The question is what should the church do in response to a priest whom they know has violated a vow. I think for the church in question to be consistent and present the message that they take their religion seriously, they cannot allow someone who is known to have broken a vow to go undisciplined. That's not to say he has to be removed from the priesthood altogether, but some sort of administrative discipline would certainly send the message that vows before God are not to be made (or broken) lightly. In any event, the father of the child should take on the support of the kid himself.

For more on the question of whether priests should be required to take a vow of celibacy, see this question on Mahalo Answers: http://www.mahalo.com/answers/catholicism/why-does-the-catholic-church-order-celibacy-for-priests-should-catholic-priests-be-allowed-to-get-married

I agree that it is the priest's job to pay for the child and I also think they should be booted if they break their vows.

I might attack this question from multiple angles. First of all, to speak to those Christians who believe that priests are not to marry nor have children, let me quote from the Book of Genesis:

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.""

If God has spoken to his people and told them that He commands them to "multiply", who is to say that this is not to include priests? If anything, it seems to me that they would be the first to be given this invitation, as they are sure to raise children who are moral, have the love of God in their heart, and will spread His word. Yes, priests have a huge commitment to the church, but how is this different from the business man, who is still permitted by society to have children - even if he may make less of an effort to be active in their lives.

Second of all, on the issue of "child support". A priest would not be required to pay child support if he were permitted to marry the woman who he was obviously taken enough with to impregnate her. Why not allow these men to live the full and wonderful lives that the rest of us feel entitled to? He is the mentor of the church, the person you are to turn to when having marital issues or problems at home - how can he give you sound advice if he has not experienced these things first hand?

In the end, even if a priest were to be required to pay support - I'd support him. You may consider his lifestyle to be funded on his church's budget (and in ways it is), but I think you should consider this money as his salary that he has earned and should be able to spend however he sees fit. Would the church bar their priest from buying ice cream and cookies because it is gluttonous? No - because this is the money he has earned and it is not their concern, so long as he is a moral, outstanding leader for their church.

I am not Catholic and cannot pretend to know all of the ins and outs of the Church. My understanding of the priesthood, however, is that priests get very little salary - all of their expenses, living and otherwise are paid by the Church. In this scenario, I do think the Church owes some responsibility. By essentially condoning Father Willenborg's actions and never asking him to leave the Church and face up to his responsibilities the argument can be made that they did in fact contribute to the situation Ms. Bond and her son find themselves in.

As for not spending money raised for the Church on a priest's son, Catholics (and many other religions) reserve the right to spend church money on anything that they feel perpetuates and protects their faith. So paying a woman not to reveal that she was involved with and impregnated by a priest falls right in line with those goals. Priests, and the vows they take, are central to the Catholic faith. Silencing elements that break with this chaste and devout appearance would be deemed necessary expenses.

As for whether priests involved with women (or men) should have to leave the priesthood - based on the stats cited in the article, if all of the priests who broke the celibacy vow left the church, there would be very few priests left. I think a better route would be for the Catholic church to reexamine this vow, and whether it is something that should continue to be required of their men of the cloth.