Former Catholic head of Milwaukee admits he's gay

[Zagloba]

hehe…I know a lot of Kmiec supporters who would say the same thing.

Biden and Pelosi both support the legalization of something called categorically wrong by the Magisterium. Kmiec does not. He is adamantly pro-life; he just differed with certain Catholics on the best prudential decision to make in the 2008 election. But that’s another discussion, one many threads have been devoted to already.

I share your disappointment that so many Catholics disregard Church teaching on abortion, contraception, divorce, etc. Still, I don’t think we can afford not to welcome discussion on these issues, especially the more nuanced ones. For instance, there is such a need for a long discussion about how the Church is going to relate to the homosexual community in the next hundred years or so. I have a million thoughts on the issue (none of which contradict Church teaching), and I’m not even gay! I may just be a dumb sheep in the “flock,” but I for one am very, very interested in hearing what gay clergy and former clergy have to say about the proper pastoral approaches to homosexual individuals. I think it’s one of the three of four biggest issues facing the 21st century Church.

And if Weakland turns out to be way off-base or else just plain self-serving – and you may be right with those accusations – then so be it. I’d just rather give him the benefit of the doubt and read his book before jumping to conclusions. Otherwise, we risk making the same mistakes all those “voice of the faithful” and “bottom-up” laity advocates make, only on the other side of the political spectrum: i.e., holding a bishop to a set of demands and expectations that we have for his proper conduct, rather than listening to what he has to say and, out of respect for his office, trying our best to understand it.

A liberal, scandalized bishop is still a bishop, after all!

Peace,
+AMDG+

You’re very kind in your willingness to read what the Archbishop has to say re: homosexuality and the priesthood etc… In fact, his homosexuality is not the issue with me. Its his dishonesty and subsequent blame casting which I believe will taint his work and lead to misunderstanding among Catholics.

Isn’t there a homosexual Bishop out there who can speak on this subject who hasn’t broken his vows or at least didn’t embezzle funds because of it.

I will also read his book since the profits go to his order (Bendictine?). Unless that’s another vow he doesn’t keep.

 

[tuviskazinai]

I will also read his book since the profits go to his order (Bendictine?). Unless that’s another vow he doesn’t keep.

hahaha…zing.

 

[tuviskazinai]

hahaha…zing.

And welcome to CAF, btw. (Just noticed you are new here!)

 

[stbruno]

Personally, I hope all the profits go to repay the Milwaukee diocese where Weakland took the funds from to pay off the other man. And if there is extra then give it to his order. He should not stand to make a penny.

 

[manualman]

tuv,

You’re a good debater and have a great heart for fairness, I can see that. Good discussion and valid points.

But there does come a point where you recognize that someone has simply cast his lot elsewhere. Judas wasn’t Darth Vader either. He just stopped believing. Believers walk a fine line. We can’t be too judgemental, but we must be discerning about who we allow to influence us. Choose wisely.

 

[Zagloba]

And welcome to CAF, btw. (Just noticed you are new here!)

Thanks.

 

[Benadam]

that he wrote about his sexual orientation because he wanted to be candid about “how this came to life in my own self, how I suppressed it, how it resurrected again.”

He wanted to be candid

"I was very careful and concerned that the book not become a Jerry Springer, to satisfy people’s prurient curiosity or anything of this sort

desire to be candid is worth it I suppose.

," Weakland told The Associated Press. “At the same time, I tried to be as honest as I can.”

Am I missing something or is there no stated reason this book can be considered a ‘good’ for others?

If I’m being harsh I apologize. I just expect to see evidence of a person being penitent from a former leader claiming to be penitent. If that is the reason for the book. ‘Pilgrim in a Pilgrim Church.’ If not it seems to be an attempt to justify his past.

This poor man is responsible for such grave scandal that if he were contrite imo the last thing he would desire is public note.

 

[Elizabeth502]

if he were contrite imo the last thing he would desire is public note.

Precisely.

Or more to the point (for myself), contrite or not, only in very contemporary times is it considered acceptable to air one’s own private “dirty laundry” (met metaphorically, but that’s the phrase that was always used in the past by people of good taste).

One of two actions was appropriate: (1) Working out his private conflicts within the private confines of the institution, with professionals, or (2) leaving the institution entirely, so that he would no longer burden the faithful with his own private angst for which they bear no responsibility and can do nothing.

If he is remaining a cleric within the Church, any third option is irresponsible and thus immoral. I’m speaking strictly of the “identity crisis” business, not of any alleged or admitted actual improper behavior, if there was any.

Separately, if his conduct rose to the level of violating his vows and his office, even less should the public hear about it from him, because of the scandal benadam just referred to.

 

[Teelynn]

Do you mean this?

http://www.stjohncathedral.org/tour/images/carona1.JPG

There is a plaque on the left side of the main door which reads:

stjohncathedral.org/tour/enter2.htm

I can understand objections to the crucifix, but I think the cathedral looks beautiful.

Yep, the crucifix is OBSCENE!! Borders on blasphemous IMHO.

 

[tuviskazinai]

If he is remaining a cleric within the Church, any third option is irresponsible and thus immoral. I’m speaking strictly of the “identity crisis” business, not of any alleged or admitted actual improper behavior, if there was any.

Yes, but my understanding is that he is writing not just to air his dirty laundry or talk about his own identity crisis, but to ask certain questions about the way the Vatican deals with internal affairs (from dissident theologians to sex abusers) and about the Vatican’s stance on homosexuality. (I explained this more thoroughly in Post 34.) I think these are important and legitimate questions, and even if they’re painful for the Church, that doesn’t mean he has no right to ask them…

Peace,
+AMDG+

 

[tuviskazinai]

Yep, the crucifix is OBSCENE!! Borders on blasphemous IMHO.

I don’t know…taste is subjective. I like that the Church is welcoming modern art. When confronted with new artistic trends, it’s important to stop and ask whether we need to recalibrate our tastes. Example: about 800 years ago some cardinal wanted to build a church that broke entirely from standard architectural conventions. It would feature sharp, pointed angles rather than smooth, graceful curves and it would be decorated with big, ugly statues of hideous demons and devils. It caused an outcry, and bishops and abbots everywhere declared it a monstrosity. It was this:
aurorahistoryboutique.com/blog/notre-dame-cathedral.png
And now of course everyone kind of likes it. Which is more “blasphemous,” after all: a modern-style crucifix that evokes the pain and agony of Christ, or a Church decorated with demons and devils?

Peace,
+AMDG+

 

[Benadam]

someone posted the idea that the questions brought up by the former archbishop were important. It seems to me that he is just continuing his campaign to change the mind of the Church. The difference now is that he attempts to expose the Church as the cause of scandal and himself as it’s victim.

 

[tuviskazinai]

someone posted the idea that the questions brought up by the former archbishop were important. It seems to me that he is just continuing his campaign to change the mind of the Church. The difference now is that he attempts to expose the Church as the cause of scandal and himself as it’s victim.

How do you know this is what he’s doing? You haven’t read the book!
Neither have I, of course.
I just think that, if we want to restore honor to a Church whose dignity has been pulverized by a century full of sexual abuse, then we need to be courageous enough to listen to people who say things we would rather not hear about things like this. Some very serious changes may need to be made in the Vatican’s internal affairs.
I mean, it may be that this book is nothing but a selfish attempt to exonerate himself, filled with lies and slander. If that turns out to be the case, I’ll join you in condemning. But until we know for sure, I think that any condemnations are just jumping the gun and assuming that the guy is incapable of having any good motives after such a humiliating episode…

Peace,
+AMDG+

 

[Elizabeth502]

Yes, but my understanding is that he is writing not just to air his dirty laundry or talk about his own identity crisis, but to ask certain questions about the way the Vatican deals with internal affairs (from dissident theologians to sex abusers) and about the Vatican’s stance on homosexuality. (I explained this more thoroughly in Post 34.) I think these are important and legitimate questions, and even if they’re painful for the Church, that doesn’t mean he has no right to ask them…

Peace,
+AMDG+

Did I say he didn’t have a “right?” (No, I said that it was irresponsible.) Legitimate or not, the questions do not need to be linked to his own identity crisis, publicly. That should be something handled within the walls, so to speak. If he wants to add ‘legitimacy’ (based on experience) to the questions he wants “aired,” the personal experience aspect is still inappropriate to share with the public.

His mode is self-serving, and I agree with benadam: smacks of victimhood. He’s not a victim. He chose a celibate, chaste lifestyle going in, with full vision. No one forced him; no one forced him to stay in the lifestyle as time went on. Nor is he forced now.

 

[Benadam]

How do you know this is what he’s doing? You haven’t read the book!
Neither have I, of course.
I just think that, if we want to restore honor to a Church whose dignity has been pulverized by a century full of sexual abuse, then we need to be courageous enough to listen to people who say things we would rather not hear about things like this. Some very serious changes may need to be made in the Vatican’s internal affairs.
I mean, it may be that this book is nothing but a selfish attempt to exonerate himself, filled with lies and slander. If that turns out to be the case, I’ll join you in condemning. But until we know for sure, I think that any condemnations are just jumping the gun and assuming that the guy is incapable of having any good motives after such a humiliating episode…

Peace,
+AMDG+

I agree with you there must be policies within the church that failed and need reviewed and rethought. I guarantee you they are. I am sure that the resolutions to those failures are not representative of the direction that bishop Weakland wants. I may be unfair in thinking that the purpose of the book is easy to know with a brief parousal of it’s content but I don’t think it’s unfair after a brief parousal to find it difficult to believe it’s content is important for the Church in healing the wounds inflicted by the actions of it’s author. I just haven’t been able to sense a purpose driven by the need to help heal the church in what I know about the book.

 

[Holly3278]

I don’t care if he’s gay so long as he is also chaste. That is what matters the most… chastity. I didn’t read the article so I don’t know if he’s a chaste gay or a practicing gay but I will pray for him regardless.

 

[VanDoodah]

You are apparently unfamiliar with Christianity. A central theme is that God gives us burdens which we are expected to carry in this life. Homosexuality is an especially heavy burden in that celibacy is required. That God gives some people this burden does not mean that God made a mistake. The mistake is made by people who believe that such a burden is actually a license to ignore God’s will.

But He’s omniscient - He knows they’re not going to obey Him.

Why would God create gay nontheists when he’s omniscient? That sounds like a stupid plan to me (and all other sane people.)

 

[Dale_M]

But He’s omniscient - He knows they’re not going to obey Him.

You are making an incorrect assumption. We have several members of these forums who are homosexual and yet maintain celibacy. I have no doubt there are many other homosexuals who maintain celibacy in order to follow God’s will.

Why would God create gay nontheists when he’s omniscient? That sounds like a stupid plan to me (and all other sane people.)

To some degree non-theism, like being sexually active, is a choice. The responsibility of Christians is to persuade non-theists (and sexually active, unmarried people) of their error. At least that is what the Catholic Church (and many protestant denominations) teaches.

 

[VanDoodah]

**You are making an incorrect assumption. We have several members of these forums who are homosexual and yet maintain celibacy. I have no doubt there are many other homosexuals who maintain celibacy in order to follow God’s will. **

To some degree non-theism, like being sexually active, is a choice. The responsibility of Christians is to persuade non-theists (and sexually active, unmarried people) of their error. At least that is what the Catholic Church (and many protestant denominations) teaches.

The bit in bold makes no sense. You claim that the existence of celibate homosexuals proves…what exactly? God is by definition omniscient, so why would He create homosexuals who He KNEW would NOT abstain from homosexual activities? It makes no sense. You’re saying God gives people burdens like homosexuality to “test” them (well, someone on here said that), and yet, seeing as how He’s omniscient, He knew that they wouldn’t abstain from these activities anyway.

The bit that isn’t in bold shows why Christianity is becoming less and less popular in Western Europe. You Christians seem to think that you have moral authority over everyone else, and that that authority even extends to telling consenting adults what they can and can’t do in the privacy of their own bedroom. I find it sickening, especially in light of the Ryan Report, which details the sexual deviances of Roman Catholic priests.

On the subject of the Ryan Report - didn’t Jesus say something to the effect of “Why are you attempting to remove the speck of dust from your brother’s eye, when you have a log in your own eye?”? Think about it. And stop hating on homosexuals. After all, the Magic Man in the Sky created them that way.

 

[Dale_M]

The bit in bold makes no sense. You claim that the existence of celibate homosexuals proves…what exactly? God is by definition omniscient, so why would He create homosexuals who He KNEW would NOT abstain from homosexual activities? It makes no sense. You’re saying God gives people burdens like homosexuality to “test” them (well, someone on here said that), and yet, seeing as how He’s omniscient, He knew that they wouldn’t abstain from these activities anyway.

I see your point, but we are given free will. God’s omniscience doesn’t take away from our ability to obey or disobey (or have lack of knowledge of God’s will.) He doesn’t want to create puppets.

The bit that isn’t in bold shows why Christianity is becoming less and less popular in Western Europe. You Christians seem to think that you have moral authority over everyone else, and that that authority even extends to telling consenting adults what they can and can’t do in the privacy of their own bedroom. I find it sickening, especially in light of the Ryan Report, which details the sexual deviances of Roman Catholic priests.

The sexual abuse of minors by Catholic priests is disgusting, disturbing, and dismaying. It is a terrible thing.

But I disagree with you that all Christians think they have moral authority over others (although, admittedly, some do.) Yes, we do have certain beliefs, just as you have certain beliefs. In a free society, the open exchange of ideas involves persuading people to adopt your beliefs, be they political, religious, aesthetic, or what have you. Yes, in the past Christians have tried to engage in social engineering, such as laws against sodomy (and here in the US, laws against gay marriage.) I think such laws are a mistake and constitute a tyranny of the majority.

On the subject of the Ryan Report - didn’t Jesus say something to the effect of “Why are you attempting to remove the speck of dust from your brother’s eye, when you have a log in your own eye?”? Think about it. And stop hating on homosexuals. After all, the Magic Man in the Sky created them that way.

And Jesus is right. I am certainly guilty of many faults, but molesting children is not one of them. However, you are making another assumption which is also wrong. I don’t hate homosexuals. In fact, I am one of the strongest advocates for homosexual rights here. However, that doesn’t stop me from being able to see things from the other side. I was merely presenting the orthodox Catholic perspective.