Who him?
William K. Weigand Bishop of Sacramento
I dunno. When was the last time he was on TV? Every time I've seen him on TV or a public appearance, he seems to be a pretty straight talker. Not a PC mush mouth.
Posted on 09/22/2005 8:04:38 AM PDT by bornacatholic
Abuse.... I have held off on addressing The Scandal in any serious depth for a number of reasons. However, seeing the report on Philadelphia today, I've changed my mind. I think I will lay it all out.
Now, unlike some others, when I used to work for the Church, I was privy to knowing certain lawyers who worked on this issue almost full time. It was never my impression that the issue of sexual abuse of post-pubescent children, particularly boys, was as widespread as it turned out to be. In fact, I honestly thought it wasn't nearly so bad. However, talking to these lawyers today, it seems they only dealt with the worst cases.
On a more personal note, I have another long-time friend who represented an unnamed diocese. His descriptions of what he would be forced to defend were almost unbelieveable to me. In the end, he left the Church after having his faith completely destroyed. I pray for him every day.
Now, why do I think the problem is as great as it is? It primarilly goes back to the issue of Fatherhood. Many Priests aren't practicing it, aren't interested in it, and are unable to relate to regular men in any sort of way. They want to be caring, sympathetic, empathetic, loving, etc. In an of itself, there is nothing wrong with these qualities. However, these qualities are oftentimes held above other qualities that are proper, integral, and constituative to fatherhood: strength, honesty, fortitude, directness, etc. The active avoidance of these qualities is an active denial of the generative properties of fatherhood qua fatherhood. In many ways, it is contraceptive (c.f. definition of capere) in nature. Men make, men do, men generate. The qualities that are inverse to that are passive in nature, and more usually much more associated with motherhood (though still a part of fatherhood).
Now, where am I going with this? Sexuality.
Now, do I blame all of The Scandal on homosexuality? No. I blame The Scandal on disordered sexual identities. Yes, over 80% of the abuse was male on male, but there was also abuse relating to females. My point being, this abuse is always related to disordered sexual personae, in direct opposition to the qualities that differentiate fatherhood. Really, would any good father abuse either girl or boy? No.
Now, is a great part of the scandal related directly to homosexuality? Yes. Homosexuality is fundamentally a disorder in the personality of a person. This is not to say that a great many homosexual Priests have not lived chaste lives. This is to admit a simple fact. Homosexuality played a large, though not complete, role in The Scandal.
Now let me tell a little story. Twice, when I worked for the Church, I had Priests come on to me. I was in my twenties at that time. I was sickened by both incidents. Yes... one was your typical liberal, and one was your typical neo-con. Doctrine didn't matter in either case. When I reported it, it was made clear to me that I should handle it myself. I did. (Sexual harrasment law at that time, and to a large extent today, still doesn't acknowledge the possibility of same sex harrassment.) In both cases, these Priests seemed to have only female friends (other than their fellow Priests), the neo-con being obsessed with lace and a female adoration group, and the liberal being obsessed with ecumenism and womyn liturgy. They both lacked any leadership qualities, and most of the men where I worked wanted nothing to do with them. They showed no inclination toward strength, directness, honesty, fortitude, etc. They were, for all purposes, better sisters to the females than they could have ever been a Father.
This problem affects both the left, middle and the right of the Church. And, I believe, The Scandal is really only indicative of most of the Church's other problems. Almost all of the other problems, when you really look at them, are related to a lack of Fatherhood.
I will always remember when one Bishop stood up and spoke to others in the room, and asked the question, "How can we be so far apart, in our views, from our own people?" He was speaking of the death penalty at that particular meeting. He made explicit note that while we sent all of our Priests with pedo/ephebophilia problems to St. Luke's, et al., that the vast majority of the Catholics when polled (in the U.S.) wanted the death penalty for pedo/ephebophiles. He wasn't speaking about the legitimacy of the death penalty; he was asking how the Bishops grew so far apart from their flock. (Note: This is not to say that polling legitimates the death penalty, etc. I accept the teaching of the Catechism.)
His answer to his own question?
The Bishops had not led. They had not been men. They had not modeled Christ. They had not been fathers.
He was shouted down by a couple of other people (all clergy) in the room.
oh, never mind...
America has been totally feminized and one sees his Bishop as a smiling politician unwilling to offend man; but not, apparently, God. One sees his Bishop glad-handing everyone, praising everything; one never hears his Bishop Teaching and Ruling in Public, denouncing evil and praising virtue:and, denouncing BY NAME the men engaged in evil and praising BY NAME the men engaged in virtue. One can see his Bishop Sanctifying at the local Cathedral; but, in public? Please. In America we are taught religion is private and sex is public.
OK, rant over.
I did think this was an interesting take on the issue and especially revealing was the fear and trepidation about Bishops acting like men.
** Yes. Homosexuality is fundamentally a disorder in the personality of a person.**
Worth repeating!
That's so ....
so ....
judgemental!!!
How could you!
Here's my summary of the response. We've done a lot of good. Blah blah blah. It's only a small minority of priests. Blah blah blah. We're requiring all our volunteer laity to attend training in how not to molest children. Blah blah blah. We're being unfairly targeted. Catholic bashing. Blah blah blah. We never let a priest with a clinical diagnosis of pedophilia or ephebophilia back into a parish. Blah blah blah. What's important to note in that last set of blah blahs is that the archdiocese is implicitly admitting they sent known abusers back into ministry with children if the sicko's primary diagnosis was alcoholism, etc.
Philly.com tells us that a letter from Cardinal Rigali will be read at all the masses this weekend. Let's hope he does a better job in his letter at accepting responsibility for the converup than he did in the 72 page statement put out by his lawyers at Stradley.
Who him?
William K. Weigand Bishop of Sacramento
I dunno. When was the last time he was on TV? Every time I've seen him on TV or a public appearance, he seems to be a pretty straight talker. Not a PC mush mouth.
heartening news, brother
I think he's also making reasonable attempts at prevention (from the diocesan website):
These on-going policies and practices include:
¨ A “zero tolerance” policy for clergy, church workers and volunteers. No one with a credible complaint of sexual abuse against them will be permitted to remain in ministry in the Diocese of Sacramento.
¨ Mandatory reporting of any accusation to law enforcement.
¨ An annual compliance audit to insure that diocesan policies and practices meet or exceed the standards established in the Charter and the Essential Norms adopted by the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops
¨ An Independent Review Board to evaluate complaints and advise the Bishop on an accused person’s fitness for ministry.
¨ Enhanced screening for seminarians, including a second round of testing immediately prior to ordination, fingerprinting and criminal background checks prior to acceptance to the seminary or formation in the diaconate.
¨ Enhanced screening and background checks for priests and others who transfer into the diocese.
¨ Special training for clergy, church workers and volunteers to help identify and report possible instances of abuse.
¨ Fingerprinting of all diocesan clergy, church workers and volunteers in positions that bring them into contact with children.
I figger'd you'd like that. ;'}
Isn't this interesting? He's describing the most basic characteristic of sex roles, male and female, in modern Western society. Most men reject fatherhood, and most women reject motherhood, consistently, by their daily decision to contracept, or their final decision for sterilization.
Why should we be surprised that priests and Bishops, even heterosexual ones, would lack the basic courage and virility to father?
How manly and virile can he be while dressed in the episcopal garb forced on him by medieval convention? Get rid of the lace rochets, cappa magnas, mitres and such, and you might give him a fighting chance.
Elsewhere someone mentions the feminization of America being a problem; the Catholic Church has been struggling with that burden for centuries. Short of the Broadway stage, a homosexual couldn't find a better costuming option than Holy Mother Church.
LOL I hear ya, brother. Yet John Paul the Great's virility and manliness was such that even in his military uniform Jaruzelski quailed and quaked and appeared girlish when standing next to the Pope.
Ever see the Bishop Fulton Sheen re-runs? He was quite manly.
A real man wouldn't let trappings bother him. The manliness would show right through. Think of kilts.
And, by the way, lace wasn't fashionable on a man until the 16th century and really didn't disappear until the later part of the 19th.
I agree ... but I still think the lace outfits look like they just decided to dress in the curtains, today.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.