« San Diego Dust Up | Main | Cleaning Up »
March 07, 2004
RSVP
Weakland set to preside at a confirmation; protests ensue
Nonetheless, Szews said he was surprised about the reaction, saying that St. John's "has always been what some would call a 'progressive' parish.""I would have thought that it was a parish that would have been much more sympathetic to Archbishop Weakland than perhaps other parishes in the archdiocese," Szews said.
Neither Van Vlaenderen nor Weakland were available for comment Friday.
Associate Pastor Gerald Dominiak said in an interview that he did not know how many people in the 2,400-family parish had complained, and that he had not talked directly to any of them.
"I was very saddened by it," Dominiak said. "I could not believe that Christians could act that way. How do we expect to be forgiven if we can't forgive?"
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d8345e33ff69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference RSVP:
Comments
Weakland didn't commit a crime, only a sin. Therefore his behavior does not fall under the Dallas charter which would not allow a priest with even one credible asccusation against him, even an accusation of the lesser sort, to function publically as a priest. But forgiveness demands that a priest or a bishop be allowed to publically function as a cleric no matter how often he merely sinned with another consenting adult.
Mel, rent out your androgynous satan. We need him at every theater door to whisper to people streaming out, accusing themselves of having caused Christ's death by their sins. "No, no, dear people. It wasn't your sins but only your crimes."
Posted by: caroline at Mar 7, 2004 10:16:26 AM
The only role Weakland should have at a confirmation is to serve as a negative example.
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at Mar 7, 2004 10:57:27 AM
I've relatively new to Milwaukee (since July) but Archbishop Weakland's legacy has been stunning to me. Apparently he caused great divisiveness in the diocese, for a number of reasons besides the one mentioned in the JS story. Forgiveness is a tenet of our faith, of course, but I also wonder if the Archbishop should perhaps step into the shadows for a bit to let the diocese heal?
Posted by: nicole bruni at Mar 7, 2004 11:16:23 AM
The pastor's argument seems to be that this confirmation would be good for Archbishop Weakland, part of his rehabilitation. The fact of the matter is that there is no reason that confirmation has to be celebrated on such and such a date, no reason that it cannot be celebrated at another date to fit the schedules of either Archbishop Dolan or Bishop Sklba. Methinks that the pastor had an agenda, and discovered he also had a tin ear when it comes to being sensitive to his congregation's concern about the abuse scandals. What's wrong with delaying the confirmation and allowing the new bishop to meet these young people? Nothing wrong with that: it's just that the pastor wanted to help with his old boss' rehabilitation, and that is the more important item, so let's do it now with Archbishop Weakland.
While Archbishop Weakland has not been charged with any crimes against children or adults, in so many people's minds his sinful actions are so closely linked temporally and, in a certain sense, morally, with the sexual abuse of children which occurred in the Milwaukee archdiocese under his episcopate. By "morally linked," I mean that the sins have to do with sexuality and "acting out." The parishioners have every right to object: this is not about Archbishop Weakland's forgiveness. It is about propriety and consequences. The pastor might refrain from taking his parishioners to task, and sit down and have a long examination of conscience as to why he insisted that Archbishop Weakland celebrate this confirmation, and why now, when the news is full of propaganda of the "gay" agenda, given the retired archbishop's self-admitted proclivities. The pastor sends a message that there are, or at least should be, no real, permanent consequences to our serious sins. This has not only little to do with the moral tradition of the Church, it is in all practicality, unrealistic. The pastor in effect wants people to "get over it." He is now learning that is easier said than done, and that people will "get over it" when their wounds of betrayal have healed, not when the pastor says so, or when it will be convenient for Archbishop Weakland.
Posted by: Fr. Brian Stanley at Mar 7, 2004 1:29:08 PM
I think the fault here lies chiefly with Archbishop Dolan, who approved the idea. Nothing he has done that has gotten any press attention since he arrived in Milwaukee confirms the glowing opinion his former Roman seminarians have of him.
The hand that he is prepared to send around anointing people was in the till of the archdiocese to the tune of $500,000. It was also other places I cannot imagine his confirmandi would care to be reminded of.
Just another example of bishops demonstrating that they think their first duty is to each other.
Posted by: David Kubiak at Mar 7, 2004 1:34:18 PM
This is great news! Finally Catholics are waking up to the corruption within the clergy and saying NO MORE! The issue of forgiveness is a completely separate one, and one that was used to keep priests in ministry for decades after they abused teenagers.
Posted by: Gen X Revert at Mar 7, 2004 1:38:27 PM
forgiveness is one thing - but even if you forgive someone, doesn't mean that you are "required" to celebrate that person. We tend to confuse "forgiveness" for "acceptance".
Posted by: Cathy at Mar 7, 2004 2:19:10 PM
100% correct, Fr. Stanley. There is more to getting over a great sin than simply saying 'you're forgiven.'
If you robbed a bank, and then got scared and offered to give the money back, would it no longer matter to anyone? I mean, can you "undo" a crime or sin by just willing it undone? Or wishing it had never happened?
In the bank robbery case, you'd go to jail. No question. The bank robbery case is just an example of something far more pervasive, but it's one most people can understand.
Moral philosophy 101. Used in the formulation of moral theology. Ever hear of temporal punishment?
Posted by: michigancathlic at Mar 7, 2004 4:48:04 PM
I get very sick of explaining this to people. It's been a very sorry weak spot in catechesis apparently.
Posted by: michigancatholic at Mar 7, 2004 4:49:34 PM
Finally! The long reclusion of Archbishop Rembert is ending!
And why is anyone at all surprised? Archbishop Timothy stated on his very first day in Milwaukee that he would put the retired archbishop to work "doing all the winter confirmations", said with vigor.
In addition to beginning to help with the confirmation circuit again, he's also scheduled to teach on the nature of Eucharist for the Riverbank Catholic Connection parishes later this spring, and a compendium of his teachings for the entire Sunday liturgical/lectionary cycles has been published (on CD-ROM), profits to support the Cathedral outreach ministries, one of his dearest and most enduring legacies.
Yet, to my great-neices and nephews, his greatest legacy to us will be the one he tried not to give to us --- the text of his renunciation in favor of loving and serving the people of Milwaukee with a single heart, that was meant to be seen by a single set of eyes but now belongs to us all, both unconscionably and providentially.
For the rest, peruse the earliest months of my site's archives (May-August 2002)
karen marie of Milwaukee
http://kmknapp.blogspot.com/
===============
Posted by: Karen Marie Knapp at Mar 7, 2004 7:39:29 PM
What I do not understand is why Ab. Dolan would impose Ab Weakland, and so soon after the scandal? What is it about clerics that make them so tone deaf?
Posted by: John at Mar 7, 2004 8:09:06 PM
Enjoy that "legacy," Karen. You paid BIG BUCKS for it.
Posted by: catholic at Mar 7, 2004 9:22:40 PM
No offense, Karen Marie -- your great loyalty and love for your shepherd do you great honor. It's a pity that Abp. Weakland did not prove himself more worthy of such sheep.
But "long reclusion"? It's been what, about two years? In Ye Olden Dayes™, isn't that about one-fifth of the time adulterers would have to do public pennance before being received back into communion? And it's not as if he's had to stand outside the cathedral and beat his breast in sorrow the whole time.
Of course, we are not Donatists -- confirmations done by Abp. Weakland are sacramentally valid. But the question of scandal is also quite valid, and it seems to me perfectly reasonable to question the prudence of Abp. Dolan in permitting and encouraging Abp. Weakland to take such a public role.
I will say, in favor of Abp. Weakland, that at least he was man enough to own up to his sins and not offer excuse, and to ask the Holy See to let him step aside. And that today, he is humble enough in this circumstance to not want his person to be the cause of contention and to withdraw gracefully. Would that more of his brother bishops could muster that.
peace,
Posted by: Zach Frey at Mar 7, 2004 10:46:35 PM
I lived in Milwaukee under Weakland till I moved here to Steubenville in '99. I have mixed thoughts about this story. I'm inclined to agree with both sides. That is, on the one hand, I think Weakland ought to keep out of the public eye for a while yet, and I think Dolan should encourage that, and not encourage the opposite. On the other hand, I'm not entirely keen about making a stink about who will administer the sacraments to one's family.
Posted by: Kevin Miller at Mar 8, 2004 8:07:42 AM
Perhaps one small step in the rehabilitation of the aptly named Weakland might be his repayment of the Church funds used as hush money for his lover?
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at Mar 8, 2004 9:42:20 AM
Tin ears are in abundance, in this story. Why is it they never see or feel the emotions of the other side.
Posted by: Larry Tierney at Mar 8, 2004 9:43:32 AM
In his apology, our former Archbishop said, "But I am also aware much self-pity and pride remain. I must leave that pride behind. Each day I will try to leave room for God to enter into my life more and more. Ultimately I understand that the humanity God so loved and sought to redeem, including my own humanity, will be transformed by his loving embrace and grace."
Unfortunately, he appears to have a group of "friends" who are instead intent on rehabilitating him as a resource for the ideological battles within the Church. Over the years, I read and heard a number of people claim to be his friend. Each eventually appeared to me to value him as an ally in an influential position, rather than as a friend. He seemed surrounded with people who reinforced his tendencies to be vain and vindictive. With friends like those ...
Some years back, he presided at Confirmation at our parish, and confirmed one of my kids. At the reception afterward, they had set up an area for confirmands to have their picture taken with him. From time to time, he would be standing there alone for a few minutes. I've never seen someone look more lonely.
Posted by: Terrence Berres at Mar 8, 2004 10:29:08 AM
I very much agree with Fr. Brian Stanley's remarks.
I'd only add, that there SHOULD be an appropriate sense of shame on the Archbishop's part. It seems to have been replaced by the desire to get back into the "limelight".
And that says a great deal about more than just one "shepherd" in the Church.
Posted by: rjano at Mar 8, 2004 11:35:14 AM
Greetings, all.
Despite my regard for Weakland as a scholar, musician, and bishop, it is clear that any active ministry on his part is not in the best interests of the Church at present. I objected also to his feature article in Commonweal last year. I think there is a time when younger people need to take up the mantle of ministry, and a time when the retired should just retire.
Zach has the measure of the man in noting his willingness to step back from this event. (Amy seems to imply differently in her headline, "set.")
If Archbishop Dolan seems insistent that he cannot preside at confirmations, he should just delegate the task to pastors, and focus his attentions on matters he see as more fit for the episcopacy. The other alternative would be to split up his and other dioceses to ensure the bishop has time and place for a proper leadership role.
Posted by: Todd at Mar 8, 2004 11:57:13 AM
My impression is that the decision-making here was made along very Roman lines. That is, Dolan reasoned that, since there was a bishop available for confirmations, a bishop as ordinary minister of confirmation should be preferred to priests, who are extraordinary ministers of confirmation.
Think about this in the case of EMEs: if there were a scandal-clouded priest in attendance during very crowded Mass, should he displace a lay EME as an ordinary minister of Communion?
That's what happens when one limits one's range of inquiry in these things.
Posted by: Liam at Mar 8, 2004 12:03:49 PM
"I will say, in favor of Abp. Weakland, that at least he was man enough to own up to his sins and not offer excuse, and to ask the Holy See to let him step aside."
Zach, do you really believe this man would have "owned up to his sins" if the man he had had an affair with had not gone public (and sped up his retirement AFTER he had already reached the mandatory age)?
I have my doubts.
The affair, the money, the wrecking of the diocesan Cathedral, the severe lack of vocations.........
It all comes out in the wash AFTER the fact. This man tried to make a diocese into his own image and likeness, not Jesus Christ.
He was hoping to ride off into the sunset as the poster boy for maverick bishops.
This little episode is nothing more than his own nest-making.
Posted by: kevin at Mar 8, 2004 1:03:03 PM
Liam: No, if the priest is scandal-proven, as is the case with Weakland. Such a man administering the sacraments, although the sacraments remain valid, is a scandal in and of itself. This gives the impression that what Weakland did is a minor matter, soon to be forgotten. It is not. The parishioners who protested showed a greater respect for the Faith than the associate pastor who insulted them.
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at Mar 8, 2004 1:06:36 PM
Donald
I agree. I just have a feeling that Dolan, like so many bishops, tends to interpret questions very narrowly, in the grand Roman manner.
Posted by: Liam at Mar 8, 2004 1:29:03 PM
