Fr. Francis Mary Stone = Dave Stone
Of all the posts I have written on this blog, the one that has consistently gotten comments over the nearly a year since I wrote it regards Fr. Francis Mary Stone, of EWTN’s Life on the Rock fame. At that time, we simply had a statement that was read on air, from Father Francis telling his public that he had gotten involved with a widow and her family and was now taking time off to discern his true calling, etc.
At that time, I voiced a concern about this idea that you can just decide to stop and discern your vocation after you’ve already committed yourself to it. I likened it to marriage…the idea that you, dear reader, would absolutely and rightly skewer me if I revealed on my blog that I had grown fond of an eligible young lady at my place of work, and that I was going to take a sabbatical from being a husband and father to my wife and kids while I discerned my vocation in life, and whether or not they were indeed a part of it. You’d tell me that this was unacceptable because I had already taken solemn and sacramental vows to my wife, and taken on the vocation of pastoring the Domestic Church, and it would in fact be impossible for me to just abandon those vows. Some commenters agreed with me, but many of them said things like this:
We need to give Father Francis the benefit of the doubt here. We all know, as viewers, that he is going to do everything to the best of his ability to do God’s Ordaining Will.
To them I always simply ask the question: would you say the same thing if I told you I was discerning my vocation of marriage and family? I can’t get a straight answer from anyone who made such comments. Most of the commenters just expressed sadness at the situation, and one troll suggested this was an example of why a celibate priesthood makes no sense. Got to love the trolls.
Over the months there’ve been comments asking if there’s any new information on Fr. Francis. Well, this morning, a commenter in fact gave us a piece of news that apparently Fr. Francis went through laicization or is just AWOL from the priesthood, as he has now opened up his website for his new company, “Dave Stone, Inc.” The WHOIS Lookup on the domain name doesn’t reveal any information about who really registered the domain name, but the information on the website is commensurate with what we know about Mr. Stone. Naturally, anyone who wants to could build such a site, complete with photos and biographical information which are correct about Mr. Stone, but of note is that on the home page, an audio clip plays welcoming visitors to the site, and the audio is pretty clearly the voice we know as that of (former?) Fr. Stone.
The website indicates that Dave Stone Inc. offers 3 services: motivational speaking, home health care provision, and a nutritional beverage being sold under an Amway-esque pyramid multi-level-marketing scheme. According to the site, Stone will do speaking engagements for free (except travel expenses and a small retainer fee.) The primary focus is the home healthcare stuff, and the nutritional drink is just plain disturbing because it has a new-agey, eastern religious, medicine show quality to it (rejuvenate yourself, unlock your full potential, standard buzzwords you hear on midnight infomercials.)
One blogger said it sounds like Stone is facing the cold, hard reality that a husband and father must provide for his family. Adjectives like cold and hard make it sound like a negative, and I am confident that that blogger didn’t mean it to come across that way, rather just that now that he’s abandoned his first set of vows, he’s having to make good on the second set by getting up, leaving the cave, killing something, and dragging it back (props to Dave Ramsey for this analogy.)
To be clear, I don’t wish Mr. Stone any ill at all. I am disappointed as I would be if someone I look to as a marriage champion were to come to me and tell me that they had decided to split up with their spouse, because unlike so many commenters, I still see it as Stone divorced his first love and has moved on to a second one. I don’t wish Mr. Stone bad luck in his business or in his family life. For the sake of his family, I hope that he does a better job keeping this set of vows than he did keeping his first set, in spite of the fact that the two are supposed to be mutually exclusive and both binding until death.
I’ve already expressed my feelings on his apparent exit from the priesthood, but now I have 3 new problems with Mr. Stone. First, he’s using the “Life on the Rock” slogan throughout his website – this was the name of his EWTN show, and he’s clearly trying to use the reputation from what is now his past life to further a commercial venture. Right on the home page it says “Living Life on the Rock.” Now it’s not exactly the same but it’s close enough to just sound like he’s trying to make hay out of his previous life and cash in on it. Secondly, he refers to his EWTN experience saying he was the host of the “then popular” show Life on the Rock. The implication? Since I am not the host anymore, it’s not popular anymore. That comes across as just kind of scummy. Fact is, the show has continued in the year or so since he left, with continued success.
The third problem I have is the marketing campaign apparently launched to use the Catholic blogosphere to promote his new website and new company. According to the site, he launched the website on October 4. Interestingly, though, no one seems to have known about the website until early this morning. A commenter posted a link to Mr. Stone’s website at 5:41 AM today; seems the same thing happened to Curt Jester, American Papist, Father Joe, Abbey Roads 2, Threshing Grain, and the list goes on. Since I don’t blog for a living, I couldn’t break the story (I think Father Joe and Thomas at AmP win that award) but I was aware of it first thing this morning. Now it’s unclear whether it was some well-meaning commenter who tipped us all off, or if in fact it was a plan to get all us Catholic bloggers to post about the site, then all our readers (not mine, but the readers of the serious Catholic blogs) would click through to the site and drive the traffic through the roof on Mr. Stone’s site. Call me a conspiracy theorist but the IP address of the commenter who posted on this blog belongs to AT&T internet services, and they do provide internet service throughout Alabama; they also provide it to about half the country, so that’s not really any proof at all. It just smells bad, that we’d all get hit with this at once. And, seeing as my blog is much lower on the totem pole than are some of the others mentioned, it makes little sense to “tip” me off, unless it were a concerted marketing effort. Maybe I am making too much of it. In any event, just to keep from being used this way, I won’t post a link to the site. You can find it if you want to.
Since the story broke, Mr. Stone has added some information to his website, including a “newsletter” item in which he addresses a few things. First of all, he has a statement up on his “hire me to speak” page where he says he’s in full communion with the Catholic Church. Second, he says:
Yes, there are difficulties – obstacles, things that went wrong, flailing bullets, regrets, call them what you will – before me. Yet, by God’s merciful Providence, I have a family to care for now, a child who deserves nothing but the very best I can give him. And, I plan to do exactly that – to do what I ought to do – as natural law, the moral law, divine law, basic human decency, and common sense all dictate. Or, as someone told me not all that long ago, to do as any real Pro-Lifer would and should do. Having long reconciled with the Church and, frankly, beyond, I look forward to giving every fiber of my being to this new endeavor…
…
I urge you all to help, not hinder me in this righteous and necessary, albeit most difficult work. I am nothing but hopeful, aware but not disheartened by those who, oddly, go to at times great lengths to try and diminish and destroy. Mother Angelica often spoke in our long-gone “Wednesday Audiences” about those who continually look to destroy…
One last thing I just noticed that makes it start to really stink…a book deal is in the works! Imagine that…
At the urging of many trusted and capable individuals, both Catholic and non-Catholic alike, I am in the middle of writing my autobiography and editing a short book containing many of the letters I’ve received over the past year or so. I believe the former will provide much needed context, while the latter will provide a most inspiring and encouraging resource for anyone having to work through a difficult but far from hopeless time in their life.
I am fighting my cynical tendencies at this point. Again using a part of your life which you have essentially forsaken and divorced yourself from toam make money. I guess it’s just my fallen nature seeing this, but it just looks too much like the typical template. God help us, let’s hope this isn’t a repeat of former Fr. Chiniquy’s work (50 years in the Church of Rome or something like that.)
To reiterate I wish him no ill, he has a life to live and a family to support, but before you proceed to skewer me yet again, just ask yourself…if Mr. Stone had been married with children and went through the same thing, would you be so quick to defend him?
Posted in Uncategorized | 
76 Comments »
October 8th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
I don’t know if you noticed, but when I just went to “Dave’s” site, there is now a “Help Dave” button, which when clicked, does to a donation page using PayPal!!! So, I don’t think your cynicism was unwarranted. The world needs more and more or should I say urgent prayer! Does the man have no sense of shame?
October 9th, 2008 at 5:20 am
I noticed that too….you can ask for money for yourself personally (not a charity)or am I missing something??
October 9th, 2008 at 8:02 am
Sure you can, Deb. It’s called a “bleg” or “blegging” – since it’s begging often done in blog form. Naturally, there are tax ramifications related to it for both the donor and the beneficiary. I would imagine the donor can write it off as a “gift” and the beneficiary must claim it if it’s over and above some certain amount, I am sure. The tax code says you can receive a certain amount in gifts tax free, and over that you must pay taxes (but I think the amount is something like $25,000.)
October 9th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Thanks for teaching me a new word…I can’t see how donations would be flying in but then again, I was naive enough years ago to think hard-core death row inmates couldn’t get marriage proposals! This is America. : )
October 10th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
I am praying for his immortal soul and hope that he will see the error of his ways and repent.
October 10th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
I appreciate your comment, but I don’t think there’s any repentance for him to do (except internal not resulting in physical action.) From what his site says, he now has a child, and since he states he’s in full communion with the Church, that logically means that he is now in a sacramental marriage (ok, I guess it’s possible that he impregnated a woman while still a priest, and never married her….that would mandate a visit to the confessional in order to return to full communion). Anyway, apparently we can glean that he was laicized in the correct way, and is now playing dad and provider to the child (and presumably the mother also.) Sounds like he already repented…and now he has a responsibility to the child. I don’t think he’ll be a priest again because that would require him to shirk his responsibility to the child.
October 13th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Hi Chris,
While I agree with you that, in charity, we need to assume the best case scenario and that he has taken care of things as he ought–there is no way, practically speaking, that he is already laicized. That takes time, and the Vatican moves s-l-o-w-l-y. Which means there is no way he could be validly married at this point, either. That does not mean he isn’t going through the proper channels. It just means that, assuming he is going through the proper channels, his laicization is still pending, and he is waiting on it.
October 13th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Rachel, thanks for explaining that. The question, then, is how he can in fact be in full communion (as his website states)? Is he in fact not married (yet) then?
October 13th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Well, your question seems to begin where my knowledge taps out! I’m not sure, but I think he would be in “full communion” as long as he were living according the what the church would expect from him–i.e., bare minimun, not in a relationship with anyone. I don’t think he’s “out of communion” unless he’s living in an unacceptable way. I don’t think a separated/divorced couple waiting for a decision on an annulment are “not in full communion.” I think they are only “not in full communion” if they disregard the Church’s teaching and/or decision regarding their marriage. (But, really, I’m just using my best guess here.)
October 15th, 2008 at 9:45 am
This will answer a lot of questions about Dave Stone…
Here is the link to the Podcast on his site. The link is on the bottom of the page
[link redacted]
October 15th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
I listened to Dave’s podcast. It answers a lot of questions.
October 17th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
REG:FATHER STONE,,I REALLY LIKE HIM, HES STILL A MAN OF GOD, I HOPE HE STILL BRINGS YOUTH TO THE GOSPEL, I WAS RAISED **ROMAN** CATHOLIC TRIED TO COME BACK TO THE CHURCH ,,BUT COULDNT TAKE THE JUDGEMENTAL ATTITUDES,,WE ARE ALL HUMAN WITH HUMAN FLAWS,, I LOVE THE LORD ,HES IN ALL CHURCHES
October 17th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
What do you mena “judgemental attitudes?” by the people or by the Church? The Church does take firm stands on issues because She has been given the authority to do so…if that’s judgemental, then it’s because God is judgemental…He’s told us right from wrong…
Also, please stop SHOUTING…we can all hear you just fine.
October 19th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Chris, some people do not know that all caps means that you are shouting.
)
October 21st, 2008 at 10:59 am
In regards to the question of his being in ‘full communion’ with the chruch. I believe as long as he has confessed his previous sins and is not currently having relationships with another women outside of marriage he would be in ‘full communion’. Also he would not be allowed to marry until he receives his approval for his divorce from the priesthood.
October 26th, 2008 at 9:23 am
Posted on Dave Stone’s website is a Podcast dated 10/15/08.
If you listen to Dave Stone’s Podcast carefully, at the beginning of the recording he states that the Church asked him to earn a living in order to support the child he fathered. If this is what his superiors ordered him to do, then he’s doing what the Church decided he should do.
Whether he drives a cab to support this child, or start a Careare-giver service and becomes a nutritional products representative, what’s the difference?
If you were the superior in charge of deciding what to do with a priest who fathered a child, what would be the choices?
What if a married man fathers a child with another woman? Does he not have the responsibility to care for that child too? What if a priest commits murder? Should his superiors advise him to simply go back to his regular duties,or are there new circumstances that must be dealt with?
The point is this: Hate the sin, love the sinner. Encourage the sinner to do what is right and let the Church decide the course of action.
Here is a link to the Podcast:
October 26th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
This is ridiculous. I’m glad he’s taking responsibility for his new wife and child, but he is still a priest, and someone who caused scandal to many young, impressionable souls. God can and will forgive him, but a little silence, modesty, and penance is in order, not profiteering! Surely he can find work in the private sector
October 28th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
If we are going to throw the rule book at porr Mr. Stone, we should throw the entire book at him. Yes, there’s the “you are a priest forever” clause in it, but there is also the laicization clause in it because Holy Mother Church recognizes that some men, cannot emotionally live out the vows they once took. Mr. Blogger, whoever you are, I am certain that you will never know what it’s like to be a priest, not what it’s like to be a priest in the limelight. Also, I am willing to bet that you aren’t immaculately conceived yourself, so be careful that you aren’t endangering your own soul by casting these judgements on Dave. You don’t know all the details about what this man was going through when he fell. Your judgements on this poor man are nothing but pure allegations, as I am sure you do not know him personally. All your miopic judgements do is create further scandal, cause others to think uncharitable thoughts, and they in no way glorify God! I would say Dave is doing better than you…if you read his stuff and listen to his blogs, nowhere does he cast judgement on all those who have logged onto the internet and tried to profit from the mistake he made. I am sure you got a ton of hits on your site with this post, didn’t you? Think about it…and think about Dave the next time you sin. He isn’t the only sinner in the world. If I were you, I wouldn’t do anything to hinder God’s Mercy from myself by casting judgement on others. I know that, with all my sins, I can’t afford to do something like that…
October 28th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Tammy, thanks for that response…I agree, that would make sense as a way for him to remain in full Communion. Makes a lot of sense actually. Thanks for (speculatively) clearing that up for me.
October 28th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Thomas, I agree with just about everything you said. I agree, it’s what he was told to do, and he has to do it; I am not suggesting he should just go away and make no effort to support himself by public exposition of his services (via a website.) If you will read the post, you will see that I have 3 problems specific to the situation.
1. He’s using “life on the rock” which is an EWTN thing – he’s using it as his own.
2. He referred to the show, “Life on the Rock” as the “then popular” program, giving himself an air of import and subliminally telegraphing that the show was popular because of him, and it’s no longer popular now that he’s not on it.
3. He (or someone) has used the blogosphere to market his new business and website by dropping “anonymous” comments into several popular Catholic blogs (and my blog too for that matter.)
October 28th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Kristin, I think you are on target. By the way, to be fair, under the conventional definition of “private sector,” he is looking for work in the private sector. I personally don’t have a problem with him creating a website to promote his business, I think everybody should. But I don’t like the way he (or someone acting on his behalf) used the Catholic blogosphere to promote the launch of his website. I’m confident it’s generated traffic to his site, and I am confident that was the goal (if it was indeed a coordinated effort which it appears to have been though I obviously can’t prove it.)
October 28th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Amy,
First of all, my name is Chris. Pleasure to meet you. You can clear up any confusion about who I am (which apparently you have based on your “whoever you are” comment) by reading some of my earlier posts. If you’d like, read a bio of my – my first post from a couple years ago. If you read that, you will see that I certainly don’t know what it’s like to be a priest and highly likely that I will never know what it’s like to be a priest (can’t say never, you know.)
No, I am not immaculately conceived to the best of my knowledge. But I am curious as to what judgments I am casting on Mr. Stone? I said that in the Church’s understanding of it, he has broken up with his first spouse, that he has broken a set of vows binding until death. I didn’t say it was in my opinion, I said it was in the Church’s view.
I am further curious about what “allegations” I have made. I made it clear what we do know, and made it clear that I was speculating on the stuff I didn’t know.
I’d be very interested to know how expressing my dismay at a priest breaking his vows creates scandal for people reading my blog, and causes them to think uncharitable thoughts. I made it quite clear that I wish him luck in his business, his new vocation, and generally have no ill will toward him. But those things notwithstanding, why am I not allowed to question the situation? I’ve questioned a lot of people on this blog…read some posts. I’ve questioned priests with soft stances on major moral issues. I have questioned politicians with wrong views. I don’t see you coming to their defense, telling me I am creating scandal and making people harbor uncharitable thoughts.
Next time I sin, I won’t think about Dave Stone. I will think about what it does to my savior when I sin. If my sin is public, I will plead for forgiveness, but at the same time I will understand if people have questions for me and judge my actions (not my soul, for only our Lord can do that.)
To close, let me put the question directly to you. Suppose I posted right here on this blog, that I had become “fond” of the lovely blond, blue-eyed early twenty-something at work, and was going to take some time off from my marriage to my current wife and daughters to discern my future and my vocation.
Assuming this was a relevant Catholic blog that people actually paid attention to, when my fellow bloggers got hold of this and posted to their blogs about how I was thinking about breaking my vows, etc., would I see comments from you on their blogs, telling them not to pass judgement on me, thus endangering their own soul? would you tell them that they have no idea what I am going through? would you tell them they are scandalizing other people and causing uncharitable thoughts by discussing how the marriage bond is indissoluble, yet I am attempting to break it?
October 29th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
The book deal is what really bothers me. Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t there any unspoken rule that if a priest breaks his vow, he is supposed to live a quiet life…and def not expose all the details. He can promote a business without relating it to his former life as a priest.
October 29th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
On his new pod cast he seems to leaning toward the argument that priests need to love and we can’t just be intellect. We shouldn’t fear love he says…we worship the Sacred Heart, not the brain…well you can read it or listen to it if you want. I admit, I found it somewhat confusing…he said his book will be done in HIS time..but it doesn’t sound like his views are the church’s perse…well it doesn’t matter, people change and life goes on.
October 29th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Deb, I agree, it’s confusing. Very confusing. Can’t say much more than that.
October 30th, 2008 at 5:47 am
yes, I found his podcast confusing as well, “we shouldn’t cling to doctrines….yuck, yuck..?” That really disturbed me. We must cling to our traditions and doctrines, because they lead in the way of authentic love.
October 30th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
If Mr. Stone has recieved a canonical release from his vows, it is none of my business. If he has not, then he has objectively sinned, and mortally so, but it still isn’t any of my business.
October 30th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
He might be confused himself….or he felt this way for a long time or he feels this way now because of what happened. I’m sure he’ll elaborate in his book but how he sees things will be clouded by his “illogical” feelings. Like it or not, he’s right the heart rules our head most of the time…but it’s not always the best advisor!
October 30th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
I don’t like the line where we say we worship the Sacred heart not the Sacred brain, as if to imply that we can separate God’s laws from his love. God laws are his love, and in orderto love fully we must live according to his doctrines. His laws teach us how to love…albeit it is not always a feeling based love.
October 31st, 2008 at 12:44 pm
That’s kind of ironic that he made that comment about the sacred heart vs. the sacred brain. Because, according to Thomas Aquinas, when we are in heaven, our *intellect* is entirely, utterly, absorbed in and perfected by it’s union to the divine being. It’s not our *heart* that enters into the beatific vision. That’s a modern, catchy version of how humans *love*. The classical, Catholic teaching on love is that love is, in it’s perfect form, *intellectual*. Of course, having an intellective soul means my entire soul is fused to the divine. It’s not like *just* my mind is united to God. So, Dave, we do worship the Sacred Mind, not, in the last analysis, the Sacred Heart. The Sacred Heart is an earthly image that helps us capture Christ’s love–but it is an image that will pass away when we are all, after this life, enjoying the beatific vision, united precisely to the Sacred Mind.
October 31st, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Hmmm… just a few comments to drop in here…
First of all, I agree with those who feel it too bad that Mr. Stone is blegging online. However, I must ask — what else is he supposed to do? In the current economic slump it is hard for many of us — even with appealing job experience and catchy resumes — to find jobs. At his age, and with 18 years out of the job force, I’m sure his difficulties are only compounded. What’s more, I can’t imagine a church or newspaper (as some have suggested) wanting to hire him. Any religious setting in which he works is going to instantly become a gossip-hub, due to his notoriety. No community or publication is going to wish that upon themselves… So, I think Mr. Stone is probably scraping by the best he can right now — let’s not forget that he’s trying to raise a child, build up job experience, make money, and probably find a good place to live.
Secondly, as regards the Sacred Heart vs sacred brain — the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains that “the glory of God is man fully alive.” And this “fullness” can only be expressed through the harmony of the intellect, emotions, and will. Hence, there isn’t a direct precident of the “heart” over the “brain” or vice versa. However, the human heart is the seat of man’s desires — the motivator. In discerning a course of action, one’s intellect merely “checks on” these desires to be sure they are licit and reasonable before the will chooses to act. In this sense, the action of the heart “precedes” the intellect. When this order is disrupted and the intellect dictates what a person “should want” instead of staying in it’s place as a moderator, one runs the risk of not only loosing a certain zest and pizzaz in his own humanity… but also of loosing the ability to be moved (in a very “heart-level” way) by the sufferings, joys, and humanity of others. Incidentally, with the dawn of Luther’s new “theology” of “total depravity,” the human heart was cast into suspicion (as the seat of the “depraved passions”) — a place it was never meant to be. That is why Christ gave us the Sacred Heart right around that time in history. And I think Mr. Stone may be realizing just how critical of a gift the Sacred *Heart* truly is. There is not sacred brain — not because Christ’s intellect isn’t sacred… but simply because it is from His Heart that His actions (love, death for us, and even his chastizements) spring forth.
But enough said!
October 31st, 2008 at 8:48 pm
I tend to agree more with Rachel’s analysis to the extent that the intellect is what unites with the God head in heaven; Jen, you’re right, the intellect should be the check on the heart. Emotions come and go and can lead us to make really foolish decisions if we don’t use our intellect to assess the pros and cons of each decision. Emotions are necessary as part of our humanity, otherwise we would be worse than stoics, but intellect gives us context for our emotions.
I must admit, I love the discussion we’ve got going here.
November 1st, 2008 at 3:44 am
Chris ~ At the risk of getting terribly off-topic, I’d just like to comment on your phrase that “emotions can lead us to make really foolish decisions if we don’t use our intellect to assess…” I agree with what you’re getting at here — it’s true that such decisions can be foolish (and it’s usually lucky if they aren’t!) But I would like to stand up for the emotions and just make sure to say that I really believe it’s not *their* fault. Their “job,” if you will is just to tell us something — about what we fear, about what we like or dislike, about what we value (since anger or depression often come up precisely because things we value are being threatened), etc. Those feelings and preferences have no moral weight whatsover, so feeling them is never “foolish” by itself. But, if we choose to *express* all those feelings in a foolish way (such as expressing the desire for cake by eating your baby sister’s piece) that’s when the “foolish” part comes in. And it’s the because we lack experience or are letting our intellect go on vacation that it happens — not because there’s anything “wrong” with the emotions.
Till later…
November 1st, 2008 at 8:52 am
Love the comments! Great input, thanks. I guess my point is any emotions that we’ve got left in the beatific vision, any *heart-realted* (metaphorically speaking, since the heart isn’t, as an organ, the seat of anything soul-related, whereas the brain is intimately linked with the mind) emotions we might have in heaven are all emotions that will have passed the test, so to speak, of the intellect.
The intellect is what gives the human peson his or her dignity and status as a human person. I think your analysis Jen is right on in that we have to keep sight of our emotions because they lend richness to our life. But I don’t agree, in terms of Catholic phil. and theol., that the heart is the seat of the will. The will and intellect are intimately linked in the human person. We are human precisely b/c we have a free will. The freedom of the will arises precisely b/c of the intellect. We aren’t bound, like animals, to follow this or that emotion. We have the capacity to refect, know the truth and order our lives and souls. We have the capacity to know the truth with our intellects and chose to follow it with our wills. That’s how we can be held morally responsible. So even though emotions are valuable and rich, they are not *key* in the way the mind is. Though, in a sense, I think we are all on the same page in that we are analyzing different aspects of the very rich human soul (intellect, will, emotions, etc.). I think the thing to keep in mind is that the soul we are examining is precisely an intellectual soul, and because it is intellectual it can have a will and emotions. The primary quality here is intellectual, upon which follows love, choosing to love this or that person, choosing to sacrifice my impatience and be kind to a child, etc. All of that is possible because I have an intellectual (not an animal or plant) soul. That’s the way in which I mean Christ’s Divine Mind is primary. His heart is a great image, but it is not *substantial*, it is a metaphor.
November 1st, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Hmmm… I’m interested in your concept of the intellect as “primary” in a way the emotions are not. Would you be able to perhaps speak to this point a little bit more? I have not heard of it.
Also, as regards the comment about the intellect setting man from the animals, I’d like to suggest that the intellect distinguishes man from animals, but his emotions (particularly his “humane” emotions of compassion, joy, etc.) keep him from becoming a monster.
November 2nd, 2008 at 9:25 am
Hi Jen–yes, glad to! Maybe this will help. In Aristotle’s & Thomas Aquinas’ philosophy, there are three kinds of souls: plant, animal, and human. Plants have life, but they don’t “sense” things. Animals and humans do sense things. It could also be said, in some manner, that animals have a type of “emotions.” For example, a dog certainly may feel a type of fear, affection, etc.
Animals, however, though they have brains & animal minds, do not have intellectual souls, nor do they have freedom of choice (or a will) like humans do. Here’s the difference: A dog can sense, by the power of its animal mind, the nature of certain things. It is *drawn*, so to speak, to things it needs in order to live. It senses meat, water, etc. But even though a dog can sense that meat (and here I don’t just mean the sense of smell, I mean in the phil. sense, by sense it is drawn to something particular)–even though the dog can *sense* meat, it doesn’t know what *meat* is. It only knows meat in relation to itself, i.e., this is something I need to eat. A dog could never give a definition of meat. A dog has no idea that meat comes from caribou as well as cows, if it has never eaten caribou. A dog has no *general* knowledge.
So, although a dog with an animal soul could be drawn to eating a hamburger, and a dog’s ability to sense and eat a hamburger is precisely possible because it has an animal soul (plants don’t do that! plants don’t seek our nourishment that way)the dog never has a concept or understanding of hamburger as hamburger in it’s mind. That’s because it doesn’t have an intellectual mind!
As a human being, I am capable of bringing into myself, the nature of a hamburger, tree, a color, the sun, what is to be a human being, etc. By knowing what each of these things is, and what they mean, I possess them in my own mind. I am not just drawn outwardly to things. I bring them inside myself to consider and reflect upon them.
Animals can be very complex and rich themselves, but a dog don’t wake up one morning and say, “Hey, I’ll be a vegetarian. They way chickens are treated on chicken farms is just awful.” A dog, and all other animals, have needs in order to survice. They are drawn *towards* the things they need to live. But the never, ever bring inside themselves, in the way a human does, the natures of things. What Aquinas calls truth is precisely when the idea I have *in my mind* matches the nature of the thing in reality.
So, for emotions. A dog may feel fear. A dog may even do something we would call “heroic”, such as even though it feels fear, going into a burning building to save a child. But even that is incomparable to the human realm. A dog feels fear, and it also senses the danger of the child. It selects between two options. It may have a good rapport with humans and so humans are more important to it than its own fear. But a dog doesn’t have an ethical philosophy of life. This dog, in this instance, might save this child even though it is afraid. But it has no general ethical notions. It doesn’t know that all children ought to be saved if possible at all times when they are in danger.
Furthermore, if a dog was not in the surrounding area–if it was out of the realm of its sense knowing–it would not save the child. A dog wouldn’t see a burning building on tv, get itself down to 54th stree, and save the child because *children in burning buildings out to be saved*.
Likewise, a dog has no idea of martyrdom, or Lenten sacrifice. A dog would never forego its hamburger on Fridays for a greater good!
The whole difference here is that humans have intellectual souls and animals have animate souls. We can know the natures of things in themselves (including ourselves). Therefore, we can order our lives accordingly. I may have feelings of fear, happiness, impatience, shyness, laziness, awe, etc. Also, to a great degree, the more rich my emotions, the more *aware* I am of the world. A child may fear ghosts in the closet. But if it’s been traumatized, it will fear more things, related to that trauma. The more we know, in a sense, the more we are able to feel in terms of emotions.
But knowing comes first! By that, I mean, we have intellectual souls. The very definition of the human soul by Aquinas is a soul that has intellect (can know the truth) and will (can choose the truth). The degree, variety, and richness of my emotions are only possible because I have a soul capable of knowing the truth, of knowing reality. Does that make sense? I think we could say emotions are my responses to that reality. (Sorry, I did not mean to write this much!)
November 2nd, 2008 at 5:25 pm
This is very well-said and it is a pleasure to discuss these things with someone so obviously well-versed in them! For the moment, I would like to say that “emotions as a response to reality” seems to honor not only their function but also their importance. Without the emotions, we might know… but we could not have authentic communion with who/what we know.
That we receive knowledge through our senses also underlies the Catholic sacraments, since God uses the outward signs and symbols of each sacrament to not only show us who He is… but also to meet us personally! Head knowledge about what the sacraments teach us is only half the story, and the Church encourages us to go further into a personal relationship with Christ (meant in the most non-fruity sense of the word).
So, I appreciate you explanation and how it sheds light on theses things. Any further comments would be enjoyed!
November 6th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
I don’t buy the whole “can’t find a job thing.” There are many more people who don’t watch EWTN than do. He’s not the star he believes himself to be.
I offered to send him real items for his son if he needs it so badly. I can’t endorse his “work” by sending him cash.
I completely agree that the parallel to marriage holds up very strongly. You wouldn’t call the cheater a couragous hero.
He should stop publically flaunting his infidelity, and stop leading weak Catholics away from the truth.
November 11th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
At the risk of sounding harsh, why can’t Dave Stone get a job keeping some organization’s books if he has a degree in accounting and an MBA? Even as an adult, I looked up to Fr. F.M. Stone on LOTR and am disappointed in his decision. It seems like he is trying to capitalize on his fame and doesn’t want to give up the lime light if you ask me. His new family shouldn’t suffer financially but I don’t think he needs any type of position with great visibility since there are obviously some ego and pride issues at play here. Even though I liked him, I allways suspected he was just a little too smooth and over-confident, not humble enough, to be a priest. I can remember him commenting several times on TV, even to nuns, how pretty they were. That allways struck me as a little inappropriate. I’m not saying he needs to be hurt or should fail in any way, but this web site looks like some kind of ill-conceived “get rich quick’ scheme and I wouldn’t be comfortable receiving or recommending any type of spiritual direction from him. I think he needs to get a real job, take care of his new family and drop his visions of fame.
November 19th, 2008 at 2:11 am
Seems to me that he is by nature very naive. Naive to get into the situation he is in. Naive with respect to the business world. The website is ill-conceived and poorly focused. He does not have a clear concept of what he will be selling, to whom, or even at what cost. Not what you call a recipe for business success. Mix in that he still has mixed feelings about the situation (regardless of what he says my money is that he is conflicted and hence his trying to hang on to as many parts of his previous ministry that he can as a lay person. ) He continually talks about himself. It just seems to me that he is seeking an affirmation that is not likely to come in the way that he really needs it. He’ll get some eye candy and sympathetic letters but not what we really craves.
He is naive with respect to how he is putting himself in a situation of great spiritual temptation. Imagine the emails he is getting. While some are supportive, others are supportive but their authors have their own issues with the Church and they intentionally or unintentionally seek to get him to affirm their opinions and judgements. Other letters are critical of him and some probably are nothing short of lude, rude, and crude. And then there will be the letters that do nothing but lambast the church. Imagine the folks — non-Catholic and dissenting Catholic that would like to use him to advance their own agendas. What a yucky quagmire he is putting himself into.
I think that he would pursue this project in the way he has and he thinks he is strong enough to navigate this quagmire belies his basic spiritual naivete. Prayers and lots of them are in order.
There could be worse spiritual tragedies looming for him, should he not exercise prudence and wisdom in his choice of employment and continuing his baptismal call (if not priestly) to follow Christ. He should take care to avoid causing more scandal and hurt to his fellow brothers and sisters in Christ through actions that harm either his own (and no one wants to see him destroyed or spiritually hurt even more) or others spiritual well-being.
November 28th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
To Chris,
If you continue to blog. I am new at this but would like to make a comment regarding Dave Stone. Know that if you believe in the Magisterium of the Church you will also believe and not judge when an individual/(s) dissolve a marriage (likewise sacramental vows, religious and holy orders, the Church will review and decide upon the authenticity of those vows (annulment for valid Catholic marriage) and also laicization for holy orders. As long as it is done through the Vatican and accepted, we have no right to judge. Many private and personal reasons go into dissolution of the sacrament, none of which are easy to face -but necessary and thankful we have an all merciful and loving God through the workings of the Catholic Church. It seems, Chris, you have an underlying tone of judgement toward Dave Stone. Leave him alone. Let him earn money with the means he has….You don’t need to patronize him. From someone who is recently divorced and seeking an annulment and has close ties to the Vatican. God reward you, Teresa Ann
December 1st, 2008 at 1:21 am
I’VE BEEN READING ALL THE COMMENTS ABOUT FR. FRANCIS MARY STONE AND SADLY EVERYONE (I THINK) OVERLOOKS ONE POINT. YES HE DID WRONG FOR NOT FIGHTING HARD ENOUGH FOR HIS PRIESTHOOD, YET STILL WE MUST SHOW MERCY IN OUR WORDS AND CONTINUE TO PRAY FOR HIM. THANK GOD HE DID NOT MOLEST ANY CHILDREN LIKE MANY OTHER SICK PRIESTS HAVE DONE!!!! I’M CERTAIN THAT THE GOOD LORD HAS FORGIVEN HIM, AND NOW HE MUST GO THROUGH PURIFICATION WHICH I KNOW IS VERY PAINFUL!!!! ONLY GOD KNOWS WHAT HE WILL DO WITH THIS SITUATION AND I AM SURE GOD WILL HELP HIM. GOD IS A FATHER, A FATHER WHO LOVES NO MATTER WHAT THE SINNER HAS DONE. GOD EMBRACES US ALL WHEN WE GO TO CONFESSION AND FORGIVES US!!!!! WE MEND OUR SINS BY THE PENANCE THE PRIEST GIVES US AND WE ARE FREE AGAIN TO LOVE AND SERVE FOR GOD. I AM SURE GOD IS NOT PLEASED WITH SOME OF THESE COMMENTS. HE WANTS US TO SHOW MERCY, NO MATTER WHAT THE SINNER HAS DONE BECAUSE HE IS MERCY. THIS HE RELATED TO SISTER FAUSTINA. LET US PLEASE GOD BY SHOWING OUR MERCY IN THESE TIMES THAT WE ARE LIVING IN WHERE THE DEVIL DOES NOT STOP HARRASING AND TEMPTING US ALL INCLUDING PRIESTS, NUNS, ETC. LET US UNITE WITH OUR HOLY MOTHER WHO IS SUFFERING AS WELL WITH FR.STONE’S SITUATION AND PRAY FOR OUR DEAR BROTHER FR. STONE IN CHARITY, IN MERCY, AND PLEAD TO GOD TO ASSIST HIM IN THESE DIFFICULT TIMES HE IS GOING THROUGH. “LOVE ONE ANOTHER AS I LOVE YOU!!” JESUS’S OWN WORDS! LETS FIGHT EVIL WITH CHARITY AND MERCY. ONE DAY IN HEAVEN GOD WILL REWARD US FOR FIGHTING EVIL WITH CHARITY!!!! LET US ALL CONTINUE TO PRAY FOR FR. MARY STONE AND IF GOD TOUCHES PEOPLE’S HEARTS TO HELP HIM, LET IT BE, FOR THE GOOD LORD SAID: “WHAT YOU DO TO OTHERS YOU DO TO ME.” GOD KNOWS HOW HE WILL PURIFY FR. STONE IN THIS LIFE, LET US NOT DO GOD’S JOB. WE NEED TO SHOW MERCY TO EVERYONE AND CONTINUE TO PRAY FOR ONE ANOTHER NO MATTER HOW OUR BROTHERS FALL. WE MUST HELP TO PICK THEM UP AND CONTINUE TO THAT UNTIL THE VERY END, WHICH IS HEAVEN!!!! MAY GOD BLESS US ALL AND MAY HIS HOLY MOTHER GRANT US THE GREATEST GIFT OF ALL, WHICH SHE ENDURED VERY WELL TO THE END AND THAT IS LOVE!!!!
December 1st, 2008 at 9:02 am
These last 2 comments totally confirm what I predicted – that I would be skewered for not giving Mr. Stone a complete pass, and that because I believe he’s done a few things from a marketing standpoint that just aren’t right, I am “judging” him.
Now, to the former – as I said in the original post, I don’t harbor any ill will toward him and I hope he is successful; but it is tragic that so many folks seem to hold the priesthood in such low esteem that they are blowing off the importance of this.
To the latter, I outlined 3 problems I have with Mr. Stone’s marketing scheme in the original post, and I won’t reiterate them here. I never once said I had a problem with the fact that he’s running a business. Just because I disagree with part of what he’s doing doesn’t mean I am judging his soul; apparently some readers don’t understand that it’s perfectly okay for us to judge others’ actions, we are simply forbidden from judging another’s soul. I mean seriously- how many times have we judged the actions of Hitler…or Obama….or Planned Parenthood? I haven’t seen anyone on here telling me I shouldn’t be so judgmental…but here I judge a couple of things about how Mr. Stone’s running his business, and all of a sudden, I am judgmental.
December 19th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
why can’t i judge he received the eucharist in the state of sin for all to see and judge wrong, wrong
December 20th, 2008 at 12:25 am
when was that, sue?
December 23rd, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Chris – I just wanted to thank you for actually posting a logical discussion on the matter. What’s on tehre on all of this is mind boggling. I, for one, think you and some of your posters have hit the nail on the head and have provided some very insightful discussion. I have seen David’s blog twice and that was enough for me – I am also suspicious of his methods to get people to (at the very least) visit his blog in hopes they will (in David’s words “invest”). Even the name (he goes by David BTW) – the ‘Dave’ thing is a marketing ploy as there is a well known British author that goes by Dave. Since David Stone, in my own opinion, is a HUGE egomaniac [I'm sure he reads and searches for comment on himself] – I’ll bet he does come across these comments. As a person in the legal field, he may want to consider multiple items on his blog, one being his request that people “invest” in his company. Someone needs to point out to David that “invest” and “donate” are 2 different things. Not that he’ll ever get a dime out of me – but if he’s asking for “investments” – people expect a return on those. Man, this guy is begging to be sued. He is very delusional on so many areas. Like Chris, I will him no ill will, only that he snap out of it.
December 24th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Chris, Stone is a hypocrite and so are many of the commentators who still appear on EWTN. I’m thinking especially of the loathesome Groeschel. People such as he is, are quick to condemn many, but are sanctimonious in their support of others. It makes many of us who left the Catholic Church sure we made the right decision.
December 27th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
chris, the few days before he left he said mass. and acording to the calendar birth of son times before this
December 29th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
First of all, Mr. Stone might have had sex with someone during his ministry, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t go to confession and stop sleeping with her. For all we know, it could have been one time or 100. You can’t judge someones sins…be very careful with that. It’s easy to do which is why Jesus warned about it.
Also I think he picked “Dave” because the drink he endorsed had a “David Stone” as part of it. (just a thought)
I think the “invest” is silly too….what do you get back??
I haven’t seen an recent posting since Thanksgiving, but time will tell. Maybe he is thinking the book will be better than the “investing”.
January 30th, 2009 at 9:22 am
I just saw this today and did a little research. The phone # is in Alabama; the LinkedIn says Greater Atlanta. I checked the state corporations websites for both Ala and GA to see if they are registered with either state, and neither of the company names are listed as incorporated in those states-Dave Stone Inc and Good Shepherd Caregivers Inc. No photograph of him–very suspicious. Others may be correct–that this is a fake website with a clever person gleaning known information about him and attempting to scam people out of $$. Beware…
January 30th, 2009 at 9:35 am
The voice on the podcasts surely does sound like his, though. I don’t think this could be kept going as a fake so long.
January 31st, 2009 at 7:10 am
It’s real….nothing fake like this would have lasted this long. There is l photo and if you listen to his podcast, there is no doubt..even Fr. Joe (who’s blog discussed this in length) reallized it was true.
It says he might give a talk in CA and NYC. “If” he does, maybe he will talk more about it.
February 1st, 2009 at 11:46 pm
I missed the emergence of the DaveStoneInc web site in October, and the various commentary about it that has cropped up since … until today. I’ve been wondering all along whatever became of Fr. Francis.
The web site seems to have quieted down since its initial launch.
The ‘Life on the Rock’ show seemed to go through some growing pains after Fr. Francis’ departure, but now it seems to be hitting a stride. Doug Barry is a bit of an acquired taste, but I’m starting to like and respect him now. He did some great on-the-street interviewing of people protesting the west coast march for life in last week’s episode. And Fr. Mark cracks me up … while offering solid Catholic doctrine.
I suspect Dave Stone’s autobiography will actually sell pretty well.
February 4th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
I too just happened upon the “Dave Stone” story. I am a regular EWTN viewer and watch “Life on the Rock” on occasion … although I am far from being a teenager.
I am with Chris on this one. I obviously have no idea what Dave Stone’s spiritual standing is, but I feel perfectly comfortable commenting on the public statements made by Fr. Francis/Dave Stone.
It is part of the relativistic moral atmosphere that we all live in that we understand the concept of “not judging” very, very broadly. The truth is that we all judge the impact of an individual’s public statements and actions on society, and we have a right to do so.
When Fr. Stone chose to embrace the vocation of priest and chose to live out much of his vocation in front of a television camera, his actions were public and representational. The fact that he wrote a statement as he left EWTN makes it public. The fact that he chose to launch a website including his past makes it public.
There is no way to “pretty” this up: he caused a scandal in an unusually public way and he continued to try to “trade” on it.
He was a mature man who had lived very much in the world (according to his own discription of his life before he became a priest) … he was older than most who decide on a religious vocation. When is it reasonable to assume that someone can make an informed decisions and commitments.
Accountability is part of public behavior and it is part of making a public commitment (priesthood).
At what point is “excuse making” part of the problem?
February 15th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Fr. Francis’s (Stone) spirituality was always peculiar and vindictive. Former EWTN priests John and Augustine, gone for many years, were similarly strange. Preaching to millions on the air is a grave responsibility.
February 18th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
why can i no longer open davestoneinc has he taken down the site? thank you for this info
February 19th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
He might be putting things on it or taking things off…time will tell. I think the “donate” buttons should be taken down if he keeps it up, if anyone was going to donate, they probably would have already.
It did say he had To be announced talks in NYC and CA. Who knows? I am sure you will hear something again.
February 22nd, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Wow, people have an awful lot to say about this man’s spiritual journey. I think you should all get out of God’s way and let things happen in their own time. You never experienced trauma in your lives? Wow, you guys.
February 23rd, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Do we know for certain Fr. Stone has a child?
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:21 pm
He does have a child has to help support it, which is the decent thing to do.
To reach him before, he had this:
The best way to contact Dave Stone Inc. is to call us at 205-451-3055 and/or e- mail us at dave@davestoneinc.com .
March 16th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Where are we getting concrete information that he has a child?
March 16th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
From the now-defunct davestoneinc.com.
March 18th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
poor man. what is he to do now that he has given up the best. we must still pray for him
April 6th, 2009 at 12:14 am
Please, please. Leave the man alone. Mostly, do NOT call him “Father” anymore. Once he has had his faculties removed we should refer to hiim respectfully as “Mr.”, and Mr. only unless of course he has some other credential like “Dr.”, etc. This is offensive to me. His scandal may have killed my son’s vocation to the priesthood, to be a Franciscan. Unless somehow he can see through the scandals. What’s wrong with us as a people of God? My heart is broken. And though he may continue to justify his action, I do know of one convert to Catholicism that upon entering the Church she left her husband and 4 children, 2 of which have disabilities. He is now marrying, validly, another convert from our same former faith. Pray for these people. They exhibit such dysfunctionality with much of their life. We all need mercy. Let’s extend it to him. But remember that the priesthood is a sacred ministry just as marriage is a sacred ministry. Personally, I believe we would do well allowing married men to the priesthood, not priests to the married life. Let’s keep with the teachings of the Church. It is a discipline, one that should not be taken lightly.
I personally, love my wife, but wish I had continued my vocation to the priesthood. But my perpetrator is now striped of his faculties and married, but he should be in jail for what he did before attempting thos evil acts on me. I turned him in, the coffin nail that still ended up with him becoming a Pastor of a parish. Don’t our Bishops ever learn? Now,I pray for him and those like him everyday. My penance for leaving the seminary and running scared. God forgive us of our sins.
April 6th, 2009 at 12:21 am
Let me add this. This is a perfect example why I take the advice of a priest not as gospel but as just that, adice. They are flawed humans. The holy spirit does not guide them necessarily in terms of good marriage advice…or for that in terms of good vocation advice. Look at Fr. Corapi. They were rejecting him. There are many like him as well, like a good friend of my who makes a wonderful priest. My grandmother told me as a teen to never ride on the shirttails of priests. I had no idea what she meant. Now, I understand what she meant.
PAX
praise God, Tiber Swim Team 2007
Left as 1, came back as 5.
April 6th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
How do we know this isn’t just all hearsay?
April 6th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
There are parts that have been hearsay and so far as I can tell people have clearly noted when they suspected something or had “put the pieces together” rather than got it straight from the horse’s mouth. I suggest you go back to the original post where I make clear the problems that I had with the website (which is now down) – each one of them can be fact-checked using archive.org or the Google web page caching service; you can also fact-check the comments related to his podcast statements which are also now down, using archive.org I’m sure. I really don’t think there’s a lot of hearsay here.
April 13th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
What a shame about this man’s vocation……LADIES, LEAVE THOSE PRIESTS ALONE!!!! THEY ARE HUMAN AND WEAK LIKE THE REST OF US AND HAVE A SPECIAL CALLING….LOOK ELSEWYHERE PLEASE!!!! In God’s name HOW many people have lost their faith or will not his masses, confessions and annointings of the sick???? This is a true tragedy!
May 5th, 2009 at 11:50 am
HAS ANYONE HEARD OF WHAT DAVE STONE IS DOING??? THANKS, GOD BLESS!!!
May 8th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
Has my blog become a clearinghouse for Dave Stone information? I know what he was doing when I wrote this post months ago, at least according to his website…
May 29th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Fr. Alberto Cutie. Fr. Francis Mary Stone. One after the other. All these media priests. Liberal. Conservative. One after the other. When you stand up in the silver pulpit before millions, be careful that the fame and the limelight doesn’t come back and bite you in the butt. The problem with many of these media priests is that they are too ‘holier than thou’ and preach a message that is filled with guilt and shame at people when they themselves lead lives that are filled with hidden secrets.
May 31st, 2009 at 9:57 pm
Priests should and must be respected by all those “lonely” ladies out there. One of our parish’s priest celebrated 40 years of services today. He was ordered with other 32, of which just 8 are left… Please, God help us!
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:12 am
Just chanced upon here. Yes, I was disappointed when the news of the “scandal” broke. But as a family in Christ, I think we should continue to pray for Father. I’m glad to know that he apparently has taken the proper steps for laicization and is in full communion with the church. Personally, I have no problem with him trying his best to support his family in his new life. If his website is still active, I will also be very willing to donate something to help my brother in Christ. God Bless!
June 4th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
I think it will get worse before it’s gets better, but if God wants the church to survive, it will. When there are no church’s for those who want them, no priests, etc. the thrist for it, will return.
I also think the reason for a rise in vocations, not in a diocise and in communities like Fr. Groechels and EWTN’s nuns (busting at the seams!) is that the orthodox is true and is a welcome refuge in this secular world. You can’t “fake” liking Fr. Groechel’s austere lifestyle of sleeping on the floor, no phone, TV, computer, etc. but they get 20, 30 vocations a year. They can’t fill the church’s in the suberb’s but they can feed the poor and a lot of hearts and souls.
June 7th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
do we know if he has taken proper steps for laicization or if he has married? we keep reading his family? thank you
June 12th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
37 years ago, I too, married a widow with five children, having been a priest of the Green Bay Diocese for 15+ years. . .I have been blessed a thousand times, and Fr. Dave will be also. . .the church has lost 25,000+ priests in the U.S. alone due to the mandatory celibacy law. . .