The Washington Post displayed bad headline-writing technique on Saturday in religion coverage. The paper picked up a Religion News dispatch by Daniel Burke on retired Milwaukee Archbishop Rembert Weakland and his admission of homosexuality. The headline was "A Church Leader’s Unusual Confession." Weakland admitted he had violated his vow of celibacy and had homosexual relationships, but he did not "confess," since he wasn’t suggesting it was a grave sin and that he wanted to reject it.
Instead, Burke quotes from Weakland’s new book, about when his improper relationship with Paul Marcoux became public:
"It may seem strange, but I felt a new freedom, a sense of being liberated for the first time," Weakland writes. "It had become public knowledge that my orientation was homosexual. There was nothing more to hide; no one could do anything more to me. I was free."
That’s hardly in line with Catholic teaching on homosexuality, which is defined as a mortal sin that a man or woman should confess and repent and pledge to do no more. The orientation, if not acted upon, is not the problem. Engaging in intercourse, as the Archbishop did, is the grave sin.
The main scolds in Burke's story are lobbyists against the horror of priest sex abuse. They're still unhappy with the archbishop's spotty record on sexually abusive priests. There's no one who really brings a classic conservative case against how morally compromised Weakland became.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
This is just more of the
June 14, 2009 - 05:55 ET by motherbeltThis is just more of the liberal pap about how repressive and regressive the Catholic Church is. The eponymous Weakland was never free to be himself.
Finally, at the end of the article, came what I was thinking as I read it:
Isely drew a connection between Weakland's affair with Marcoux and the way he handled cases of priests accused of molestation.
"If you're admitting that you were having a secret sex life," Isely
said, "then of course you're going to be covering up for other people
with sexual misconduct."
BTW, I know I'm sometimes naive about these things, but how does a man in his 30's get sexually abused? Was Marcoux just jumping on the "priestly abuse" bandwagon?
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
Amazing, isn't it...
June 14, 2009 - 09:11 ET by geokster...how the issues of rampant homosexuality in the Catholic priesthood and the molestation of underage boys by priests are loudly proclaimed by the left to be two separate and totally unrelated issues. Homosexuals make up a majority of the priesthood, according to knowledgeable sources, but absolutely none of the abusive priests are gay.
Priests who prey on young boys exclusively are pedophiles, you see, not homosexuals, so this can be blamed only on sick heterosexual priests, in spite of flying in the face of common sense. Therefore the left can be outraged in public about the rape of minors perpetrated by one of their own favored victim groups.
More Orwellian doublethink Newspeak. 1984 here we come.
As a Catholic living in the
June 14, 2009 - 19:37 ET by moderncommentaries83As a Catholic living in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, a lot (read: all but the most uber-progressive "Catholics") are disgusted with Weakland and wish he'd just go away. Preferably to jail, mind you, but away nonetheless. For me, it's revolting that he waited until we had no Archbishop until he released the book. Our former Archbishop, Timothy Dolan, is now Archbishop of New York and was a great, orthodox, and affable leader who came to Milwaukee having to clean up a big mess. He certainly left us in better shape than when he came but his work here was not done (in my opinion). The difference in the attitude of the diocese (theologically liberal v. conservative) and the results of that orthodoxy show in the number of seminarians, which increased greatly under Dolan's watch and had been in decline with Weakland (could it have been because faithful men didn't want to be priests under such a feckless, and faithless, leader?)
To be as fair as I can be, from what I can tell, Weakland's personal affairs were with adults. This doesn't make it moral or right or approrpriate, and it in no way excuses Weakland's complacency in the face of abuse, but he does deserve to have his crimes aired accurately.
That being said, Weakland is not a prime example of what happens because of Catholicsm's teachings on homosexuality, chastity, or the all-male priesthood. It isn't. Because, if it was, sexual abuse would only exist in the Catholic Church which has all three teachings, and nowhere else in the world (hello, Los Angeles United School District).
Weakland is a prime example of what happens when you take the "Spirit of Vatican II", throw out the actual documents, and create a modern, progressive cafeteria-Catholicism where the motto is "I'm Okay, You're Okay" no matter what position of sin people find themselves in. Weakland - and the sex abuse scandal - are what happens when you attempt to downplay, or undermine, or outright ignore Catholic teaching. In other words, Wealkand is a prime example of what happens when Catholics listen to liberals and the media, and attempt to appease them.
I say, "NO MORE."
I understand that the Church tries to be concilliatory and understanding of Her enemies. Christ's compassion and all that. And while we don't have to become brutal and certainly won't resort to violence, there's a reason why the Church here on earth is sometimes call the Church Militant. It's high time we started acting more like it.
I'd like to see bishops enforce Catholic teaching. A good place to start would really enforcing the strictures on communion against Catholic politicians who support abortion. Next would be getting rebel parishes (i.e. Fr. Pfleger) in line with the Vatican and asking colleges/universities or orgnaizations that call themselves "Catholic" to either act Catholic or cease labeling themselves as such. I'd like to see the Vatican (which runs like Ents, I get it) create an office full of tech-savvy, orthodoxy laity who know how to 1) use the Internet and 2) how to deal with media firestorms that can pass out
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
Thanks for writing
June 14, 2009 - 20:59 ET by Tim GrahamI have a soft spot for a guy named Timothy Dolan, which is my first name and my mother's maiden name. He really seems to be an inspiring and orthodox figure, someone who fits Chesterton's "adventure of orthodoxy" framework.
I was especially interested in your report on how the number of seminarians increased in Dolan's term. The liberal media constantly suggest the church needs to liberalize to gain vocations, but it may be exactly the opposite. That's certainly been true here in the Diocese of Arlington.
You're welcome
June 15, 2009 - 09:10 ET by moderncommentaries83Although I don't know know the rest of my comment got cut off.
My report about the number of seminarians is not unique to Milwaukee. My husband, who did at one time consider a vocation to the priesthood and is still considering a calling to the deaconate, knows many religious orders and religious/clergy. In places where the religious orders are orthodox, they are getting so many new vocations they cannot build housing fast enough to accomodate them.
On the other hand, orders that are more liberal and progressive are aging, graying, and dying out.
I've had many a liberal argue that if the Church was "truthful" about what she teaches (which, by and large, she is), that we'd bleed members and fade out. I contend that the exact opposite is true. In fact, one book - Michael S. Rose's Goodbye, Good Men - is a good starting point in what happened in seminaries that led to the sex abuse scandals and how people like Weakland got where they were.
People may go to a liberal, "non-judgmental" church for a while, perhaps even regularly at first. But if you go to a church seeking a relationship with God but hear nothing but the "I'm Okay, You're Okay" affirmations that make church a social club rather than a place of worship, it gets exhausting and, frankly, boring, after a while. You might as well put your own picture on the altar because it becomes all about the "ME" and not about a higher purpose. And then it becomes a case of "what's the point?" What's the point in getting up on Sundays to hear people tell me that everything I do is fine?
And Christ didn't mince words. Christ was, no doubt, disappointed by those who left Him when - for example - He talked about eating His flesh and drinking His blood (the Eucharist) and people thought He was talking about cannibalism, but he knew that was their choice. He taught what He needed to and people still followed Him. If that was good enough for Jesus, it should be good enough for us.
I'm just tired of the media, and liberals, many of whom either 1) don't practice or care for Catholicism or Christianity or 2) practice a warped interpretation thereof tell those of us who actuall read the Bible, the Catechism, and understand the Church's teachings that we're wrong and need to change. I'm not going to hold my tongue anymore.
Also, I should add that to anyone in the Milwaukee diocese, Weakland's revelation was not really a surprise.
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam