Somebody's been on the altar wine...

[Sean]

Drunken Catholic priest busted driving with .341 alcohol reading

A DRUNKEN Catholic priest busted by police for drink-driving has returned one of the highest blood-alcohol readings ever recorded in NSW.

Father Peter Jones, 58, a priest at St Patrick's Parish in South Grafton, blew a staggering 0.341 after he was stopped by police criss-crossing lanes on the Pacific Highway.

A worried motorist travelling behind the priest's white Toyota Camry saw him allegedly crossing lanes as he travelled north around 1.15pm on Wednesday at Harwood, on the state's north coast.

When he was stopped, officers subjected the priest to a breath-test which allegedly returned an off-the-chart reading of "+.5" - the highest possible reading the breathalyser can handle.

Taken back to nearby Maclean police station, the priest allegedly returned a 0.341 reading.

While police do not record individual figures on drink-drive readings, a senior police source confirmed it was one of the highest blood-alcohol levels allegedly recorded in recent times.

The legal limit for all drivers in NSW is 0.05, which can be reached after approximately two standards drinks for men, and one standard drink for women, in the first hour.

When contacted on Friday, Father Jones, who earlier this year underwent a life-saving triple heart bypass, said his job was safe and that he was receiving counselling over the matter.

"Oh look, can we leave this alone - I'll talk to you about it some other time," he said.

Lismore Diocese said in a statement that Fr Jones was "currently on leave receiving medical treatment". "Father Jones has been a committed and hard-working Priest of the Lismore Diocese in the Parishes of Nambucca and South Grafton and he and the Catholic community of the Lismore Diocese has a strong commitment to the public and the upholding of laws of the community," the statement says.

"This matter is now before the court and Father Jones shall respect the verdict of the court and civil authorities."
Full story

This fuckwit was featured on A Current Affair last night. He was at the airport trying to board a plane. Trying being the operative word... he was too pissed to walk and was refused entry to the aircraft.

I like the way that they state that he will "respect the verdict of the court and civil authorities". Isn't that noble of him...

[Gob]

At least he'll be too drunk to be able to get it up for the altar boys...

[dgs49]

So I ask ya...

Does the fact that he has been drunk in public a couple times make him a bad person? Or that he has driven while drunk?

Seriously.

Is there anyone who posts on this board who has not made an ass of him-or-herself while drunk?

[dales]

He's probably an alcoholic and driving while intoxicated makes him a d@mned fool.

[Rick]

He's probably an alcoholic and driving while intoxicated makes him a d@mned fool.

Ditto...

[Sean]

So I ask ya...

Does the fact that he has been drunk in public a couple times make him a bad person? Or that he has driven while drunk?

Seriously.

Is there anyone who posts on this board who has not made an ass of him-or-herself while drunk?

Seriously? Anybody who gets behind the wheel of a car whilst pissed is a hell of a bad person in my eyes. In fact, I'd say that they are a complete cunt with no regard for the lives of others.

[The Hen]

I have never endangered the lives of anyone other than myself when I have been drinking to excess.

I have never put the keys in a car ingnition after having one drink.

The man is an arse.

[rubato]

So I ask ya...

Does the fact that he has been drunk in public a couple times make him a bad person? Or that he has driven while drunk?

Seriously.

Is there anyone who posts on this board who has not made an ass of him-or-herself while drunk?

Driving while drunk makes him a bad person. Yes.

He willingly places others lives at risk for no purpose other than his own gratification. He is immoral.

yrs,
rubato

[dgs49]

There is probably not a fucking person on this board who has not driven while impaired - almost no one over 50 years old can make that claim. The severe penalties and reactions to drunk driving are a relatively recent phenomenon.

Everyone who gets drunk or drives drunk is not an "alcoholic," and saying that because a person has twice been seen intoxicated in public they are "probably an alcoholic" is stupid beyond belief. The Greatest Generation - who lived through the Depression and WWII - almost universally drank to an extent that would have the entire fucking country in rehab if it were observed today.

If the legal limit had been 0.08% forty years ago, half the driving population could have been jailed on any given Friday or Saturday night. Alcohol was a constant in virtually every social circumstance, whether public or private. If you were not half-bagged by 0900 you were "trying to prove something."

Men of my age who claim never to have driven while impaired are liars. And the only reason a woman can make that claim is probably because her S.O. was driving on social occasions - and he was driving drunk.

But I guess the world was just made up of "bad people."

Idiot.

[dales]

From the article:

A DRUNKEN Catholic priest busted by police for drink-driving has returned one of the highest blood-alcohol readings ever recorded in NSW.

Anyone with a BAC that high has a drinking problem and in all liklehood an ALCOHOLIC, not a wee-bit-o'-wine priest.

As far as the other gross-generalizations you responded with, let them stand on their own merits.

[The Hen]

There is probably not a fucking person on this board who has not driven while impaired - almost no one over 50 years old can make that claim. The severe penalties and reactions to drunk driving are a relatively recent phenomenon.

I have never driven whilst impaired and I am only two years younger than 50.

[Joe Guy]

I can only speak for myself. I can't say that because I did something that others must have also done it.

When I was in my 20's, 30's & into my 40's, I'm sure that I drove while "legally" impaired hundreds of times.

I've never been arrested. I've never even received a traffic ticket.

Of course, I'm an excellent driver.

[Gob]

When younger I drove while pissed, stoned, tripping and speeding/E'd up. (Though not all at the same time.)

Was I stupid? Yes.

Was I driving criminally? Yes.

Was I ever so fucking lucky to get away with it and without hurting anyone? Yes.

Does my stupidity in driving while inoxicated absolve this priest from his culpability in any way? No.

[rubato]

There is probably not a fucking person on this board who has not driven while impaired - almost no one over 50 years old can make that claim. The severe penalties and reactions to drunk driving are a relatively recent phenomenon.

Everyone who gets drunk or drives drunk is not an "alcoholic," and saying that because a person has twice been seen intoxicated in public they are "probably an alcoholic" is stupid beyond belief. The Greatest Generation - who lived through the Depression and WWII - almost universally drank to an extent that would have the entire fucking country in rehab if it were observed today.

If the legal limit had been 0.08% forty years ago, half the driving population could have been jailed on any given Friday or Saturday night. Alcohol was a constant in virtually every social circumstance, whether public or private. If you were not half-bagged by 0900 you were "trying to prove something."

Men of my age who claim never to have driven while impaired are liars. And the only reason a woman can make that claim is probably because her S.O. was driving on social occasions - and he was driving drunk.

But I guess the world was just made up of "bad people."

Idiot.

So a priest is only expected to live up, or down, to the standard of the worst in your view? Pretty nasty group, your priests. They're like Hells Angels?

Not exactly inspiring. I think I'll choose good role models from empirical scientists. They don't make excuses when the data shows they're wrong.

yrs,
rubato

[Scooter]

If the legal limit had been 0.08% forty years ago, half the driving population could have been jailed on any given Friday or Saturday night

Except his BAC was not 0.08% or 0.10% or even 0.20%. It was 0.341%, which is getting into territory where he could have died of alcohol poisoning. There isn't any time in history when drunk driving laws have been in existence that that level of impairment would have been legal.

[BoSoxGal]

And the only reason he wasn't passed out drunk at .341g/210L is that he IS an alcoholic with a high tolerance for the stuff. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

I can't imagine defending drink driving or lamenting the .08 standard in light of the diminished number of DUI-related deaths since these developments. If anything, the US needs to join the rest of the civilized world and lower the legal limit whilst increasing the penalties

Drink driving kills.

[loCAtek]

While I'm sure you feel highly vindicated by assuming he was drinking nothing but alter wine?

[Crackpot]

I do think the drunk driving laws are in danger of (if they haven't already ) going too far. I was far more comfortable with .1 than .08 especially considering that talking on a cell phone (hands free or not) impairs you about as much as a BAC of .12

[BoSoxGal]

As someone who sees DUI cases every day & lives in the state with the highest DUI mortality rate, I vehemently disagree.

Yes, I support bans on driving while using a cell phone.

And I also support .05 as the legal limit, though I am not so foolish as to believe it will happen in this foolish country.

I would suggest participation in a wet lab, seeing what .08 or .10 looks like in real people, then tell me if you really want those people driving a missile down the highway at you and your infant son while under the influence.

I find in doing voir dire of potential jurors on DUI cases that there is a big difference in the attitudes of folks who know someone killed or seriously injured in a DUI crash versus those who have no personal experience - yet. It's too bad that it takes such experience for folks to realize that every DUI is a potential vehicular homicide.

[Crackpot]

I support the illegality but not the penalties. The freight train you get smacked with at fine line of impairment a .08 BAC warrants compared to the the slap on the wrist given for the greater level of impairment caused by talking on a cell phone is unjust any way you cut it.

I'm not saying that it's not wrong only that the standards need to be adjusted to be equalized for a given level of impairment regardless the cause. Otherwise it's just another crack vs cocaine scenario.