I thought priests were different, more holy, that the sacrament made them different. In my childish manner, I became very annoyed to see a priest drunk, a priest swear, a priest seem racist...but there were always excuses. Now I see things more clearly and I respect them, pray for more honest vocations, but don't think they are above sinning or having the same faults as I. I do expect them, through formation and guidance, to have more common sense and to pray for help, ask others for help. I don't want to see anything covered up again or anything made to look like something it isn't. If the church has to whether some honesty, it will survive. You can't pretend priests leave, priests want to marry, nuns too....but there is so much good, so many good things, they have to come out more.
I also understand that he was on TV and that makes a big difference, but hopefully he'll address what he taught and not say he was just "lip service". Then he should be quiet. You don't do that to the ones in your flock...making a mistake is one thing, lying is another.
Rationalizing our church did for many years on why they ignored pedophiles, priests that stole money from the church, priests that "wrote their own mass" etc. Even today they rationalize why they wont speak to some of them that go against church teaching....it's a human fault and he wont be the first in our church to do it or the last.
It's hard to say something is okay for one and not another.
I love our church though and Jesus will allow us to find a way to keep it going...that I know.
I'm not exactly sure how he can write about a book about his "journey" w/o delving into inside information at EWTN or the circumstances that led to the affair. Sure, there is a part in all of us that wants to know the juicy details, but we really shouldn't be privy to that information, for the good of our souls. The priesthood is a very sacred calling! Priests are human, yes, and as someone at FUS once said, to be fully "human" is to become holy. If you wonder why are society is so inhumane these days it is because it is not living in the way the God intended. Priests and religous are called to higher level of sanctity, and they should live try to live up to that. I'm not saying they don't sin and make mistakes, and yes, recognizing this is an important part of the spiritual life. I'm not sure if you can compare this incident to other scandals in the Church. What he did was not illegal, and no children were harmed. It was a private sin, thus it really warrants to public explanation other than what has already been said.
I'm not saying Mr. Stone should never write about this, not ever, but right now is way too soon. It's only been a year. Like you said, he's feeling a myriad of emotions and he has not finished learning from this experience enough to draw solid conclusions.
Yes you are right, this is a more private matter...I was thinking about my first blush with feeling the dismay of realizing we didn't have "perfect people" in our church many years ago, but we do have holy ones. I wish every priest that became one years ago, did so because of a higher calling, but I know that isn't the case. Some were hiding being gay and escaping the "when are you going to get married" line every week from relatives...some were sick in some way and wanted to be around children (I seperate the two) some didn't have skills to be a worker and it was "3 squares and a bed" along with respect,and most, I think and hope had a vocation to serve. One good thing about the scandal and our "everything goes" culture, is today, more will hopefully have real vocations and formation will be better. You have to stretch to find good in today's world, but I do think the church wont be the "hiding place" for many anymore.
I doubt a book of any caliber would be out before a year and maybe by then, editing, etc. will take a more thoughtful eye. I hope he isn't on bad terms with EWTN though (you can seperate them from the church) and will not want to strike back at anyone. That feeling is very human and depends on how much he understood their approach and after effects.
I keep reading how there is a need for forgiveness here. Now, I am quite familiar with the ministry of forgiveness. But I have not come across any request from Fr. Stone for forgiveness. In fact, he appears not to be aware of any need for forgiveness, if his website is any indication.
I understand forgiving someone who asks to be forgiven. I understand being prepared to forgive someone. Is the forgiveness that is being asked here along the lines of Jesus on the cross, "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do"? Are we supposed to forgive Fr. Stone because he does not or did not know what he was doing? He hasn't asked for forgiveness, has he?
Instead, he is writing a book about his journey, and ostensibly about his time with EWTN. Should we forgive him in advance of publication? Again, I understand the ministry of forgiveness and reconciliation very well, as I am a priest. But this call for some kind of "blanket" forgiveness when it really isn't being acknowledge by those requesting forgiveness on his behalf what exactly he has done that requires forgiveness. Quite frankly, others can call us to be merciful, and I can anticipate others' need for mercy. But the need for repentance goes hand in hand with that forgiveness, the acknowledgement of one's sins precede forgiveness. And I have not seen or read anything approaching that, either from Fr. Stone, or from his supporters.
I think what is meant by the demand for forgiveness is that they [W, at least] really want the whole matter to go away, not to have any kind of public comment or reaction to Fr. Stone's website, or to the circumstances surrounding the writing and publication of his book. Yet Fr. Stone continues to have a website and advertise. This is the point that Ms. Reale is addressing. How can you forgive someone who persists in a public fashion and hasn't asked to be forgiven, because that someone doesn't think he's done anything wrong?
And if you agree that Fr. Stone hasn't done anything wrong, then he's not in need of our forgiveness, or God's forgiveness, for that matter. So, please forgive me, but I don't get the request for forgiveness here.
Father, it is hard to get the message through to the misguided.
Please keep trying.
Great post, Fr. Brian. You really hit the nail on the head.
I never thought of it as forgving him because he wanted it ..I always thought everyone had to forgive him for letting their expectations down. That is a more personal thing. A wife might forgive her cheating husband even if he leaves her to marry another...whether he wants it or not. Her expectations were dashed but she moved on and let it go. (sometimes of course) I would never forgive him since he didn't hurt me and he didn't ask for it.
Yes, but that implies that those of us on this board who are concern for his public actions now, haven't "forgiven" him? I've forgiven him, but I'm concerned about how his public image may cause further scandal.
Kristin, I see your point, but he's free to do as he pleases. If he doesn't feel he owes the church and place he worked to be completely quiet, that's between them. the church will never be perfect and hiding imperfect priests or nuns doesn't mean they don't exist. I don't agree with his choices, but I just don't feel comfortable dictating what he should have done.
To be honest, I'm scandal-filled, so this doesn't isn't register on the richter scale...I know that's sad, but it's true. The scandals and reading on my own about more that didn't touch the papers on a large scale, made me numb. Not just sexual issues, but money, obedience, etc. But I have hope and know there is more good than bad. It was only through grace that I could come home completely 5 years ago after all that happened.
I'm sorry young teens (if they watched his show) had to see that, but it's a reality, men leave the priesthood in all levels of formation, early, the first 10 years and after. Part of having EWTN, is that it is public, and they can't have 100% perfect people all the time working there. I wouldn't want a potential young man or woman to think that either. There are many, many,wonderful priests and nuns out there, if they use one to not follow a vocation, it can't be very strong. Life in the priesthood isn't "The Bells of St. Mary's" although that would be nice.
If Dave has his "15 minutes", that's all it will be...life will go on.
see, I don't see how he can be a "catholic in good standing" and at the same time rationalize his actions, or write a book that allows him to profit from his sin. It's that discrepency that bothers me.
The priesthood has never been perfect, but it has never been more attacked than it is now. We need to pray for priests, and our world.
I do agree with you...the book might be of interest without certain details, but you and I know,to sell something today outside of the "Christian publishers" something needs to catch their interest. To cut him some slack, we don't know what he will write and we don't know his relationship with EWTN. Even if he writes a "tell-all" book, if he isn't engaging in an inappropriate relationship now, is going to church, etc. the rest might go under "bad taste" but a sin, I don't know. Many priests write books today about reform, troubles they faced in the seminary, rouge priests, etc. and they tell a lot about anonymous people (to protect them) while getting their point across. He would have a harder time with that, but again, if he comes to fruitation, he might find a good balance.
Deb,
Let me try again. God's not going to give us His mercy unless and until we ask for it. You have to want it, i.e., see the need for it in your life, in order to get it. God doesn't hesitate to give that mercy -- He is the embodiment of mercy, the font of mercy, the Father of mercies. But you have to ask God for His mercy. Fr. Stone hasn't asked for it on his website. I certainly hope he has asked for it privately. But the problem is his public persona, his "pitch," which persists. In fact, his website stands as an advertisement for his life, and he solicits contact and attention and business. All of this while making reference to his previous life as a priest and "Life on the Rock." Now, he's put out a "teaser" about a forthcoming book. This is calculated to stir up interest, and it ends up bringing more attention to his departure, thus prolonging the speculation, promoting doubts.
I hope people are beginning to understand how this works -- this is how "scandal" operates. One can forgive this sin -- but it must come with an acknowledgment of wrongdoing, repentance, and a firm resolution of avoiding the sin. But Fr. Stone and his supporters don't see the scandal in this, and so the scandal continues.
There is a need for forgiveness here, to be sure; but it must be preceded by a request for forgiveness from the one needing the forgiveness. W can appeal to us to be prepared to be merciful to Fr. Stone, but only Fr. Stone can ask for mercy for himself. If he doesn't see himself as needing mercy, or having done anything wrong, then why the request for mercy, for forgiveness?
Oh, and Deb:
You say "he's free to do as he pleases." Yes, that's true -- free will. But that doesn't make his actions morally correct. If you want to make the practical observation that none of us have any control over Fr. Stone's actions, you are correct. But to make some claim [as W implies] that we should simply remain silent in the face of this scandal, well, that boggles the mind.
I don't condemn Fr. Stone -- not my job, not my place; but I protest his on-going publicity campaign, using "Life on the Rock" and his former life as a priest as a spring-board for his business. Yeah, it's a free country, and a lot of people use their freedom to do some questionable, if not out-right awful things. And just because I am free to do some thing doesn't mean that I SHOULD do that thing.
I see your point Fr. Stanley, but where do the lines go. If you wouldn't mind commenting on an example. Lets say a priest leaves and gets married after properly being released from his vows. I knew a priest that did this and you never heard a word from him. He lived quietly with an ex-nun and had a few children. Another does the same thing but writes a book about wanting married Catholic priests. Is the second one causing scandal or just giving his opinion?
I see with Fr. Franicis being on TV and an example to others, his scandal...you're right, he can do it, but he shouldn't. If and I mean "if", we don't know, he is angry at them, then this is to make money and blow off steam, a "you can't control me anymore" move. But is any priest writing about displeasure in some area wrong? Thank you.
Deb,
By taking his story to the public, ostensibly to make money [rather than, say, to "clear the air"], he continues to put his problematic situation before the public. Is this anyone else's business? No. But he is making it others' business [his publisher, for one; booksellers, for two; curious readers, for three -- all of whom are "in business" with his private life.
Then we have the others here who wring their hands and shout others down, telling us again and again that Fr. Stone's life is his own business, and we should mind our own business and stay out of his affairs. Pun intended. Can you get more ridiculous than this? Fr. Stone is the one who is keeping this whole thing public, and for profit no less -- and that is scandalous.
Deb, you ask: "But is any priest writing about displeasure in some area wrong?" If he is profitting from his "displeasure," at the expense of the Church and the reputation of others, in direct dissent with the Church, what do you think? Your choice of the word "displeasure" is very curious. Do you know that Fr. Stone is displeased? With whom? Over what? Should those at EWTN respond to his book with a tell-all book of their own, voicing their displeasure about Fr. Stone? What if every priest, current or laicized, decided that he would write books or pamphlets about those issues or, more to the point, the people who have caused him displeasure -- would that be a good thing? The answers to these questions seem fairly obvious, because the bottom line is that this is really no one else's business, and discretion is called for, not marketing and websites and engaging the blogosphere.
What are Fr. Stone's intentions in writing such a book? Does he intend to uphold the Magisterium, or does he intend to tear it down? If it is to uphold the Magisterium, I would propose that such a book not be undertaken by him, as his published voice draws attention to his problematic situation.
I realize I've used that term twice now, "problematic situation." It is a euphemism, attempting to describe a situation that is a departure from the norm for priests, and follows some difficulty and requires special permissions. We do not know if he has obtained such special permissions -- this has not been revealed. Yet he is willing to go forward with writing his book.
A priest who has problems should attempt to resolve those within the Church, with discretion, "sub secreto." One doesn't work out one's personal problems by writing a book and publishing it for all to read, especially a priest. Priests who are laicized are encouraged to live active lives as Catholics, but not to draw attention to themselves, and more specifically, to their former state of life. A good example of this is the moderator of the public television forum, John McLaughlin, from "The McLaughlin Group." Mr. McLaughlin is a former Catholic priest [a Jesuit] who was laicized, and he has not in the past and does not now draw attention to his laicization, nor has he attempted to profit from this. I don't see this with Fr. Stone, when he keeps referring to "Life on the Rock" on his website. At the other end of the spectrum is ex-priest James Carroll, the Boston columnist and author, who has vented his spleen time and again, criticizing the Church, defaming Pope Pius XII, and generally being a self-serving voice of dissent, under the guise of calling for "reform" in the Church.
Is it possible to be laicized and to lead a life in the public forum, faithful to the Church? Yes, but I think it would be difficult. Publishing a tell-all book, with behind-the-scenes stories of life at EWTN, would not seem to be a prudent manner to live that life as a faithful Catholic in the public forum. I don't think that the word "exploitation" is too strong to describe Fr. Stone's continued reference to "Life on the Rock" on his website. And that is scandal, too.
You give an example and ask, "Is the second one causing scandal or just giving his opinion?" He is doing both. The two are not mutually exclusive. One can give an opinion without giving scandal. If he were to give his favorable opinion about a musical performance by Barry Manilow, no scandal there [non diputandem de gustibus]. But priests, current or laicized, don't get a free ride for dissent. Their obligation is to faithful obedience. There are other far more discreet avenues for pursuing one's problems or displeasures with the Church: the public forum is not the proper means, regardless of how "popular" or "acceptable" or "reasonable" public dissent with the Church has been made
has been made by Frs. McBrien, Greeley, Reese, Carroll, et al.
Thank you Father, I see what you mean now...I lost respect for types like Fr. Greeley years ago, thinking they cared more about sales than the church. I guess I just wanted to see more good than bad, a habit my husband says sometimes gets me into trouble...time will tell, but his site does seem odd and he is very careful in saying too much right now. His last podcast was very confusing....or maybe it was just me.
The "displeasure" was just from little things he said that seemed to mean more later, but nothing against the church directly.
Thank you again for all the examples and for making it clearer.
Rev. Stanley,
I believe you have misunderstood me. Let me clarify something, I believe fully that forgiveness is a very personal thing, and something that is important for a person to be able to do, wether or not the offending person feels a need for, or asks for forgiveness. It is the healthy and sane thing to do. To dwell on the offense only hurts a person more. I see a lot of people on these blogs who are obviously feeling hurt, but do not see the need to forgive and let go. I am surprised that you as a priest is not trying to help these people through their hurt, and instead seem to be dousing the fire with more gasoline. Also, what I have said is that the relationship that David Stone is in, their child and family, should not be up for discussion. The lady obviously has not "gone public." So there should be a modicum of respect for that family that he is involved with. I am sorry that you do not see it that way. I would like to add one other comment. Nowhere did Dave indicate that his book was a "tell all." In fact, I believe he said it was a book about his life and journey to the priesthood. He just might have some very edifying and insightful wisdom to share. Maybe you should save commenting on the book until it's release.
In the Peace of Christ, W
Dear W:
The thing that you plainly do not understand is that Fr. Stone, by his own choice, continues to be a public figure. You want him to be left alone, yet he advertises. And you expect the rest of the world to remain silent about his past, while he prepares to write a book about all that stuff he has left. I've tried as plainly as I can to lay out the scandal here, and while he continues to advertise, with references to Life on the Rock, hawking a health drink.
When he asks for forgiveness, I am sure he will get it. But neither you nor he sees the scandal here -- and there's the real pity. I have not misunderstood you at all, W. There are people here who need to be catechized, which will help them through their hurt. If one refuses that catechesis, of course they will remain hurt and, most sadly, in the dark. You refuse to see the scandal here, which is as plain as can be: he is drawing attention to his departure from the priesthood [in direct disobedience to the instruction that is given when one is laicized -- be discreet, do not seek public attention; of course, the scandal is greatly magnified if he, in fact, has not been laicized; and he is the one who needs to give a "modicum of respect" to his own family by withdrawing from internet advertising], and attempting to profit from his former association with EWTN/Life on the Rock. So you are probably one who is hurt here, and it is by your own choice. You choose not to see his recent actions as scandalous, but instead you allege that, in some way, my comments here are the scandal.
No, I haven't misunderstood you at all. I disagree with you on the basis of Catholic moral theology. I do not know what you are using, but it isn't a moral system with which I am familiar in the Catholic Church -- and as a seminarian I've studied under both Fr. Richard McBrien and Archbishop John Nienstedt, left and right, if you will. You put forth the statement that forgiveness is "personal," but you have consistently neglected to address the issue of the particular sin, which in its very essence is most public -- scandal. I have pastoral concern for this scandal, especially as it addresses you. But you don't see it -- you don't see it at all. So I pray for you: God bless you.
I am one of those "priests" who went AWOL. I left because I was diagnosed with Bi-Polar Disorder, and my Bishop agreed it would be best for me to move on. Where exactly would I fit in your categories Fr. Stanley?
The night I was ordained 2 priests pulled me aside and said I had to learn the awful truth: that "people hate priests and if I wasn't careful, I could come to hate people." I served for 7 years as a priest and while I didn't totally agree with that statement, there was enough truth in it to make me shake my head at times. One only need look at the various catholic blogs to see the vitriol hurled at priests...and the laity wonder why there are not enough of them?
I might also add that I was laicized in 7 months time...so it is possible for Fr. Stone to have done it too.
Lastly, the ultimate irony is that I am no longer Catholic. In the small town where I live and work, there are 2 catholic Parishes and the pastors of each, remembering me from Seminary Days, asked me not to come back. I was quietly and simply worshipping and not mentioning to anyone my previous life. I guess I made them uncomfortable somehow.
We certainly all need to pray for God's forgiveness and mercy. We sometimes forget that He is the "only" judge!
I'm sorry to hear your diagnosis was not workable. The church sometimes is so worried about scandal, they don't act correctly. Your past life, unless there was more to it, wouldn't have to be explained to most people and wouldn't be shocking to others.
We will never forgot what avoiding scandal did to the eventual scandals that came....they were much worse and more lingering.
I hope you found a new way to work and still stay faithful. You are always God's child and I believe Catholic. Not feeling welcome at 2 churches doesn't make you another religion. I would go anyway....if everything you say is true, you have a right to be there.
Chiming in on this when it is very old news.
He's got the quote "Living Life on the Rock" on the website.
**MR. STONE** has invited the link to the past, right in that cute slogan.
If you're going to try to capitalize on your past, then you'll have to put up with the negative aspects, as well.
This kind of creeps me out. Why not go work at Wal-mart?
Jay,
I didn't know I had "categories" -- but if you would like to correspond with me, it is not difficult to find my e-mail address. I am a priest of the diocese of Kalamazoo, pastor in the city of Coldwater.
Yes, I understand that it is possible to get laicized quickly, and for good reasons. I'd be interested to know what you were told by the Church authorities about how you were to present yourself after laicization. Does the Church encourage you to draw attention to yourself in this? To publicize your change in life? To criticize Church authority over how you were treated [even after the Church grants the laiciziation requested]? To write and publish a memoir of your journey? The scandal isn't in being laicized; but there can be scandal in the reason[s] for laicization [for instance, child abuse] and there can be scandal in how one behaves after being laicized.
I lament your situation, Jay. That you are no longer Catholic is a sad case. But I am unclear: you are no longer Catholic because you no longer wish to be Catholic, or because you have abide by the uncharitable instructions of the two pastors in your community? You no longer offer the Mass privately? And you are prohibited from attending Mass at the two local parishes? I don't understand -- missing some information. I've known several laicized priests, and to my knowledge, they continue to attend Mass and are Catholics in good standing.
Yes, I understand that it is possible to get laicized quickly, and for good reasons.
(To be honest, I am not certain why it went so fast…the Chancery was as surprised as I was. But from the moment it left the Archdiocese in the diplomatic pouch to the moment the decision returned, it was exactly 7 months. Perhaps my
Bi-Polar disorder served as an excellent reason to expedite it?)
I'd be interested to know what you were told by the Church authorities about how you were to present yourself after laicization.
(I was told I could not represent myself as a priest, I could not function as a Lector, Eucharistic Minister, or Teacher of Theology at any level).
Does the Church encourage you to draw attention to yourself in this?
(No, I have never called attention to my status. And I live in the next diocese over so only a few people would know my former state in life).
To publicize your change in life?
(I have never gone public with my status, although some people have guessed and asked questions. When asked, I simply told the truth and then asked them in return not to spread the information. How they came to their conclusions, I don’t know).
To criticize Church authority over how you were treated [even after the Church grants the laiciziation requested]?
(In essence I was treated quite kindly by my Bishop through the entire process and have nothing but good things to say about him)!
To write and publish a memoir of your journey?
(I’m not sure who would be interested in my journey and whether it would be book-worthy)!
The scandal isn't in being laicized; but there can be scandal in the reason[s] for laicization [for instance, child abuse] and there can be scandal in how one behaves after being laicized.
I lament your situation, Jay. That you are no longer Catholic is a sad case. But I am unclear: you are no longer Catholic because you no longer wish to be Catholic?
(Perhaps I could have been clearer, I am no longer “worshipping as a catholic.” I actually attend the Episcopal Church in town for worship as the next nearest Catholic Church is 50 miles away. Interestingly enough, I continue to read Catholic Theology (currently reading Catholic Commentary on Scripture’s Gospel of St. Mark) and continue to pray the Office daily).
or because you have abide by the uncharitable instructions of the two pastors in your community?
(Yes, I think they are both “uncharitable” and because they are the Pastors of their respective parishes, I abide by their instructions. But so you know: One doesn’t want me around because I make him “uncomfortable,” and he has threatened to not give me communion if I come forward to receive. The other stated that leaving the priesthood was a mortal sin and that I was damned so I could not receive communion).
You no longer offer the Mass privately?
(I was told under the terms of my laicization that I could not do this either).
And you are prohibited from attending Mass at t
'The Priest's Struggle For Sanctity' by John A. O'Brien
American Ecclesiastical Review. February 1936, PP.125-132
"This essay discusses the difficulties encountered by the priest in his struggle for holiness and suggests means for overcoming the obstacles."
http://catholicapologeticsofamer...abel/
Priesthood
I'm not saying folks are wrong, but I'm curious why no one on this thread ever entertained the possibility that that website was a fraud and not something created by Fr. Francis (David) Stone. Seems like a heck of a lot of rush to judgment and then speculation about another all because you found a picture on a website. Unless someone validated the info already and I missed it, shouldn't there be a bit of hesitancy to assume that the website is in fact real? I mean are we Internet savvy or not? That website is shockingly silly and it doesn't strike me as unlikely that it is not connected with the man. Maybe it is. But one must always reach a judgment on the credibility of evidence as well as a judgment about the meaning that the evidence points to.
So, on this website, was it a written message or a video? I have not seen it, but I would believe it is a fraud.
Pray of our priests.
I was written and a few podcasts from him. It wasn't fake, but it's gone now, an idea he thought better of later. He said he was working on a book, maybe that will come about. Either way, he needs your prayers and he needs a job.
Commenting by HaloScan
