Ex-Archbishop Speaks About Catholic Church and Homosexuality [Weakland]

The New York Times ^ | 5/14/09 | Laurie Goodstein

[marshmallow]

In spring 2002, as the scandal over sexual abuse by Roman Catholic priests was escalating, the long career of Archbishop Rembert G. Weakland of Milwaukee, one of the church’s most venerable voices for change, went up in flames one May morning.

On the ABC program “Good Morning America,” the archbishop watched a man he had fallen in love with 23 years earlier say in an interview that the Milwaukee archdiocese had paid him $450,000 years before to keep quiet about his affair with the archbishop — an affair the man was now calling date rape.

The next day, the Vatican accepted Archbishop Weakland’s retirement.

Archbishop Weakland, who had been the intellectual touchstone for church reformers, has said little publicly since then. But now, in an interview and in a memoir scheduled for release next month, he is speaking out about how internal church politics affected his response to the fallout from his affair; how bishops and the Vatican cared more about the rights of abusive priests than about their victims; and why Catholic teaching on homosexuality is wrong.

“If we say our God is an all-loving god,” he said, “how do you explain that at any given time probably 400 million living on the planet at one time would be gay? Are the religions of the world, as does Catholicism, saying to those hundreds of millions of people, you have to pass your whole life without any physical, genital expression of that love?”

He said he had been aware of his homosexual orientation since he was a teenager and suppressed it until he became archbishop, when he had relationships with several men because of “loneliness that became very strong.”

[marshmallow]

"..........and why Catholic teaching on homosexuality is wrong."

I think we all knew that Weakland did not accept key points of Catholic teaching but it's nice to finally see it in black and white.

Weakland essentially destroyed a diocese and had a far more widespread, pernicious influence on Catholicism in America thanks to his encouragement of the lavendar mafia who corrupted seminaries which in turn produced child abusers by the dozen and nearly bankrupted whole dioceses due to abuse settlements.

And here he is playing the "victim".

[a fool in paradise]

The scandal was escalating... Yet the culture of corruption of naughty teachers in public schools is just supposed to be a bunch of isolated cases with no coverups or patterns of profile.

And what of the UN’s own sex scandals?

Churches of all sorts have predators. So do other “trusted” institutions. The Boy Scouts aren't supposed to be suspicious of grown men who want to have overnight stays with young boys. Especially if they are known homosexuals.

[Terabitten]

If we say our God is an all-loving god

How does anyone who believes that ever become an archbishop to begin with?

God HATES sin.

[FES0844]

“how do you explain that at any given time probably 400 million living on the planet at one time would be gay?

IT’S A CHOICE.

[pgkdan]

Weakland is a disgusting old pervert...the absolute worst of a bad lot of American bishops following Vatican II. He should be sent to a monestary and ordered to silence.

Archbishop Weakland, 82, said he was probably the first bishop to come out of the closet voluntarily.

Voluntarily???? His fag lover goes on national TV and accuses him of rape and allows his gushing, girlie love letter to be published and he calls that comong out voluntarily? Stupid old fag.

[Kolokotronis]

“If we say our God is an all-loving god

How does anyone who believes that ever become an archbishop to begin with?”

The same way a monk named Anthony became +Anthony the Great teaching this:

“God is good, dispassionate, and immutable. Now someone who thinks it reasonable and true to affirm that God does not change, may well ask how, in that case, it is possible to speak of God as rejoicing over those who are good and showing mercy to those who honor Him, and as turning away from the wicked and being angry with sinners. To this it must be answered that God neither rejoices nor grows angry, for to rejoice and to be offended are passions; nor is He won over by the gifts of those who honor Him, for that would mean He is swayed by pleasure. It is not right that the Divinity feel pleasure or displeasure from human conditions. He is good, and He only bestows blessings and never does harm, remaining always the same. We men, on the other hand, if we remain good through resembling God, are united to Him, but if we become evil through not resembling God, we are separated from Him. By living in holiness we cleave to God; but by becoming wicked we make Him our enemy. It is not that He grows angry with us in an arbitrary way, but it is our own sins that prevent God from shining within us and expose us to demons who torture us. And if through prayer and acts of compassion we gain release from our sins, this does not mean that we have won God over and made Him to change, but that through our actions and our turning to the Divinity, we have cured our wickedness and so once more have enjoyment of God’s goodness. Thus to say that God turns away from the wicked is like saying that the sun hides itself from the blind.”

[Alex Murphy]

In spring 2002, as the scandal over sexual abuse by Roman Catholic priests was escalating, the long career of Archbishop Rembert G. Weakland of Milwaukee, one of the church’s most venerable voices for change, went up in flames one May morning. On the ABC program “Good Morning America,” the archbishop watched a man he had fallen in love with 23 years earlier say in an interview that the Milwaukee archdiocese had paid him $450,000 years before to keep quiet about his affair with the archbishop — an affair the man was now calling date rape.

marshmallow: I think we all knew that Weakland did not accept key points of Catholic teaching but it's nice to finally see it in black and white. Weakland essentially destroyed a diocese and had a far more widespread, pernicious influence on Catholicism in America thanks to his encouragement of the lavendar mafia who corrupted seminaries which in turn produced child abusers by the dozen and nearly bankrupted whole dioceses due to abuse settlements.

I wholly agree with your assessment, I would disagree only on one small point. What's scandalous is not how Weakland could rise to the position of Archbishop and do all this damage, while denying key points of Catholic teaching.

What's scandalous is how he got the promotion. Who promoted him? Who was he accountable to, who was his overseer? Who left him in the position, and why?

Then the LORD said to Cain, "Where is your brother Abel?" "I don't know," he replied. "Am I my brother's keeper?"
-- Genesis 4:9

[pgkdan]

If we say our God is an all-loving god

If God loved me He'd allow me to steal what ever I wanted because it would make me happy. right Rembert?

[annalex]

From the NYT 2002 article:

Some of the archbishop's admirers yesterday bemoaned the coda to the career of a bishop considered a Renaissance man and one of the few remaining liberal prelates.

''Archbishop Weakland has been a leading figure in calling for progressive reforms in our church and justice in our society,'' said Dan Daley, co-director of Call to Action, a 25,000-member church reform group based in Chicago. ''It's always shocking to hear of sex-abuse allegations, especially toward bishops.''

Margaret Steinfels, editor of the liberal Catholic magazine Commonweal, said, ''It is a tragedy that legitimate concerns about the sexual abuse of children by priests is turning into a sexual witch hunt.'' She called the archbishop's involvement with Mr. Marcoux ''perhaps an indiscretion, perhaps a grave sin.''

Accused of Sexual Assault, Archbishop Seeks to Retire (Friday, May 24, 2002)

[pgkdan]

Your analogy doesn’t fit.

[starlifter]

Though I do not support the fallen archbishop, I believe he was referring to God loving all people...

[rscully]

‘If we say our God is an all-loving god,” he said, “how do you explain that at any given time probably 400 million living on the planet at one time would be gay? Are the religions of the world, as does Catholicism, saying to those hundreds of millions of people, you have to pass your whole life without any physical, genital expression of that love?”’

God loves his children, just as we love our own, no matter what they do. That does not mean that He or we can excuse or condone ANY action He considers sin. He expects us to harness our carnal desires and live according to His laws -not sucumb to our weaknesses. He expects us to trust Him and lean upon Him during our times of trial and temptation so we can live in such a way that we can return to our Heavenly Home. He expects us to partake of the gift of the Atonement of Jesus Christ so we can can, step by step, one day be worthy of the Kingdom of God. I’m no longer Catholic, but this issue is relevant to all religions that believe in Christ. It’s the ol’ “love the sinner, not the sin” concept.

I love the parting words in Ann Coulter’s book, “Godless” because it so beautifully makes the point: “Religious people have certain rules bsed on a book with lots of witnesses to that faith. God is not our secret Santa. His commands are not whatever we want them to be, and the Bible is not a “living” document...These rules are decreed by a legislator whose opinions are not subject to appeal by the ACLU. We can’t discover penumbras that will suddenly allow us to endorse genocide, sex with animals, gay marriage, strip clubs, premarital sex, or whatever the latest liberal fad is. The truth is the truth whether we like it our not.”

[Antoninus]

Weakland was better off keeping his trap shut. Now, I pray, someone in the Church will close it for him.

[Nihil Obstat]

there have always been Judases

[Kolokotronis]

“Your analogy doesn’t fit.”

Why not? :)

[livius]

Why doesn’t his order (Benedictines) forbid him to speak? He was sent off to a monastery to do penance, and instead he’s swanning around on the talk show circuit, boasting about his sins.

[Antoninus]

What's scandalous is how he got the promotion. Who promoted him? Who was he accountable to, who was his overseer? Who left him in the position, and why?

Alex, please. You've been on FR long enough to know that we Catholics have a problem within our Church. Since the 1950s at least, homosexuals have been trying to establish a presence in the Catholic Church. Part of this relates to the effort by Marxists to co-opt and weaken the Church from the inside.

In 1961, the Vatican issued a directive mandating that bishops not ordain those with homosexual attractions to the priesthood. But many liberal bishops in both North America and Europe didn't listen. Indeed, it's clear now that some of these bishops were homosexuals themselves.

All this is spelled out quite clearly in Michael Rose's book, Goodbye, Good Men:



We've spent the past 20 years trying to undo the damage wrought by these evil prelates and the Vatican has been quietly replacing the bad guys with good guys. But Satan has done a thorough job. In some places, like Milwaukee, Albany, Rochester, and LA, the bad bishop was appointed as a relatively young man, giving him decades to destroy his diocese.

You would do well to pray for those who are called upon to succeed these bishops because they have a monumental clean-up task ahead of them. And pray also that such satanic influence doesn't infest your own sect.

[marshmallow]

What's scandalous is not how Weakland could rise to the position of Archbishop and do all this damage, while denying key points of Catholic teaching. What's scandalous is how he got the promotion. Who promoted him? Who was he accountable to, who was his overseer? Who left him in the position, and why?

The mystery of iniquity at work, Alex. The mystery of iniquity............

Since the time of Judas, the Church has always harbored in her bosom, betrayers, apostates, heretics, fornicators and sundry other malefactors.

That's probably not the answer you were looking for, though. Here's another. When Weakland got the job in '77 he was likely a little more discreet. He says he never acted on his sexual impulses until he became a bishop. That combined with the likely probability that he's been favored/protected by other like-minded members of the the Church hierarchy. It's not called "the lavender mafia" for nothing.

[Alex Murphy]

When Weakland got the job in '77 he was likely a little more discreet. He says he never acted on his sexual impulses until he became a bishop.

I'm actually not concerned here about whether his "sexual impulses" were acted upon or even known prior to his ascendency to the position of Archbishop. Rather, I'm questioning his "denial of key points of Catholic teaching." When did that begin? Why didn't the interview process catch it? I'm assuming that his denial preceded his "impulses" here.

Some time ago, IIRC I posting a thread with an interview of a priest who was part of your "lavender mafia." When asked how his group could justify their actions given their vows, his response was something like "we decided that it wasn't a sin." If I can find the thread, I will post a link.

[married21]

“the Church has always harbored in her bosom betrayers”

That’s what really hurts. As a friend of Jesus (though certainly no saint) it really bothers me to see people be so disloyal to Him. I think maybe Weakland loved the job of being a clergy member, loved being thought of as important, intelligent and good. I think he did not actually love the One that he was ostensibly serving. I know he thinks he is smarter than the (backward, narrow-minded) Church.

Loyalty and humility are the unsung virtues of our time. We need to pray for our leaders and/or become faithful and humble leaders ourselves.

[marshmallow]

I'm assuming that we're conversing here in good faith and that your amazement is real and not faux.Think back to the '70s for a moment, Alex. When Weakland got the job, the Church was in turmoil. The papacy of a suffering and very saddened Paul VI was reaching its end. Rebellion, novelty and confusion were everywhere.

To me, it would be amazing if he hadn't been given the job. Numerous bishops of dubious orthodoxy were appointed at this time. The papal emissary , Archbishop Jean Jadot (the guy doing the "interviews") was responsible for some awful appointments. There's a school of thought which lays the blame for much of the chaos in Catholic America at his door.

[Chesterbelloc]

Archbishop Jean Jadot was mostly responsible for suggesting the names of that batch of bad bishops. He died just a few months ago. Here is his obituary from the NY Times which gives a general overview of what he did in the 1970s:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/world/22jadot.html

[sockmonkey]

People I wish would shut the heck up:
Meghan McCain and Bishop Weakland

[massmike]

I think the Bible had something to say about “bishops” like this....

“In the last times some will turn away from the faith by paying attention to deceitful spirits and demonic instructions” 1 Timothy 4:1

“For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine,but,following their own desires and insatiable curiosity,will accumulate teachers and will stop listening to the truth and be diverted to myths” 2 Timothy 4:3-4

“Therefore,God is sending them a deceiving power so that they might believe the lie,that all who have not believed the truth but have approved wrongdoing may be condemned” 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12

“There will be false teachers among you,who will introduce destructive heresies and even deny the master who ransomed them,bringing swift destruction on themselves.Many will follow their licentious ways,and because of them the way of truth will be reviled” 2 Peter 2:1-2

“For even Satan masquerades as an angel of light.So it is not strange that his ministers also masquerade as ministers of righteousness” 2 Corinthians 11:14-15

“In the last days scoffers will come to scoff,living according to their own desires” 2 Peter 3:3

“These people are complainers,disgruntled ones who live by their desires;their mouths utter bombast as they fawn over people to gain advantage: Jude 1:16

[Desdemona]

Why do they have to dig up the ones we are better off without?

[Desdemona]

How does anyone who believes that ever become an archbishop to begin with?

Jean Jadot. He died recently, but we are still seeing the fruits of his placements 25+ years later.

[Terabitten]

To this it must be answered that God neither rejoices nor grows angry

I'm not sure if you meant your post to be in agreement or opposition to mine, Kolokotronis my brother. The idea that God neither feels joy nor anger is utterly unsupported by Scripture. God's joy and wrath are themes found throughout Holy Scripture - often from His own mouth.

[Kolokotronis]

“The idea that God neither feels joy nor anger is utterly unsupported by Scripture. God’s joy and wrath are themes found throughout Holy Scripture - often from His own mouth.”

“Very often many things are said by the Holy Scriptures and in it many names are used not in a literal sense... those who have a mind understand this” +Isaac the Syrian in Homily LXXXIII

And +Basil the Great says that the Scriptures say such things because “...fear edifies simpler people,...” and as +Gregory the Theologian sermonized in his 5th Theological Oration,

“For according to our own comprehension, we have given names from our own attributes to those of God.”

The Scriptures speak to us in terms we, as fallen creatures in a fallen world, can comprehend and so bring us to at least an appreciation, if not a complete understanding, of those things which exceed our nature.

[Landru]

>ping<

Just a FYI bub as I'm sure you couldn't have missed the disgrace resurfacing to shill his shameless life story which *somehow* in his shameless mind, justifies all.

Don't recall hearing whether or not the pathetic chicken hawk's been thrown out of the church, or not.

If he hasn't, the shame's now Rome's.

[dangus]

>> how bishops and the Vatican cared more about the rights of abusive priests than about their victims; <<

So this guy rapes a boy,
joins a “lavendar mafia” of boy-rapists to pervert the teachings of the church,
gets busted and ousted by the church,
defends his predatory lifestyle,
and complains the church did not do enough about the boy-rapists???

[dangus]

Read it again. This satanic pervert referred to “genital love.”

[starlifter]

Love the sinner, hate the sin...

[dangus]

You got that one right, actually. There was a strong notion in the 1970s that the entire Church was going to be further radically altered, and all sorts of doctrines would be amended. In essence, the Catholic Church would cease being Catholic. Many clergy figured if they agitated openly for specific changes, they wouldn't happen, but that if they cultivated the fields for changes, the Church might "evolve" their position. So, in the American church, all sorts of outrages took place, and the congregations were "cultivated" with all sorts of nonsense.

I've heard all sorts of varying reports as to the health and mental faculties of Pope Paul VI, who did not commit heresy, but absolutely horrifically failed to oppose such abominations. But these modern critics of John Paul II seem to have no sense of how far he brought the barque to being righted, or how bad things were before he came in. I also think he took some time in office to realize the extent of how bad things were, coming as he did from Communist Poland. For one thing, he admits he was too slow to respond to the sexual abuse crisis at first, because the Communists used slanders about homosexuality as a means of silencing political opposition. Nonetheless, by the early eighties, sexual abuse incidents were lower than they were at the conclusion of Vatican II, and by the late 80s, they were reduced by over 90%.

Almost all of the sexual abuse ended by 1990, before the American news media picked up on the story. And 80% of the sexual abuse was homosexual acts with adolescent men. True paedophilia was virtually unknown. So John Paul largely solved the problem before it was even known.

[kosta50]

The anthropomorphic OT concept of a God who is "insulted" and "hurt" and "upset" is so primitive it doesn't even belong in serious theology. But it serves a very pragmatic purpose for an average Joe or Jane.

OT passages where God has to "come down" and "see" what's going on in order to "know" is part of that same mindset. Naturally, all references to the OT God should be takes allegorically and not literally, lest we all succumb to an idea of a deity that resembles Zeus more than Christ.

[dangus]

Rebuke the sinner. Be ever willing to forgive, and welcome him back. But if he leads others into stray, condemn him as the demon he is.