Archbishop Rembert Weakland

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

I often avoid politics and religion - I assume I create enought controversy as it is, but I have read avidly the comments from others about Cardinal Law as well as the other posts regarding the priest/sex abuse scandal. I remain curious (and surprised) that no one has given their take in our community about Archbishop Weakland of Milwaukee (or did I simply miss it?)

 

He was a very liberal priest, fighting for women and gays, openess in the Church and most interesting in his story, his downfall arose from the payment to settle a case against a 30 year old man, not an underage or mentally handicapped male, with whom Weakland was apparently in love and with whom he shared an allegedly consensual relationship.

 

As a former alter boy but most assuredly lapsed Catholic, I would enjoy everyone's take on this particular instance.

[Will]

As today is Sunday and the first NYTimes article I read was Friday of last week, I am here to tell you that I have been preoccupied with this business for nine straight days. It seems clear that Rembert Weakland's enemies have been working for some time, trying to find a "smoking pistol" that could bring him down. The pistol turned out to be the creep from Montreal who showed up on ABC Thursday morning and alleged what he alleged. It is ironic that that very week, ABC's NIGHTLINE was running that series called "A Matter of Choice?", but apparently Diane Sawyer and Ted Koppel don't choose the same standards of responsible journalism.

 

It just happens that I have known and admired Archbishop Rembert Weakland for over thirty years. Although I haven't seen him since he went to Milwaukee, I have followed his career with wonder and admiration. Everything he did as Archbishop of Milwaukee was of a piece with his actions as Abbot Primate of the Order of St Benedict, to which he was elected at about the age of 41. During the years he lived in Rome as Abbot Primate, the thugs in the Vatican became more and more disturbed by the fact that he is an intellectual, a champion of justice, and a fiercely independent-minded person. That's why they shipped him off to Milwaukee, as it was probably the one archdiocese (they couldn't make him less than an archbishop) in the United States impossible to pronounce in Italian.

 

The NYTimes published the letter that Fr Rembert wrote to Paul Marcoux in, I think, 1980, making several things clear: (1) there was some kind of relationship between the two men that in Weakland's mind compromised his promise (not vow -- monks and most priests do not take vows of celibacy) of celibacy; (2) that whatever the relationship was, from Weakland's side it was full of love; (3) that Marcoux had asked Weakland to support some kind of life-of-Jesus video project with archdiocesan funds; (4) that Marcoux had made Weakland's complying with the request for money a "proof" of love; (5) that Weakland was not going to use archdiocesan money, but instead gave Marcoux every penny he had in the world, which was $14,000. This letter makes a few other things clear as well: (1) the money was Weakland's own private possession; (2) it was not "hush" money; and (3) Marcoux was 31 years old at the time and could hardly claim to be a "victim" of improper sexual advances, as though he were not a consenting adult.

 

Almost twenty years later, in 1998, here he is again, with his hand out. Foolish as it may have been for Weakland to pay him off, the deal was contractural and therefore required the presence of an attorney. Marcoux broke the terms when he went on ABC.

 

And the impassioned, 11-page letter written by hand twenty years earlier by a man in such obvious agony that it is difficult even now to read it? Marcoux kept it, despite the fact that the terms of the 1998 settlement required him to return all correspondence.

 

And what did he do with the letter? There seems to be some reason to suppose that he sold it to very powerful right-wing Catholics, one of whom may even be an American bishop, who have been trying to silence Weakland for three decades.

 

It's the most revolting instance I've ever encountered of a calculated, vicious program to murder somebody morally. And the fact that the conspirators are almost certainly Catholics themselves makes it all the more appalling to people like me. I'm reminded of J. Edgar Hoover's attempts to "get" Martin Luther King, Jr. -- and all the other Civil Rights leaders -- in the 1960s. In this case, of course, the stakes are not "Godless Communism" but the faith-life of thousands of people. And imagine the fallout on Catholic teens who are confused about their own sexuality. And so forth and so on.

 

It's not for nothing that in scenes of the Last Judgment, every Renaissance artist -- even Fra Angelico, who was a Dominican priest himself -- showed nuns and monks, priests, bishops and popes writhing in the torments of hell right alongside the other unrepentant sinners.

 

I am by no means a "lapsed" Catholic. On the contrary, I practice my Catholicism just like I practice my homosexuality, and I do not intend to stop practicing either one. Not only does it suit me to be a Catholic, at the moment it gives me a lot of pleasure. I am sure that the Nazis in the hierarchy would be happy if dissidents like me would just "lapse" and go off into the woods. I don't plan to do that. Not only do I not want to lapse, I'm too pissed off to lapse. No, I intend to stick around and continue to be a real pain in their sanctimonious, hypocritical asses. Baby, you ain't seen nothing yet!

[Chuck50]

Les I heard it as well. I have my suspicisons but they are only that. can he be from DC or LA? HUgs Chuck

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>I am by no means a "lapsed" Catholic. On the contrary, I

>practice my Catholicism just like I practice my

>homosexuality, and I do not intend to stop practicing either

>one. Not only does it suit me to be a Catholic, at the

>moment it gives me a lot of pleasure. I am sure that the

>Nazis in the hierarchy would be happy if dissidents like me

>would just "lapse" and go off into the woods. I don't plan

>to do that. Not only do I not want to lapse, I'm too pissed

>off to lapse. No, I intend to stick around and continue to

>be a real pain in their sanctimonious, hypocritical asses.

>Baby, you ain't seen nothing yet!

 

 

Very interesting post Will. If I may make a couple of comments.........

 

I think there is little doubt that Marcoux is an opportunist (to put it politely). If the AB gave his own $14K that is nobody's business but his. However it is difficult to explain the logic behind the documented payment of $450K. That is a huge sume of money by any standards and I don't think anyone will accept that it was given for any other reason than as "hush money"

 

It has been my experience that many Catholics fail to see things very clearly when it comes to matters pertaining to their religion. They seem to suffer from "selective vision" and tend to believe what the church would have them believe. And as history has shown us, the Catholic Church would have difficulty in passing a polygraph test on many subjects.

 

You sound as if you intend to become more vocal on this subject in the future. Do you realistically feel you can make a differance in the overall scheme of things? And if so - what do you think you can accomplish?

 

Thunderbuns

[Guest alanm]

I have much sympathy for Archbishop Weakland. I also agree with many of Will's comments. However, I can not blame a right-wing cabal

for Weakland's resignation. How can anyone justify the $450,000 payment to Marcoux? If someone has information that justifies the

payment, please bring it forward.

 

I worked for a Catholic Chaplain in the Army at Fort Dix and Viernam from 1967-99. He had a girlfriend, whom I really liked. I fully supported the relationship. Had I know Marcoux and Weakland during their relationship, I would have also been supportive.

 

If I remember correctly Weakland was one of the last members of the American hierarchy to be appointed before Pope John Paul II. I do

agree that his liberal views ,which I support, made him a target for all the conservatives who have done very well under this pope. But, none of that excuses the $450,000 payment to Marcoux. I believe that Will's person friendship with Weakland has comprised his objectivity.

[Guest Les]

Hi Will, :7

The other day I heard Bill O'Rielly say that there is a cardinal that is in a current homosexual relationship with another adult male and this will be shortly exposed in the media. Any clues to which one?

Take care, Les

[+ deej]

<<It has been my experience that many Catholics fail to see things very clearly when it comes to matters pertaining to their religion. They seem to suffer from "selective vision">>

 

Oh, be careful how you throw that one around, babe. It can be applied to most of humanity in one way or another.

 

It could easily be said that you have "selective vision" in your views on Catholics, f'rinstance. ;-)

 

It's a very human condition. It's very common. As gay men, aren't we a little tired of "selective vision" being applied to *US*?

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>Oh, be careful how you throw that one around, babe. It can

>be applied to most of humanity in one way or another.

>

>It could easily be said that you have "selective vision" in

>your views on Catholics, f'rinstance. ;-)

 

OK then - let's omit the words "selective vision". The point I was trying to get across is that it is well documented that the Catholic Church desires to control the thinking of their flock. Believe what we tell you, and don't try to think for yourself. Do as we say, not as we do.

 

Several months ago I posted a message about the church as it was reported in a book called "In God's Name" If anyone wants to have an inside look at the "goings on" inside the Vatican - give it a read. Of course, if you happen to be Catholic, you aren't allowed to read it. Hmmmm wonder why? Oh yes - I forgot - you aren't supposed to think for yourself!

 

>It's a very human condition. It's very common. As gay men,

>aren't we a little tired of "selective vision" being applied

>to *US*?

 

I don't think this has anything to do with what we are discussing here, especially if we agree to delete the words "selective vision"

 

Thunderbuns

[+ deej]

>especially if we agree to delete the words

>"selective vision"

 

Ummmm ... ok.

 

For the record, we DON'T agree to delete those words.

 

YOU mentioned it, and when the spotlight was shined back on YOU, you decided "let's delete those words". Very convenient for you.

 

Selective vision can't be ignored, and you cannot ignore that you have it too. In fact, asking for it to be ignored is a form of selective vision.

 

Selective vision is very real and anyone who claims it isn't AND THAT THEY'RE NOT GUILTY OF IT is wrong.

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>>especially if we agree to delete the words

>>"selective vision"

>

>Ummmm ... ok.

>

>For the record, we DON'T agree to delete those words.

>

>YOU mentioned it, and when the spotlight was shined back on

>YOU, you decided "let's delete those words". Very convenient

>for you.

>

>Selective vision can't be ignored, and you cannot ignore

>that you have it too. In fact, asking for it to be ignored

>is a form of selective vision.

>

>Selective vision is very real and anyone who claims it isn't

>AND THAT THEY'RE NOT GUILTY OF IT is wrong.

 

Thunderbuns

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>>especially if we agree to delete the words

>>"selective vision"

>

>Ummmm ... ok.

>

>For the record, we DON'T agree to delete those words.

>

>YOU mentioned it, and when the spotlight was shined back on

>YOU, you decided "let's delete those words". Very convenient

>for you.

>

>Selective vision can't be ignored, and you cannot ignore

>that you have it too. In fact, asking for it to be ignored

>is a form of selective vision.

>

>Selective vision is very real and anyone who claims it isn't

>AND THAT THEY'RE NOT GUILTY OF IT is wrong.

 

Deej - Don't make me stamp my foot!

 

You're being an ass!

 

You know damn well the point I'm trying to make. If it will make you happy - I'll repeat all the points of my original post in totally different wording. My point(s) however will still be the same.

 

Were you a priest in a former life? :-)

 

Thunderbuns

[Will]

>OK then - let's omit the words "selective vision". The point

>I was trying to get across is that it is well documented

>that the Catholic Church desires to control the thinking of

>their flock. Believe what we tell you, and don't try to

>think for yourself. Do as we say, not as we do.

>

>Several months ago I posted a message about the church as it

>was reported in a book called "In God's Name" If anyone

>wants to have an inside look at the "goings on" inside the

>Vatican - give it a read. Of course, if you happen to be

>Catholic, you aren't allowed to read it. Hmmmm wonder why?

>Oh yes - I forgot - you aren't supposed to think for

>yourself!

 

Having been down this path before, I knew ahead of time that it is well-trodden. Which is the major reason I did not post on this topic until it had already appeared as a thread. It is also the reason why I now regret that I took the bait in the first place. I make the same mistake again and again, namely, the mistake of assuming that even free-wheeling queers can acknowledge that a person can be sane, intelligent, independent-minded, well-educated, sophisticated and, yes, gay as well as choosing to consider himself religious, even, believe it or not, Catholic.

 

Obviously, I seem incapable of remembering that on M4M -- as well as other supposedly libertarian venues -- where the Catholic Church is concerned there is absolutely no possibility of discussion, at least with non-Catholics. As Thunderbuns so kindly reminds us, I am supposed to remember that we already know that the oldest continuous institution in Western civilization is run by a bunch of heartless control freaks whose only purpose in life is to feed misinformation and superstition to gullible, dull-witted fools like me. I don't seem able to remember that one can't have a conversation with people who already know everything about the Catholic Church from (a) their own bitter experiences pre-lapse or (b) from the unimpeachable authority of tell-all books like "In God's Name."

 

For that reason, I will only say for the record that I find the following statement absurd, insulting, and so insufferably simple-minded as not to bear further comment: "it is well known that the Catholic Church desires to control the thinking of their flock."

 

Where matters of religion and sexuality are concerned, one of the many tragedies of intractable prejudice is that real human beings pay, in pain and suffering, for the bigotry of others. And that goes for the bigots on the left as well as the bigots on the right.

 

Having now thrown this little fit of pique over the frustrating impossibility of reasoned, civil discourse about this kind of subject on M4M, I withdraw from public participation in this thread. If there should be someone out there who actually wants to discuss these matters and not merely to reiterate inarguable cliches, then I'd be happy to do so in the privacy of personal messages.

[Will]

I don't know anything about it. I'm not interested in the cloak-and-dagger stuff. Why Weakland was foolish enough to pay out $450K I'll never know. He must have been frightened out of his wits, perhaps for reasons we'll never know.

[+ deej]

>Deej - Don't make me stamp my foot!

 

Don't make me stamp mine.

 

>You're being an ass!

 

Name calling won't make you popular hon. And it *might* get you moderated.

 

>You know damn well the point I'm trying to make.

 

Yes, I do. You said this:

 

<<It has been my experience that many Catholics fail to see things very clearly when it comes to matters pertaining to their religion. They seem to suffer from "selective vision">>

 

I called you on it and you squirmed.

 

>Were you a priest in a former life? :-)

 

No, but I've had more than a few guys on their knees in my lifetime. ;-)

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>>You're being an ass!

>

>Name calling won't make you popular hon. And it *might* get

>you moderated.

 

I hardly think calling someone an ass is name calling. Some might even consider it a term of endearment.

 

Thunderbuns

[+ deej]

>I hardly think calling someone an ass is name calling. Some

>might even consider it a term of endearment.

 

I'll take it that way this time, sweetheart.

 

If you'll bend over.... }>

[Guest Thunderbuns]

<I make the same mistake again

>and again, namely, the mistake of assuming that even

>free-wheeling queers can acknowledge that a person can be

>sane, intelligent, independent-minded, well-educated,

>sophisticated and, yes, gay as well as choosing to consider

>himself religious, even, believe it or not, Catholic.

 

Every thing you say in the above paragraph is correct. Who ever said it was not possible to be all of the above? I didn't.

 

>Obviously, I seem incapable of remembering that on M4M -- as

>well as other supposedly libertarian venues -- where the

>Catholic Church is concerned there is absolutely no

>possibility of discussion, at least with non-Catholics.

 

Discussion IS possible. What is not acceptable are opinions that differ from those of Catholics.

 

>As Thunderbuns so kindly reminds us, I am supposed to remember

>that we already know that the oldest continuous institution

>in Western civilization is run by a bunch of heartless

>control freaks whose only purpose in life is to feed

>misinformation and superstition to gullible, dull-witted

>fools like me.

 

You said it, not me - I never called you a gullible, dull-witted fool.

 

>I don't seem able to remember that one can't

>have a conversation with people who already know everything

>about the Catholic Church from (a) their own bitter

>experiences pre-lapse or (b) from the unimpeachable

>authority of tell-all books like "In God's Name."

 

If the information in "In God's Name" was false, the Church would have been able to stop the publication and distribution of this book by legal means. This has not happened. It has been in print and in circulation for well over 12 years now. All the Church has done is to forbid it's members to read it. If that isn't trying to stop them thinking for themselves, I don't know what is.

 

>For that reason, I will only say for the record that I find

>the following statement absurd, insulting, and so

>insufferably simple-minded as not to bear further comment:

>"it is well known that the Catholic Church desires to

>control the thinking of their flock."

 

It is a simple statement but that does not make it simple minded. The Catholic Church is a business, first & formost. Their product just happens to be religion. Nothing is permitted in this religion that will adversly affect their bottom line.

>

>Where matters of religion and sexuality are concerned, one

>of the many tragedies of intractable prejudice is that real

>human beings pay, in pain and suffering, for the bigotry of

>others. And that goes for the bigots on the left as well as

>the bigots on the right.

 

Now what does all of the above mean?

>

>Having now thrown this little fit of pique over the

>frustrating impossibility of reasoned, civil discourse about

>this kind of subject on M4M, I withdraw from public

>participation in this thread. If there should be someone

>out there who actually wants to discuss these matters and

>not merely to reiterate inarguable cliches, then I'd be

>happy to do so in the privacy of personal messages.

 

Will - no offence intended - but I think the church has you exactly where they want you.

 

Thunderbuns

[Karl-G]

The Milwaukee Sentinel Journal has an excellent website with many articles on Weakland and the situation. I think they are carefully and fairly presented. There is also a seven minute audio feed of Weakland's apology, which is very interesting and discusses the $450,000 as well as other issues. Anyone interested in the scandal should look here.

 

http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/jun02/48054.asp

[Will]

Thank you very, very much for this link. I read the lead article and the apology, which to my mind is a class act. I don't think I could apologize with such grace for something minimal, let alone of this order.