Posted on 03/29/2010 2:17:12 PM PDT by MinorityRepublican
A Roman Catholic archbishop who resigned in 2002 over a sex and financial scandal involving a man has written a memoir that describes how he struggled with being gay.
Archbishop Rembert Weakland, former head of the Milwaukee archdiocese, "is up front about his homosexuality in a church that preferred to ignore gays," Publisher's Weekly wrote in a review Monday.
The book, "A Pilgrim in a Pilgrim Church: Memoirs of a Catholic Archbishop," is set to be released in June and is described by the publisher as a self-examination by Weakland of his "psychological, spiritual and sexual growth."
The Vatican says that men with "deep-seated" attraction to other men should not be ordained.
Weakland stepped down quickly after Paul Marcoux, a former Marquette University theology student, revealed in May 2002 that he was paid $450,000 to settle a sexual assault claim he made against the archbishop more than two decades earlier. The money came from the archdiocese.
Marcoux went public at the height of anger over the clergy sex abuse crisis, when Catholics and others were demanding that dioceses reveal the extent of molestation by clergy and how much had been confidentially spent to settle claims.
Weakland denied ever assaulting anyone. He apologized for concealing the payment.
In an August 1980 letter that was obtained by the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, Weakland said he was in emotional turmoil over Marcoux and signed the letter, "I love you."
"During the last months, I have come to know how strained I was, tense, pensive, without much joy," Weakland wrote. "I felt like the world's worst hypocrite. So gradually I came back to the importance of celibacy in my life."
The revelations rocked the Milwaukee archdiocese, which Weakland had led since 1977. But when he publicly read a letter of apology for the scandal, Milwaukee parishioners gave him a a standing ovation.
The Archdiocese of Milwaukee released a public statement last week alerting local Catholics that the book is soon to be published and that it deals in part with Weakland's relationship with Marcoux and the scandal.
"Some people will be angry about the book, others will support it," the archdiocese said.
Weakland, who has been a hero for liberal Catholics because of his work on social justice and other issues, will also address in the memoirs his failures to stop abusive priests.
In a videotaped deposition released last November, Weakland admitted returning guilty priests to active ministry without alerting parishioners or police.
Advocates for abuse victims said that Weakland's cover up of his own sexual activity was part of a pattern of secrecy that included concealing the criminal behavior of child molesters.
The archbishop did not respond Monday to an e-mail request for comment. Weakland, a Benedictine, plans to move to St. Mary's Abbey in Morristown, N.J., this summer.
U.S. Catholics have long debated whether the priesthood had become a predominantly gay vocation. Estimates vary from 25 percent to 50 percent, according to a review of research on the issue by the Rev. Donald Cozzens, author of "The Changing Face of the Priesthood."
Cozzens, a former seminary rector, said in an interview that Weakland's acknowledgment of his sexual orientation "cuts into the denial that relatively few priests or bishops are gay."
But Russell Shaw, a former spokesman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, questioned whether the book would have much impact.
"That one controversial archbishop acknowledges what everybody's known for several years," Shaw said, "I don't think that's going to make any big difference."
I struggle with being happy all the time..........
>> I have had my differences with the church over the last few years, so I tend to stay out of these threads.
You should’ve gone with your first instinct. I never mentioned pedophilia.
SnakeDoc
“I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but the life of a solitary pastor, caring for as many as two thousand souls, with no fellow priests and no spouse, has become very, very hard.”
It has always been so, and yet the principle remains the same. A priest must be faithful. A priest must be willing to give up his life in the flesh for a life in the faith.
“Not that it was ever easy - but your prescription to increase radically the demands on each priest”
How am I changing anything. You say I am making radical demands on the priests by calling them to uphold the vows that they made to the Church. I am not changing anything, simply asking that they remain faithful to these vows for the rest of their life.
“while further isolating him from his fellow priests,”
On the contrary. A parish which preaches the word of Christ and lives the word will find vocations. You are basically saying that the Word is not enough, when such is not the case. Yes, we could be easy, but people are not looking for the easy way. And even if they did, would we want them?
I’ll say again, it is not the number of priests, but the quality that is important. We must have faithful priests.
dang, you’re good
The word is pariagein, which means ‘to lead about’.
“Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well
as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and
Cephas?”
The NIV doesn’t do a very good job in some places.
Rembutt was a disgrace to the priesthood.
>> The word is pariagein, which means ‘to lead about’. “Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?” The NIV doesn’t do a very good job in some places.
OK. Your re-translation doesn’t really change the word “wife”, though.
SnakeDoc
Rembutt did not give up.
Present tense in the verb.
“Have we not the right to lead about,” etc. And that’s all Paul is arguing here. That they have the right, even if they do not do so.
what is matthew 8:14 in latin?
He’s not talking about taking a wife along for a mission journey. He’s talking about the ability to lead.
“Have we not power to lead about a sister-woman, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?”
Also works as well. The word used here is adelphos guneika which could also be rendered as sister-woman.
The greek word you are looking for is pentheran which means ‘mother in law’.
The whole verse:
“And when Jesus was come into Peter’s house, he saw his
mother-in-law laying down, and sick of a fever.”
I’m not contesting he was married. But there’s no evidence that his wife was in fact alive at the time he became an Apostle.
“I’m not contesting he was married. But there’s no evidence that his wife was in fact alive at the time he became an Apostle.”
There was when Paul wrote letter to the Corinthians.
And if you don’t believe that where in the Bible does it say otherwise?
No, there wasn’t. I’m sorry. I’ve already examined the passages you quoted, and I think that sister woman is a better translation here than wife.
This is a problem with the vernacular, an English translation cannot take precedence over the words as they were written.
well if Matthew 8 talks about Peter having a wife and Corinthians talks about Peter having a wife then I’d say the Bible is saying Peter had a wife after Christ’s resurrection and that Peter was married.
No, that’s not what Matthew 8 says.
All Matthew 8 says is that Jesus went into the house of Peter’s mother in law.
Yet, we don’t hear anything about his wife? Why was his wife not accompanying Peter and Christ to the house of her mother?
At the very least the only thing you can assume from Matthew 8 is that at some point Peter was married. We do not know that she was still alive at the time. Nowhere is her name recorded in scripture, unlike many of the other people.
As for Corinthians, I’m not sure the passage is referring to Peter’s wife. It’s not as an unambiguous passage as the one in Matthew 8.
If that’s all the evidence you have for your position that Peter’s wife was alive when he was an Apostle, then I’m sorry, you haven’t convinced me that you have correctly interpreted scripture.
if i wasn’t married to my husband his mother at that point wouldn’t be my mother in law
Indeed, he was married to his wife. :)
Thanks for confirming that we are still on the same page here.
and there is a scripture somewhere in the NT (don’t test me please) that says you can’t take away from or add to it and it still remain the word
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.