The forced marriage of in particular catholic priests in senior positions, who have become fathers, to women other than the mother of the child, is a at first seemingly bizarre , but within the malicious and distorted logic of the church quite conclusive method, to keep the priest’s real family separated from him, to deny the child and the mother child support and inheritance, and to also emotionally wound them. The ex-Priests “wife” is apparently always widowed or divorced, has several children of her own that are already older, and is in an age in which she herself cannot become pregnant again. The “marriages” are arranged in a way, that any money and any possessions belong to the “wife”, who also retains anything the ex- priests potentially earns, in order to make it maximally impossible to the child and the mother to receive anything, or to even just get in contact with the father, while the order or diocese officially don’t know of anything, and can on demand always pretend not to be involved, as the Priests has “left the priesthood”. As the child and it’s mother will, if they overcome their first shock about the strange disappearance of the father, be to busy making ends meet, or just surviving, and as they probably also will doubt their own perception of the father, they will not have the strength to go to the public, or even detailedly analyse what has happened. This enables the church to reach its primary goals : keeping secret that a senior catholic priest has a child of his own, and/or obscure the fact that it is the church that demands of him not to support the child. This construct of a marriage, with a woman who will permanently remind her “husband” that everything belongs to her, however, also very much increases the chance to meet the perverted church rule (introduced at the council of Pavia 1022) that children of priests must never receive or inherit anything from their fathers. Sadly, the church’s pervert wish to “punish” and “wound” the child and its mother, also seems to be a reason for the “forced marriage”. The mother of the child in particular, will suffer much more from the sudden appearance of another woman, than she would have if the father has just returned to the church. The former priest in turn, will show his renewed submission by obeying the churches order not to support his own child, accepts the “punishment” for the child’s birth, and will never again speak critically about the church. By being the step-father to his "wife's" children, he will also fulfill in another way than when in office, the church's demand that he "care for the children of other's", not his own.
We have for a long time confronted the order of the Jesuits with the analyses of the forced marriage, which the order never denied, and we also know about two cases in Germany in which the method seems to have been used. However, it is particularly the many parallels between the biographies of Kevin Whibley, son of the former bishop Roddy Wright, and David Weber, son of the former Jesuit provincial Francis Peter Kelly, that can be seen as evidence for the method “forced marriage”.
A comparison :
Kevin Whibley, son of Roddy Wright, Bishop of Argyll and the Isles, Scotland (in office from 1991-1996) and Joanna Whibley. After Kevins’s birth, his mother keeps the name of his father secret, following Roddy Wright’s wish. (He repeatedly tells Joanna Whibley that if she was to make his identity known, he’d be sent to South America by the church, and could never meet his son again). Apparently after Wright superior learns of his fatherhood, Wright “disappears” for a couple of days, together with the divorced Kathleen MacPhee, a woman with three elderly children of her own, after having tendered his resignation to his cardinal in the latter’s office, which is very rapidly accepted by the then Pope, even while on a trip abroad. After a few days, Wright and MacPhee shortly reappear, to give an interview to a newspaper. Allegedly on Wright’s “wish”, the fee for the interview goes to MacPhees children, not his own son. (Apparently following the church’s directive that the priest’s own child must never receive anything) After that ,Wright disappears again,( a temporary neighbour tells us that one morning he was just gone, without advance notice) until in 1998 it becomes known that he has married MacPhee on Antigua( Caribbean). In 1999, Wright publishes his autobiography, in which he assures the church of his renewed obedience, stating : “The fact that I have broken it does not mean I disagree with the law and the teaching of the church” Wright dies in New Zealand in 2005, maximally far away from his son.
David Weber (born 1975), son of Francis Peter Kelly, former provincial of the Australian Jesuits(in office 1968-1973) and Wiltrud Weber. Kelly takes a sabbatical year in 1973, and, in France, meets Wiltrud Weber, with whom he lives in a permanent relationship for the following two years. During this period, they have long discussions about Kelly’s possible resignation from the order, and also particularly Kellys doubts about the church’s teachings. Kelly is also working on the script of a book, of which he thinks that it will “upset Rome very much”. 1975, in the months before and after David Weber’s birth in November, Kelly disappears. In 1976, Wiltrud Weber suddenly receives a letter from him, in which he declares that he is now “married” to Carmel Eire (an elderly widow with four children of her own) and that he has “no own money”. In one of the few open discussion his son will later be able to have with him, he states not to have known Carmel Eire until a few days before the “wedding”. In 1978 he self-publishes a very obedient, submissive book, without any critical word about the catholic church. In 1979, together with his acknowledgement of paternity that he obviously doesn’t tell the order about, he sends Wiltrud Weber a small sum of money, after that there is no contact until 1989. Several attempts from 1989 onward, to invite the son to Australia to go to school there, are thwarted in the last minute, Kelly is being given a secret telephone number. During the son’s visits to Australia in 1994 and 1995, for which Wiltrud and David Weber go into debt, the son is confronted with a brain-washed father, and cannot speak with him openly.
Kelly dies in 2004, the funeral mass is concelebrated by five jesuits, his son receives no inheritance.
The question: “Still: Why did the father take part in all this ?” , ( It is frequently being asked, although those who put it often don’t really want to be informed, but intent to fend off a realising of the church’s criminal practises) can be answered thus :
In the case of all organisations, that not only demand obedience, but absolute obedience from their senior ranks (Mafia etc.), it is indisputable, that any enquiry and prosecution of their criminal deeds must not only focus on the individual but also the entire structures and the superiors within this structure. It is also undisputed, that, apart from a lifelong drill of obedience, and certain oaths that senior clergy take, there really also is something like brainwashing. We are still examining the exact way in which such brainwashing is being applied in this particular case, but it can cert ainly be said, that while the individual former priest and then father can not be excused in any case, the church is the principal offender here, and has a bigger stake in the crime that is being committed.
It is also noteworthy, that those who doubt the church’s role are mostly strictly catholic, while people who are not , particularly if they are used to methodical thinking, often quickly understand the practices used.