I think that when you practise sin (his homosexuality or any other serious sin) you start to compromise all that you held dear in order to reach some justification for the way you are living or have lived. It becomes the slippery slope. This is one main factor for his decline. How could he uphold all that the Catholic Church teaches when he knows that he will not follow it because of how he lives out his homosexuality? Once the door is open to justify one sinful practise then the teachings of the Church become an obstacle with the inevitable compromises occuring. I do not see how you can down play this factor.

for this article. Great insights.

Weakland was appointed by Paul VI, that is true, but spent the vast majority of his time in office as Archbishop under JP II, I think well over 20 years. I find it curious that JP II did not remove Weakland. I understand the scandal of his homosexuality and payoff to the blackmailer was not until after 2000, but I would bet money that the Cardinals of the Curia had some idea of what was going on, as they are not stupid men.
Ditto Maciel. Perhaps the "rigid" men of the Curia are not so rigid after all, but actually reluctant to clean house when it needs to be done?

John Paul should probably have removed Weakland years before the scandal became public but he did not. Why this is so, we really don't know. Perhaps even Pontiffs are reluctant to admit that they, or even their predecessor made a mistake with the appointment?

If I chose not to emphasize his homosexuality, it was because I think that even "orthodox" clergymen, even "traditionalist" ones, have fallen into equally grave sexual sins, as the last ten years in the Catholic Church more than point out. Weakland in the book only really mentions it in passing, and only regrets the failure in his "monastic vow". How that squares with his theological views, I simply won't get into, because I wouldn't believe it anyway. I think those of a "conservative" bent who commit these sins may be "conservative" out of some sort of "reverse psychology"... I really would not want to "go there". "Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall."

It is possible that the sitting pope is reluctant to remove a recalcitrant bishop because they might rebel from the church authority, form a schism, and ordained women and married men (remember Archbp. Emmanuel Milingo).

Once again, the people lose.

My diocese has been without a bishop for over a year now. That might be for the best.

The old adage, "Hiring you was like losing three good men" comes to mind.

In hesitating to remove a bishop, Pope John Paul II was imitating Jesus, who did not remove Judas, although Jesus knew the traitorous heart through and through. Mystics of centuries ago tell us that Judas lost more and more responsibilities, even as he was kept in the fold.

What could have been our Lord's reasoning? Mercy? Patience? A love for the saint that that person could be? I cannot fathom the reasons myself at this point in my spiritual journey, but that is what we're here to do: plunge deeply into love of God, and therefore, the neighbor made in His Image and Likeness.

Please continue to investigate these areas! We have to reveal the truth of the dissenters of these times so that future generations will not let this happen again. Most Catholics today are the product of the dissenting clergy and religious. I too am curious about how this all happened. Why did the original groups that defied Humanae Vitae get to that point of such disobedience? I have read that large groups of priests even went as far as putting full page ads in newspapers (The Baltimore Sun) expressing their disagreement against Pope Paul IV. How was it tolerated at that time? I know now that the powers that be are so scared to do anything becasue of the clergy shortage but back then why didn't they defrock those clergy that so openly dissented? Were they afraid that news of the homo sexual behaviors would get out? Were the Church authorities afraid of being blackmailed by priests if they got rid of them?

The homosexual as subversive ought not be overlooked. Such a lamentable sexual perversion might cause a man to engage in the project of revolutionising his church in the false hope the revolution will reach the point where it will also change its teaching that his predominate passion is no longer perversion.

It has long been noted by old school Catholics that those who trashed the Mass were, often, The Daughters of Trent

Arturo, your reflections above are a model, in my opinion, of how to speak the truth in charity, as we were encouraged by Archbishop Burke at our recent InsideCatholic dinner in DC.

Here is a man whom the Bible has described as wolf in sheeps clothings, He was doing his utmost to try and undermine the Church of Jesus Christ by remaining as a priest though he knows very well that what he is practicing is not the teaching of Jesus.

He chose to stay on and fool his superiors and at the same time work to undermine the church from within.

Praise the Lord that such trash has now come into the open. Unfortunately, the damaged he has done to the church is difficult to quantify.

The fortunate thing is that faithful Catholics follows Jesus in the Eucharist and not the priest. Those who idolaised the priest is way off from Jesus.

As the manager of a large company for many years, I can tell you that very few managers are willing to fire anyone, no matter how bad the employee performs. It is human nature, and probably more-so with a Pope, to want to hope for the best and to assume that the employee will change. Plus, with a bishop who is half a world away from the home base of Rome, it is probably easy for the Pope to not think about the problem with so many other things needing immediate attention.

Yet... I think one of the most important jobs of a manager, whether it be a bishop or even the Pope... is the care and feeding of his team... and the removal of any member who is poisoning the rest of the group.

This is what Progressive thought brings about. When Benedict passes 70% of Catholics, including 40% of the religious will cry for a Progressive Papa... either they get what they want and there is a great divide, or they don't get what they want, and there is a great divide. It has to be this way.... JPII was only trying to stall the eventual fate which he knew was to come.

We are in the midst of Paragraph 675. The train has climbed the hill slowly for the last 40 years, but now is at the top.. Things will happen quickly... beyond your belief.

Even Archbishops, let alone Benedictine monks, should know that spirituality is a journey. That journey has many roads and cross roads and probably most of us get lost at intersections from time to time. The thing that we have to remember is not that the "final" goal is the reward of spirituality. St. Pal tells us that we really have no idea what the final victory is in the first place. The important thing is that we undertake the journey and embrace it even with its ambiguities. It is when we reject the ambiguities that we start to focus elsewhere and get into trouble. I hope that the Archbishop is now embracing the ambiguities he faces daily and that we who might tend to be so critical can support him in his journey.

It's odd that none of the above "Comments" describe what is the motivatioin of Weaklands problem, which is Pride.

I totally agree with Dupledge. How can a person who has to live a daily encounter with Jesus Christ (Divine Perfection) and also be aware of their sinful nature (especially those sins that are consensual) deal with their existence in the Church. Easy. Start to change the way you see Church and NEVER take the Church seriously as a Divine institution that has the Blood of Christ flowing through it. Much how like a murder sees people as objects (a bit of an extreme analogy, but please bear with me), a person who is consensually sinful has to view the Church as an institution absent of anything supernatural, and NEVER as a living thing. I believe that if any person who is knowingly going against Church teaching in any way wants to remain in the Church, they then have to change the way they see, understand and exist in the Church and how the Church penetrates to try to change them. Sometimes, if they have the power to change the Church, then they will. Now the Church agrees with them and their sins are no longer sins, but justifiable acts in the eyes of God. It is really a poor and destructive way to deal with guilt. I’m sure the devil has a field day working through these guys to further his ends

Many years ago in a course on Church history at Catholic University our teacher told the anecdote about the archbishop of Paris being summoned to the office of Napoleon and told that if the Pope did not cede to all the demands of the emperor that he would destroy the Church; the cardinal archbishop looked at Napoleon with a bemused expression and replied: "But Monsieur we priests have been trying to do that for the past eightenen hundred years".

for some time now is just how the process of choosing a bishop takes place. If anyone tells me that the Holy Father chooses a man to be a bishop, I'd say show me where he'd have any time to do that.
Is this something left up solely to the Congregation of the Bishops?
Are names of priests in their dioceses advanced by current ordinaries?
Are these names given to the Nuncio to bring to the Congregation?
What are the criteria for choosing a man to be bishop?
Is there a job description?
It would be interesting for us to assist the Vatican by suggesting criteria they might use in selecting men to be the shepherds of our dicoeses.
Any one want to weigh in on some criteria?

There obviously is something missing from the process when one looks at some of the men who have been advanced to lead the Church. No one is perfect but are there so few good men to choose from?

First, it was not a half a million dollars that Weakland stole, no one has counted in the cost of the laywer's fees. I am sure that Matt Flynn, the diocesan attorney and the State Democratic Party chairman at the time, as well as the man in charge of John Kerry's election campaign were not working for nothing. So what is the TOTAL cost? Second, Weakland has forgotten to mention the BAD things he was involved in with some of his priests. There are a number of priests he suspended or put out of the priesthood in order to keep quiet. Others who opposed him whom he had just suspended because they did not go along with his plan for things. Finally, what has confused people in Milwaukee is that Weakland's successor,Archbishop Timothy Dolan, has left all of Weakland's people in place. At Dolan's farwell Masses they all joked back and forth how good they all are and got along so well,blah, blah, blah. Dolan never tired of quoting from Weakland, using him at functions and so on. That Dolan is in New York now is frightening!

Deacon Ed, there's nothing to prevent even lay people from writing to the Apostolic Delegate or his equivalent to suggest good candidates for the episcopate or to warn of bad candidates. Claims will need documentation, of course. Cannon Law provides for this.

Since I am a layman, I know next to nothing about the selection process of Bishops, but I understand the the Papal Nuncio collets names of potential candidates from the various Bishops and provides them to the Vatican for consideration. Of course, the Vatican can ignore the lists and chose whom they may, but I would imagine that most of he time, they give weight to the opinions of the Bishops.

I have read however, complaints from Bishops who feel that their recommendations are often ignored by the Vatican officials responsible for selection of Bishops, so it would be interesting to know how this all works.

Weakland obviously slipped through, so no process is perfect.
The Church is not a democracy, so we can't have elections for Bishop of a Diocese, but I would hope that the Vatican does take into account the opinions and recommendations of the Archbishops and Bishops of a country, prior to making an appointment.

It would be education to hear from someone who is familiar with the process.

As Deal indicated above, this is a charitable perspective and to be admired. As always, God will be the judge and we pray for Mercy on our own souls and those of our brethren.

Somehow I see a strange connection, perhaps mired in paradox, b/n Weakland and Maciel. One, having chosen to embrace a lifestyle contrary to the Gospel, sought rather openly to reform (progressively) everything around him perhaps as a sort of secret way to justify his 'choices.'

The other sought rather openly to reform (conservatively) everything around him while maintaining an incredible secrecy, while allegedly having embraced a lifestyle contrary to the Gospel.

The spirit is indeed willing, and the flesh is indeed weak. We see this all too much today and have seen it throughout history, the fall of man due to carnal desires (be it bishop, priest, king, layman, husband, etc.) - as it was from the beginning of time where Adam beheld the beauty of Eve and chose her (and therefore, himself) over his Creator.

Among the reasons JPII and now Benedict XVI appeal us - they compel us by the very example of their lives dedicated to living according to the Gospel, to strive to be holy in the vocation to which we each have been called.

Please define coelacanthus.

What bothers me more than this tragic situation is that dissenters like Fr. McBrien at Notre Dame who recently wrote that Eucharistic Adoration is essentially a waste of time are STILL allowed to carry on and lead souls astray. When is the house cleaning going to begin ?

Truth in charity demands we speak of the true head of this
"bride of Christ", what is recorded for all this day to see,
what He said and how He said it. Many have expressed the
concern of just how many of His modern day apostles seem to
think Christ Himself was being down right unchristian when
He said things like ,"You brood of vipers, you snakes".

The great apostasy? Schism? When we as citizens had an opportunity to choose life. We Catholics, "the people of Life", chose death. Our African Catholic bishops seem to think
that is a good thing. We were lead there. Who lead us?

Weakland's (interesting name, ey?)fall is simply the predictable end result of moral relativism and the denial of objective truth. It is as old as the Garden of Eden and what Satan held out as the reward to be received from eating the forbidden fruit. There is no mystery in what happened to Weakland.

I think you have to have lived during that time to understand the Archbishop. People under 45 have no idea how different the church was or the US. Maybe those who were brought up in conservative 3rd world countries might have a bit of an idea. Younger people are fantasizing about a perfect formation and past that never existed.

You can't imagine how much more conservative things were in a way that was very harmful. The Church was still reacting against the 19th centurey, and was in defense mode;no one could criticize the Church or talk about flawed events or personages or decisions.People were not taught the faith but told what to believe. You really believed that you'd go to hell if you didn't believe it;you weren't taught to think,but to fear. Except for the South,most Catholics were immigrants or children of ghetto minded (ghetto in this sense means ethnic enclave), extremely prejudiced immigrants. The church did little to change that. Nuns lived in much worse conditions than priests;their lodgings were inferior,education inferior, retirement plans so bad that when those nuns hit retirement age in the 60s and 70s, the schools they taught in had to be closed and sold to pay for their retirement. Not so with the priests. Their schools are still up and running to this day,and they absorbed the girls when the nuns' schools closed.

Many nuns joined barely out of adolescence and learned nothing about their bodies, sex, or how to think. Yeah, they weren't women but overgrown children that needed to be shaken out of their psychological slumber. They couldn't help wayward women or 'bad girls' because they were too naive and psychologically malformed to understand them. The stories about mean nuns exist because they were true,not because of a desire to bash the Church.

With no understanding of sexuality nuns didn't realize that around late 20s to about the 40s the body wants a baby, and that drive is so strong that it is very difficult to resist unless a woman is truly aware of what's going on with her.That's why so many smart women marry jerks in their 30s because the hormones cloud their thinking.It's overwhelming, and these nuns had no idea what was going on or how to deal with it.That's why so many nuns revolted or left the Church in the 70s;because they could. Before they suffered through it.

Women who don't have children must make peace with that reality. Even women who don't want children mourn the loss of the ability to have them as they hit their 40s. During this time if it isn't worked out, many women avoid children and psychologically close themselves off to them,and this manifests as meanness and lack of patience for children. Most nuns of that era didn't have a chance to deal with their hormonal typhoons. No one talked about things like that.

Yeah, a change was definitely needed!

Authentic Catholicism is one answer to the world's problems, and yet most Catholics (in the U.S.) do not understand and live out authentic Catholicism.

Catholic doctrine is being distorted, in word and deed, not just by sin, but through a conscious revisionism taking place among the Weaklands and Weigels in the Catholic Church.

There is not one way to write or speak about such a despicable man.

I have not read his book (and I never will),but, from the quotes I have read re his own perversions and the actions of the perverted predatory priests he helped hide (so they could go and sin again against other innocents), it is apparent to me that he could not have cared less about the youth he was supposed to Shepherd.

Because of what he did, Souls lost the Faith,innocence was destroyed, entire families were afflicted and made to suffer severe and cruel indignities, and who knows how many young men will have to suffer for the rest of their lives because of the actions of this moral monster.

I think he belongs in jail for what he did but NOBODY in the Catholic Church will even excommunicate him even though he clearly merits it by his actions and his continued giving of scandal by judging the Catholic Church wrong for its continued teaching about homosexual acts.

The refusal to act against such a man is both our most effective and our most destructive evangelising that we are doing.

Far from being in jail or excommunicated, he is living large in retirement.

I suspect the USCCB (whose current President and Vice President have either promoted or permitted to discharge his ministry a predatory priest both knew was preying on young males and whom the State of Illinois judges too dangerous to release from Prison) has more than a few Bishops whose own personal lives are so suspect that they are craven about taking action.

The Catholic Church in America has NOT reformed itself after the homosexual crimes it committed/encouraged/acquiesced in and the SUREST way to completely destroy the Catholic Church in America is to allow this evil to continue unexpunged from the very heart of The Hierarchy.

Such public and sulphurous crimes must be publicly repented of and EVERY Prelate who had a SINGLE thing to do with the crimes - committing them or permitting them by hiding perverted priests - must be publicly excommunicated and not allowed back into Communion with the Catholic Church until they publicly repent of their evil and attempt to make restitution.

There is not a man alive who is more in love with the Catholic Church than I am but I knew, LONG AGO, about the Daughters of Trent alive, active, and allowed to continue in their Priestly Ministry and I NEVER let my children be alone with and Priest, Prelate, or Religious.

If Weakland, and any others of their ilk, are excommunicated, publicly repent and are accepted back into Communion, I would try to be the first to publicly welcome them back (I STILL wouldn't let any child be alone with him though).

It sounds like this man was a priest in name only. Yes, he received Holy Orders, but did he become a priest in his heart, willing to serve and suffer for Jesus and His Gospel? It doesn't seem like he did. He became a priest who very early on became secularized. I know we must not look for demons and devils behind every door, but ignoring them doesn't mean they aren't there. The Catholic Church has become infested with many demons wreaking havoc, the most dangerous of which, I believe, is the evil spirit of disobedience. Add to that the spirits of relativism, secularism, sodomy, envy, ego, etc., etc., etc. and we begin to know the extent of the spiritual battle that this is. I believe that the Vatican and Pope Benedict are starting to make some changes, but we have a long way to go. They are now bringing back the exorcists that never should have been removed. The Latin Mass was always a deterrent for demons, because they hate Latin. The St. Michael prayer was also removed, even banished for a long time. Thank God it is being prayed again, not just by faithful Catholics in their own private devotions, but in the churches before or after Holy Mass. The devil has been using our priests and bishops to do his work. We must pray for our priests and our bishops everyday. They are like the police officers who are the first line of defense for law and order. Our priests are our first line of defense against the devil, because they are the ministers of the Sacraments, but they are also the first targets. If they fall, many fall. If they are holy, many become holy. Holiness is attainable, but the battle is ongoing. Let's pray and not be afraid as Pope John Paul II always advised us. Prayer warriors are need now more than ever. The strongholds in our beautiful Church can be broken, but we as lay people must be the foot soldiers. God bless and strengthen each one of us!

Some posters are pointing fingers at Pope Paul VI, JPII, the Vatican Curia, etc., for allowing Archbishop Weakland to continue in his position as head of the Milwaukee Archdiocese. None of us know all the facts that went into Weakland being elected Abbot Primate of the Benedictine Federation, or to his being appointed Archbishop of Milwaukee. My sense is that he was able to keep his homosexual tendencies well hidden for years which made him a qualified candidate to serve in these positions of authority. He does an impressive background.

Nor, do none of us know all the facts into why Pope John Paul II didn't remove him as archbishop. Jesus does warn against pulling out all the weeds in the wheat field lest the wheat stalks get destroyed along with the weeds. There is always the hope that a man/woman will repent of their wrong-doing and become an even greater witness to the Lord's presence in our lives and in our midst. St. Paul comes to mind as an example of a person who tried to destroy the early church but then through the grace of God became one of the Church's greatest promoters and defenders.

I've always been taught that the Holy Spirit plays a major role in the selection of bishops. There is a process in place to help the Congregation of Bishops and the Pope in selecting bishops. For some reason, some posters feel that they are more qualified to pick the right bishops for the church. Evidently, the Holy Spirit knew the right timing when and how Weakland should be removed as Archbishop of Milwaukee. The Holy Spirit is still in control of the church. Do not be afraid.

Congratulations, Arturo, on an excellent commentary. Thanks for sharing your gift of speaking truth in charity and without arrogance. We need more of this in the Church today.

There must be two autobio's by Rembert. The review at National Catholic Reporter said the one it read was a triumph, a literary masterpiece by a GREAT churchman.

Destruction of the family via artificial birth control, sterilization, abortion, daycare, etc., homosexuality being promoted as "normal" behavior, and the systematic tearing down of Tradition in every way are satan's weapons for modern times. No one is immune to his wiles and snares, especially Church prelates. We must pray very hard for them not to fall in this terrible battle.

You're not entirely wrong, but did you just bury "daycare" in with a list of intrinsic evils?

There could be many reasons why JPII did not remove Weakland and since he is Pope you must respect it but you are not required to agree with it. The office of the papacy does not give the pope any special protection on matter of administration such as the appointment or removal of a bishop. While God may choose to intervene to assist a pope in a prudential matter (just as God may intervene for us) the office does not guarantee such intervention.

There are two problems/questions however that cannot be ignored.

1. Why is it the JP II ignored (did not remove) a single liberal bishop during his papacy for which these men caused significant damage to the life of the Church and to individual souls. Yet he almost defiantly would not choose to use the same patient approach with Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX priests. The fact the Benedict has improved conditions is such a short period of time only further begs the question of why JP II did not show he same deference that Weakland, Mahoney & others received.

2. Second, while liberals often challenged everything JP II many "conservative," or "traditional" Catholics defended EVERYTHING JP II would do as if even the way he ate a sandwich was infallible. This "hyper-papalism" seemed to exist with JP II who took on a cult of personality that even Benedict does not enjoy.

Both of these issues should be more than mere foot notes when considering the history of JP II

Good point. While most people consider JP II to be an "Ultra trad" Pope, he excommunicated the SSPX Bishops and went easy on a lot of Liberal Bishops. Perhaps political classifications of "Right" and "Left" do not exactly apply to Popes and Bishops.
Paul VI was supposidly a "conservative" Pope due to his attitude on contraception, but he was anything but conservative in many other areas. JP II did not seem big on the Latin Mass either. I really don't what what to think any more.

Mr. Vasquez stated in his comment:

"If I chose not to emphasize his homosexuality, it was because I think that even "orthodox" clergymen, even "traditionalist" ones, have fallen into equally grave sexual sins, as the last ten years in the Catholic Church more than point out."

If the others mentioned here committed the grave sin of homosexuality, then, it is agreed to perhpas be equally grave (the level of gravity would also depend on whether children or adults were involved).

However, if the comment in quotations is referring to those who have committed fornication between man and woman, then, that is incorrect, it is not equal. Homosexual acts are disordered against the natural law which gives them the greater gravity of evil.

"Like" the coelacanth, which was a fish long thought to be extinct for millions of years until a living example was caught in the Indian Ocean.

What the not-so-good Archbishop was complaining about is that the Benedictine Order seemed to him to be like the coelacanth- a dinosaur in modern times.

Here's what has kept me safe from progressivism, despite my liberal viewpoint, and in communion with Rome: What the heck is so wrong with having a coelacanth or two in the church? In fact, what was so wrong with the faith and methods of our fathers that we need to "progress" out of them at all?

At which point, for lack of reasonable answers to those two questions, I become an anti-progressive distributionist who wonders if it was right to teach Catholicism to Native Americans, at least the more peaceful tribes of the Pacific Northwest who had banished war in favor of charity 10,000 years ago.

I see no evidence that grave sexual sin in the clergy has been anything other than a passing phase of the greater liberal sexual sin of America in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. Younger, more conservative priests do not seem to have this problem.

I put forth that weak-willed priests such as Weakland failed to uphold their vow of celebacy, because in the wider national culture of the 1950s and 1960s, America was in the midst of rebelling against *all* sexual morality.

My generation has had to suffer for the sins of our parents in this; and it is by no means limited to Catholicism and Clergy abuse.

Judas was Not a pedophile, he was a thief. Judas was not sexually abusing children. Do you or anyone think that Jesus would be so callus, as to pay no attention to a person abusing a child in "any way"? Of course not. Your logic is pathetic.

A parable for those particular things wrong within the Church in the last 40 years.

She did, but note that she was listing "Satan's weapons" not "intrinsic evils".

In this case, she wasn't necessarily talking about the good side of daycare- the work my wife does to enable poor families to live- but rather the dark side of daycare- a soulless capitalistic inflationary economy that forces women to work outside of the home and requires, for lower-skilled and low-educated workers, two to five such jobs just to keep a roof over the heads of the family and food in their bellies.

She is also rightfully grouping this as a weapon for the destruction of the classical family, where the man is, in general terms, in charge of providing material goods and the woman is in charge of providing education & faith. I can't say that many of the children my wife watches are getting the level of contact with their mothers necessary for those two, and try as she might, nothing can replace a mother's love. We do pretty well by the children my wife watches all the same (lost $10,000 last year on her business doing so), but I've yet to see a child even in the best daycare not emotionally harmed by the experience.

And far worse off are the children of single mothers that we watch from time to time.

They say the position changes the man. Paul VI was considered a liberal when he was elected, and a conservative when he left. JPII, the reverse.

I say this is just proof of the Holy Spirit working through the office. If you're not hated by the extremes on both sides when you are done, then you haven't done a very good job as Pope.

We should all go back to read the apparitions of the Virgin of LaSalette and later the apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima. What happened to the message that was supposed to be read in 1960? Was the Blessed Mother trying to warn us of what is now transpiring in the church today? It completely baffles me that those who ran the church within those years were too proud to take the advice of Our Lady. When they threw the mysticism out, there was nothing but dry theology thrown at generations of children. No wonder our church attendance is suffering, and it will continue to suffer if they don't wake up. Just ask J.K. Rowlings how important mystticism is to kids. Our church is badly in need of a mother. Wake up men!

Jesus, being God, knew that the betrayal of Judas would set in motion the Passion and the Crucifixion, and that these events were necessary to do the work of Redemption in accordance with the will of the Father. Yes, it is hard to fathom because it is a mystery, the same as it is hard to fathom the mystery that without the Fall there would be no Incarnation.

The situation with the Pope and bad bishops is not really analogous. It is the Pope's duty, given to him by Jesus Himself, to oversee the feeding of the sheep and the lambs by the bishops and to ensure that they are not given a stone instead of bread. This duty means that he must act decisively to prevent wolves in sheep's clothing harming the sheep.

The bigger mystical consideration as to how God can work good from evil is God's department and should be left to Him. Yes, He can save even those souls who have ended up in the jaws of wolves because of a dereliction of duty on the part of the shepherds. But it would be presumption and quietism to think that therefore evil should not be actively resisted at every opportunity.

Didn't St. Thomas Aquinas say that sin corrupts the mind? And it goes both ways of the spectrum, of course, whether one's more Catholic than the pope (Bp. Williams) or a misunderstood prophet of the times (Bp. Weakland) or somewhere in between (me).

How could a Julliard-trained man tolerate the dreck they play in Church now and not throw his hands up in despair? At least I thought he would hold on to quality Catholic music?!?

Why is Weigels's name mentioned in this running commentary?
I am a re-vert to the Faith. I am one of those souls who was not cathecized. I am making up for lost time...

Yes.
You are right. Sin corrupts the mind. So when Satan seduces us into sin we see everything in a distorted fashion or even in reverse! Without humility we perversely believe we are right and others who disagree with us must be stopped.
It is the voice of the evil one Weakland is listening to. He betrayed Jesus Christ, the one he vowed to imitate, and invited Satan to become his puppet master.
I wonder why Vasquez is fascinated by such a tragedy which leads to the loss of so many souls. The reason for the fall is obvious. He need read no further or risk falling himself. It is always the same reason for any fall from Grace: our human will listens to the Deceiver. It does not call upon the Saviour and His Mother and cling to the one who can save us out of death.
It is pointless to discuss the whys and wherefores of Weakland's character, his proclivities and eventual fall. In this Year of the Priest the only thing of any value is to pray with all our hearts for the greatest victory of all which is the true and deep conversion of Weakland and all the other Judases. The mercy of God is infinite.
Blessings, Mary

Well now that they started to rectify the past mistakes How about bringing back the Latin mass for good and putting Christ in the center of the church. The fall of the world came about with the destruction of the Church. Bring back Adoration, Benediction, Latin Mass, and watch the churches fill up again.

Is it possible that Satan attacks men and women in positions of authority more so than others? Perhaps when men and women religious leave the traditional prayer life of the past, they become a prize. Still, we all make decisions every day... thousands of decisions every day... These stories are at least an inspiration for me to make the correct ones today...

They are more circumspect about allowing into their organisation those who will have authority over boys.

Try to even imagine the BSA electing as its President and Vice President men who had promoted and protected a predatory pervert.

Then, try to imaging the BSA discovering one of its Troop Leaders had committed sexual crimes against one of its boys. Do you think they would just move that Troop Leader to another town where would have access to more innocent sheep.

Some Shepherds feed, defend, and sanctify their sheep and some Shepherds are satyrs sexually shearing their sheep.

What we need to understand is that Weakland's world which allowed him to commit such terrible acts also gave him the power to put bad men in places where they could corrupt and hurt children is a world of Institutional Pedophilia.

Institutional Pedophilia is based upon four things:

1) A structure that marginalizes the victimized population as part of its policy while presenting its marginalization as "protection."
2)A structure that hides those in power who are struggling with predatory feelings and hidden sexual needs and problems.
3) A structure that rewards silence in regards to predatory behavior by those in power in the interests of avoiding scandal, loss of face/faith and revenue that follows revelation of bad behavior.
4) A structure that refuses to see the actions of the predators as indicative of a STRUCTURAL problem and insists that these are the actions of a few "bad apples."

This is what you also see operating within our educational system. The Church has nothing on our schools when it comes to raping, molesting and abusing kids, even though the media ignores that fact. This also occurs with the Scouting programs, athletic departments in schools, etc.

As long as we tolerate structures that breed child molesters and homosexuals we will continue to have Archbishop Weaklands.
That's not a mystery. However, the fact that we are so blind to Institutional Pedophilia is indeed mysterious. It makes me think that this is the Tare defiling the Wheat in more than one way.

"What really fascinated me was the question of how a man so well-formed by the best of what the traditional Church had to offer could so violently reject it in his mature years."

Although your review is very informative in many ways, may I suggest that by ignoring Ab. Weakland's homosexuality you have missed the answer to your principal question?

The fact that conservative as well as liberal Catholics have fallen prey to homosexuality is a red herring.

Some conservatives have maintained their faith (in part or in toto) despite their sin, while some liberals have abandoned their faith (in part or in toto) because of the same sin.

This is merely a difference, not a contradiction. There's nothing new about different people reacting oppositely to the same thing.

Otherwise, you are so perceptive in your analysis of Ab. Weakland that I think you could render a genuine service by taking another look at him, with a view to telling the real story.

Read the chapter "The Judas Complex," from Malachi Martin's book KEYS OF THIS BLOOD, for a great analysis of the mind of the modern liberal traitor.

They get a twisted pride thrill and ego exaltation from being on the inside and betraying sacred trust to their self-serving distorted visions upsidedown rationalizations.

It's all just another cheap echo of the Fallen Angel's supreme act of defiance, at the dawn of time, "I will not serve!"

[/color]

Austin: In your post "JPII, Liberals and Conservatives" (Oct. 8 at 2:15 pm) you said that Pope John Paul II excommunicated the SSPX bishops. That isn't canonically correct. They excommunicated themselves automatically, along with Archbishop LeFevre, when he consecrated the 4 bishops without the approval of the pope.

You and other posters use labels such as "liberals" and "conservatives." These are political labels that don't belong in church circles. Jesus was neither a liberal or a conservative. He was a radical (radical meaning "at the root")leader that called sinners to a conversion of heart in His ministry. Conversion of heart means that we follow a call from the Lord to holiness of life, which is a radical way of life.

Some posters equate homosexuality with pedophilia. Archbishop Weakland state in his book that he is a homosexual. That doesn't make him a pedophilia. In fact, there is no evidence to support that Weakland ever engaged in sexual abuse of children.

THE CHURCH'S ULTIMATE TRIAL

"Before Christ's second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the 'mystery of iniquity' in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh."

Yes, we are in the midst of this paragraph.

The key to understanding Weakland?

Simple: narcissistic personality disorder.

It explains a lot of other problems among the clergy as well.

I've trained seminarians in the past. When I see it, they get kicked out.

Fr. Paul, pastor, St. Joseph's, Dalton, GA

It is a shame that bishops, archbishops, and cardinals in Argentina were not homosexual. Then they would have been gotten rid of before they conspired to overthrow the legal government of Dr. Illia and usher years and years of instability and violence, culminating in the military tyranny with thousands of disappeared people.

What a shame that Von Wernicke was not homosexual, just an assistant torturer, so that instead of spewing him out, he was helped to escape and given a new unsuspecting parish.

What a shame that Aloys Hudal was not homosexual, and thus expelled, and the Church spared the shame of helping war criminals to escape to Latin America, where they taught torture methods to the locals.

What a shame that the heads of the Sisters of Mercy in Ireland and the Christian Brothers were not homosexual, so that they could be investigated, and the scandal of the giant child slavery ring they ran ended earlier.

But as long as you are heterosexual, you can commit any crime you want while wearing a cassock, and get away with it.

Well, I have had it with the Catholic Church. The inmates are running the asylum, and criminals are in charge of teaching us how to tell right from wrong.

Nice to have known you. You have nice works of arts, and an interesting history. But if I stay any longer close to you I might end up catching your corruption.

Bye, bye

Adriana,

There is no doubt you are a very learned person. I just hope you are a very spiritual person as well. To give up your faith for another human being's behaviour is absolutely bizarre. There are many flawed members in our church both in the Shepherd positions as well as the layperson positions. The Catholic Church stands and will forever stand not for the flaws of its members but for the doctrine and the apostalic relationship with Jesus Christ himself. I would never reject the church because of some flawed human being. I worship Jesus Christ and the One Holy Catholic Church he left for us, not a priest, bishop, cardinal, nun or pope. Throughout all the years, the Church has witnessed bad priests, bad bishops, and yes even a few bad popes. Even the bad popes never change or corrupted the doctrine of the Church. I hope you can see past the frailities of the human person and look to the strength and infallibility of the Catholic Church. It is there where one draws the strength to grow in their relationship with Jesus Christ. May God Bless you in your search for the real truth.

Adriana,
I just wanted to add that I am frustrated with some of the corruption within the Catholic Church. It has always been there. I pray that the Church will become stronger and holier. That is just it though, I pray. How many of us really pray for our Church and it's Shephards? Their actions have led people astray, there is no doubt about it, but when you look deeper and discover the beauty and the gifts that we are given as members of this beautiful church, (The Holy Eucharist, Sacrament of Reconciliation just to name a couple) I know it is worth fighting for. You have a very gifted intellectual mind, it is easy to see for those who don't have these particular gifts, use them to inspire postive change in the church rather than ridicule it. May God Bless You.

As the saying goes, "When the going gets tough, the tough get going, and the uncommitted look for a place to hide."

Jesus established the Church for sinners, and not for the saints. He said, "The sick need a doctor, not the healthy."

We can feel assured on the Lord Jesus' promises that the gates of hell shall never prevail against the Church. The Holy Spirit is still in charge of the church. The Catholic Church is going through a period of purification and purgation at the present time. Today's repentant sinners will become tomorrow's canonized saints. The Church has gone through periods of upheaval and turmoil many times throughout its 2,000-year history. The fact that the Catholic Church is still in existence today is proof that the Holy Spirit is still working in the Church.

Keep your eyes focused upon God and His will. If you take your eyes off God and focus attention upon man and his doings, you will become filled with discouragement, despair, and disillusionment. When you keep your eyes focused upon God, you will become filled with courage, hope, and enlightenment.

Let me end with this promise: If you look for God and His work in our midst, you will find God and His grace at work in our midst. If you look for Satan and his evil deeds in the world, you will find Satan and his evil deeds in the world.

The comments against Weakland on this board are absurd, given that attention needs be directed at the Catholic Church's murder of the Cathars, Jews, the Inquisition, the burning at the stake of Joan of Arc, the illegitmate son of one Pope being named a Cardinal, the slaughter of the Eastern Orthodox in the Instabul holocaust of the 4th Crusade, and it goes on and on. Who even knows if Woytyla, who never gave out the details of Luciani's death, was not in fact married or had assignations before entrance into a Seminary, the only life that seemed survivable at the time. Some hold the Jews in Krakow knew and this is why Woytyla so slavishly honored them- he was fearful of the truth coming out. Manwhile, what did Weakland do? Did he have an affair? Did he do somethng that the Catholic Church's Priests did with children and which forced the idiot Church to pay billions upon billions?

Most on this board live in an inverted world, where the end of the intestines is at the top, at the mouth. You should be ashamed of what you write on Weakland especially given that it is more than likely posters here in their own lives have engaged in self-abuse, self-pollution, and the like but dare not let anyone know they did. This board disgusts me.

Before I leave I thought that you deserved some explanation, and perhaps a warning.

The misdeeds of consecrated brothers and sisters and of bishops and others in the hyerarchy are not "tests of your faith" IT IS NOT ABOUT YOU.

We are talking about crimes, crimes that people get sent to jail for. In the case of the child slavery in Ireland, crimes so vile and loathsome that, were not the perpetratos nuns and priests you would be demanding that they be locked up and the key thrown away. You would say that the electric chair is too good for them. But because they wear the habit, you then adopt a "prayerful attitude".

Do you know that "enabling" means? Do you know the term "accessory after the fact"?

Fact, the Church ran gulags, same as the Communists, for the same reason they did, to earn money to spend in their schemes. The only difference between the Communists gulags and the Church ones was that Communism gave an instance of moral courage, when Nikita Khruschev denounced Stalin's crimes and sought to end the terror system. Does the Catholic Church have a Nikita Khruschev?

Why can't we have the same courage he had? We risk a lot less than he did. So why that moral cowardice? God knows that Khruschev was a flawed, *very* flawed human being, but compared with most of us, he was a moral giant.

Until the Church officially acknowleges the wrong, and pay compensation to its former slaves - still living, still crying out for justice - I cannot form part of a criminal organization. I already notified CRS that I would no longer contribute to them, and why, and instead sent the money to the Mercy Corps.

The Devil is not testing your faith. The Devil in enjoying your corruption, how in the name of your salvation you are defending the indefensible, and stepping further in complicity with vile, loathsome acts.

Time for the Church to clean house. Or have it cleaned up by a scourge, as it was cleaned up by the Reformation and the French Revolution.

We know how entrenched denial is, and so the Church refuses to face its evil and expel it. But, as someone said, the certainty of being hanged in the morning concentrates a man's mind most worderfully.

I can hope that the Church does not need to see priests hanging from lampposts before it mends its ways. But if that is what it takes, then just and merciful are the ways of the Lord.

Myself, I am giving notice, small as it is. Maybe in enough people did the same, and *said why*, there will not be need of priests twisting slowly, slowly, in the wind from lampposts.

I will not be back here. If anyone wishes to continue the discussion, you can reach me at This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

I don't even know what to address first. I am 72 years old, so I am familiar with pre-Vatican II Catholicism. Recently I went to a Latin Mass which was attended by 11 people. It was an awakening for me on how much we now have in the Paul IV Mass. We participate, we sing, we are called to pay attention. I found the Latin Mass disturbing when contrasted to the Nuovo Mass.
As for Bishop Weakland, social justice is what Jesus was calling his disciples and the people to practice, share with those who are less fortunate, right what is wrong in a given society. Gregorian chant is beautiful, but not everyone can sing it - I know I sang chant in a choir and it is not easy as it is not something we did daily. Chant improves when done often, but the choir did not sing it daily or weekly. Singing in the vernacular is better, people are comfortable with it, and singing is to be encouraged. I teach RCIA so I need to know church history too.
I am disheartened with my fellow Catholics who judge, and conservatives do this so often that I walk the middle ground waiting to hear vindictives from both sides. As a woman, I think the day will come we will see woman participate more fully in liturgy and in the hierarchy. Maybe not in my lifetime, but we will see it. It is not from Jesus, but from the male followers that we have a male dominated priestly class, as women did not have a voice then, Yet Jesus gave voice to Martha, Mary, Mary of Magdelena, Mary his mother.

Adriana,

All I can say to you is I'm sorry for your decision to leave the church. I hope and pray you will reconsider. Address your complaints to the bishops, to the cardinals, to the Vatican but do not leave this beautiful church. I reflect back on a story of a priest in St. Francis Assisi's time. He was sleeping with a women, and the lay people were obviously outraged. They sent for St. Francis. Surely he would put this priest in his place. When St. Francis came (he actually had to be carried there because of the stigmata on his feet, he could not walk anymore)
he kissed the priest's hands and exclaimed these are the precious hands that concecrated the bread and wine and bring me the Holy Eucharist. The priest repented. When I first heard this story I understood but still had problems with it. Now as I realize the absolute gift in its totality of receiving the Holy Eucharist, I look at this story in a deeper sense. If there is no priests, there is no Eucharist. PRAY and FAST for all priests and bishops. We need them. We need the Holy Eucharist.
Toni,
There will never be women priests. Jesus was not for social justice in the sense you are talking about. He wanted us to be responsible for our brother, for the poor and sick. He did not want us to pass the buck to the government. Sorry.

Every pope will be called "conservative" as long as the Church does not allow ordination of women and artificial contraception. It won't matter whether he comes out for every other liberal innovation under the sun; as long as he holds the line on those two items, the media will call him conservative (if not arch-conservative, as I've actually seen JPII described).

I worked for the Archbishop for four years. He was totally uninterested in the education--secular and religious--of the students I was committed to educate. He turned the education system over to embittered former nuns and a drunk director of education. He did not feel that the Curia nor the Magisterium were valuable, merely symbols of the past. He was a sad man who, through his inattention, helped the US to its current Culture of Death--death of babies, death of tradition, death of business ethics, and death of freedom. Freedom is not the right to do whatever you want, it is the right to make decisions based on strong values, such as those of the Gospels. Without strong education in those values, we end up in the state that we now find for the US. One of those former nuns was heard to say (paraphrased) "Those conservatives, they always fall." When questioned on her point, she said it is much better to be open to all things than to have strict standards. That was the culture of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee in those days.

Interesting article. I lived in Milwaukee from 1988-1992 and I said to people why is everything up-side down here? Well, it's sin. When Archbishop Weakland was asked what he would miss the most - he said power. This all comes down to two of the seven deadly sins - pride and lust. R. Weakland harmed many souls which he will answer for to God. We should all pray and fast for this man's conversion or he could well lose his eternal salvation (not judging here just stating what the Church teaches - it is up to God.)

If we do not understand that each of us is capable of grave sin - watch out. You will fall and fall hard.

The evil one will continue to go after those in authority in the Church until the end of time - he wants to destroy the Church and he will never stop; but, we know in the end he loses and those with Christ win!

To leave the Church - where do you go. There will always be sin until the end of the world. No other Faith has the fullness of the Truth. If the Church that was started by the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity can be harmed, so much more for churches started by mere human beings. But be careful - the evil one has you were he wants you - bashing the Church that will bring you closer to Christ.

As for women priest - theological impossibility. We are all called to holiness and sanctity. If Jesus wanted women apostles - He would have picked some. We are all called to be disciples and to serve God. God specifically made us men or women for our eternal salvation. Get beyond the women priest thing and serve God within your vocation (Religious, Married or Single) and be pure and holy.

The devil only attacks truth.

We need praying like eating and breathing.Most Catholics pray hidden at home, churdh, procession.When working,I crossed myself before eating my lunch, alone amidst my co-workers.Now in seniors home,I cross myself before eating.Some ladies asked me to join them,to pray after supper in a private room. They are happy that I joined them, but they don't dare making a sign of the cross in dining-room. I cross myself before eating no matter where,in presence of unbelieving relatives or strangers.Words,words are easy;but doing ! My wife and I decided years ago to go to communion holding palms of hands together.Who dares hold folded hands at breastbone ? A pastor started a novelty in the Mass that is not allowed. I acted. 6 Weeks later the proper liturgy back (because God accepted my act).Later got increase receiving on tongue (because God accepted my act).Pray AND act!Come out.Show your faith!I had Mass said for our bishop,wrote him he wasn't worth his salary; that I give 25 cents till he puts communion-rail in the church.That's not blackmail.You desire to act ?It took me 6 years to get a procession (God acceptec my efforts).I feared "Am I a show-off" then realized I want to be a "show-up"meaning:to step up to the frontline,where the battle is fought.Years ago started praying rosary at Mary statue in downtown. 2007,Steve,40 years younger than I, asked to join me.We pray twice a month. Passersby can see and hear us. Catholic seniors could come,once a month,any day,any time. But how many Catholics dare to pray in public,alone ? Who wants to be a "step-up"? We should know each other : This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

I can see why Mr. Vasquez left out any discussion of the Bishop's homosexual acts in this article. And I think it is valid to do this for the sake of simplicity in communicating the "company man on the outs" reading of the narrative.

However, I think that a deeper discussion relating a number of attitudes and behavior--this incorrect attitude toward superiors with whom he disagreed, his subsequent rebellion, his almost-Protestant misunderstanding of the nature of the church AND his sexual rebellion--back to a problem of pride which liberals seem most likely to fall into.

So the Vatican under Pope John Paul II constantly gave Weakland "headaches", eh? Yet, the Pope allowed this open dissident to remain archbishop until he retired under a cloud of sex scandal. And still people want John Paul canonized subita?

The saddest quality of the book is that he shows no sign of repentance. One may get into a discussion about homosexuality. That is a red herring.

Far worse is his covering-up for priests who abused young boys. He writes that he is sure the children will forget the abuse. He will learn the meaning of a millstone.

More simply: he feels no remorse for having stolen church funds. That is plain robbery. He lied when he said it was his money.

He is praised for his commitment to social justice. Think of the good the money would done for the poor. Instead he gave it to his boyfriend.

Nor does he show remorse for his cowardice in submitting to blackmail.