Canon lawyer: Rome needs to "vindicate the faithful" against the scandal of Abp. Weakland

From Dr. Ed Peters, on the "In the Light of the Law" blog:

If, as George Neumayr writes in the July 2009 Catholic World Report, Abp. Rembert Weakland's autobiography really is, among other things, a "memoir in praise of homosexual behavior" in which the prominent prelate admits "several affairs with men" and "argues that the Church should endorse the 'physical, genital expression' of homosexuality", then Rome has, as I see it, no defensible choice but, in accord with canons 1405.1.3 and 1717, to launch an investigation into the allegation that Weakland has, in violation of Canon 1369, used "published writings or other . . . instruments of social communication . . . to gravely injure good morals" and visit upon him a fitting penalty.

Read the entire post.

• Pilgrim's Regress: On the disgraceful autobiography of Rembert Weakland | George Neumayr | Editorial for the July 2009 issue of Catholic World Report

Comments

[Jackson]

Might this vindication include excommunication?

[bill bannon]

Gay activity is condemned for both genders in Romans chapter one in the NT (aside from the condemnations in the OT). In the area of morals, Scripture is often clear and this area is one in which Scripture is crystal clear. Scripture is also inerrant on morals. How then did Weakland get to the point of finding Scripture unclear in this matter. Welcome to modern Biblical scholarship and its misuse so as to void whatever the reader does not like. Weakland should face severe punishment but Catholics are less than honest if they see Popes having nothing to do with this weakening of Scripture. Try finding husband headship in either the catechism or the Vatican II documents while it is 6 times explicit in the New Testament. And Fr. Raymond Brown who held that Mary did not really say the Magnificat on page 349 of "Birth of the Messiah" served under both Paul VI and John Paul II on the Pontifical Biblical Commission.
He was a genius...but he had problems with the concept of inspiration...or else countless saints and doctors were dead wrong for centuries about what inspiration entails.
Weakland should be punished. The problem goes far beyond him in our new and faulty relationship to Scripture which makes Scripture simply another opinion inter alia.

[Janny]

Why is this man still an archbishop of ANY church, much less the Catholic Church? These revelations aren't news to anybody; is our Church so weak minded, so lame, so timid that it cannot even react in the face of REPEATED scandal?

Come on, Pope Benedict. Show some leadership here. It's clear that this man's direct superiors won't do it.

JB

[Ed Mechmann]

I'd like to ask a couple of questions of Dr. Peters. Forgive my ignorance and impertinence, (I'm a civil lawyer, not a canon lawyer), but hasn't Archbishop Weakland committed heresy, which entails an automatic excommunication, under Canon 1364? I know you're not a fan of automatic penalties, so what do you think the Holy See should do to "enforce" that penalty -- make a public statement of it? Or pursue it in a judicial process? Also, should they also pursue other penalties like dismissal from the clerical state under Canon 290?

[Ed Peters]

Jackson: could be, but it's not where one starts.

Janny: Weakland has no direct superiors besides the pope.

Counselor: Poenae latae sententiae delendae sunt. That said, without ruling out (by any means!) a heresy action here, let me just say that they are more complicated cases than, say, a 1369 case, so I tend to recommend cleaner actions than murkier ones. The penal process could either admin or judicial, and 290 should be on the table. Maybe I'll do a follow-up on this, but I'd rather not prejudice the discussion. I just know, something must be done.

[Sandra Miesel]

An if Rome acted, who seriously thinks that Weakland would pay attention? It would just make him more of a celebrity. The Milingo case shows that neither soft nor harsh treatment works on the determined offender.

[Ed Peters]

Golly. You are quite wrong here, Sandra. While, I grant, evil can be always counted on to celebrate evil (hence Milingo's "celebrity status", such as it is, albeit fading, with media elites), the faithful draw very real consolation (in the Ignatian sense, if nothing else) from seeing truth and right order vindicated. For a change. Milingo is indisputably less of an open wound on the Body of Christ as an excommunicate than he would have been as a retired bishop in good standing!

Anyway, there is a positive duty on shepherds to defend the sheep against wolves, and shepherds who are negilgent in that duty (or who content themselves with platitudes like 'Well, tsk tsk, but everyone knows wolves should not act that way around sheep') will themsleves be called to account for the degree to which they were negligent. And we're talking here, not just a wolf, or even a wolf in sheep's clothing, but a wolf in shepherd's clothing! Mon Dieu!

I readily allow prudence a role, of course, and I know something about when to draw a line and when to back away, but that is only my point: that here is the time to act against Weakland's lifelong contempt of Church law and teaching.

Disagree with the timing of my proposal if you want, but don't say the Church is powerless to do ANYTHING, I dunno, measurably real, about Weakland. That flies in the face of not just nearly all of Church history, but of the powers and responsibility that Christ left to His Church.

[Sandra Miesel]

Ed, I'm just cynical by nature. I do think Weakland would ignore any penalty. Anti-Catholic media in the US have a much bigger investment in him than they ever did in Milingo.

Maybe he'll swim the Thames and "marry" a man.

[Todd]

Let's see ... we have a man who's eighty-something, retired, and pretty much out of the public eye. Except for a book that's getting talked about far more in conservative circles than liberal ones. At the risk of being crude, how the hell are you going to punish him? Let him take over for Cardinal Law at Santa Maria Maggiore? Seriously, can we take away his senior citizen discount at Denny's, confiscate his bus pass, or put a $100 per month surcharge on his rent?

The man is a Benedictine monk. As a religious, he took a vow of celibacy, not because it was being imposed on homosexuals, but because he chose a lifestyle with sixteen flippin' centuries of tradition behind it. Did his episcopal ordination somehow supercede his being a Benedictine? I don't think so.

Archbishop Weakland has nothing to say to me, and most liberals I know feel the same way. He does seem to have something to say to others, if for no purpose than to give them a convenient political target. The archbishop is a disgrace, and his detractors do themselves little credit getting down into the mud with him.

[Ed Peters]

Ok, Sandra. But it's not mainly about Weakland, is my point, it's about the wider community. Which we can do something for.

I've no interest in responding to Todd's cynicism-veneered ignorance.

[Todd]

Ed, if the wider community were really the issue, then "something" would have been done about bishops who enabled and hid sexual predators, something the laity in general find significantly more heinous than an old man with sexual regrets.

So yes, I'm very aware that the Archdiocese of Milwaukee can yank his pension, the Congegation for Clergy can laicize him, and the OSB's disown him. And maybe they should. I simply offer two observations: When other offending bishops get a pass, and the Right comes down hard on Archbishop Weakland, there's a certain relativism in the selective targeting, and a curiosity that the man been such a topic of conversation to conservative Catholics.

[Carl E. Olson]

It's rather obvious why Weakland has been getting attention from the "Right"; so obvious that perhaps only a self-admitted liberal would find it a "curiosity":

1. Weakland is widely and rightly understood to have been one of the most influential liberal bishops of the late 1970s through the 1990s. He was, for many liberals, the leading voice of dissent during those years, being described recently by The New York Times as " the intellectual touchstone for church reformers" during those years.

2. He recently published an autobiography that apparently not only fails to acknowledge fully his errors and sins, but attempts to justify them, in part by criticizing Church teaching.

3. Because of the book, he has been in the news, including getting attention in major newspapers, such as The New York Times. In those pieces he has continued to criticize Church teaching, especially about the sinfulness of homosexual acts.

That covers the major bases, and they are major.

I'm not sure what other offending bishops have done #2 or #3, certainly not in the way that Weakland has been doing it.

[Norah]

At last some of you upper echelon types are realising that the lay Faithful need to be protected from scandal. We who are trying to follow the teaching of the Church in these post-Christian times need to see that the Faith we profess is also the Faith that 'our betters' profess. The idea that talking the talk and walking the walk is only for those without theological degrees makes us feel really stupid.

[Dan Deeny]

Is Archbishop Dolan responsible for any of this? Wasn't he the Bishop in Milwaukee while Archbishop Weakland was working from the diocesan office? It would be interesting to know Archbishop Dolan's views on this.

[Todd]

Carl, my sense from the liberal side of things is that other bishops were more outspoken than Archbishop Weakland through the 80's. "Dissent" is not how I would characterize the man's legacy--at least as a bishop.

The liberals have been almost totally silent on his autobiography, which leads me to believe they don't think his SSA talking points aligns very well with their agendas. As I've said before, I find it deeply cringeworthy a lifelong monk would, in his 80's, advocate for his own sexual expression. Do I worry about people getting the wrong idea? Not as much as I'm concerned for the man's mental health.

No, I think the retired archbishop is a convenient target for the Right. Not much more. It would be interesting to see what the sales numbers are on his book. I don't plan to buy it. My friends aren't talking about it. I don't suppose conservatives will purchase copies to mark up in red ink. Where is this going? My vote is nowhere fast.

[Tim V]

As an evangelical thinking of coming into the Church, the inaction of church leadership in situations like this is a real stumbling block. After what happened with Weakland in 2002, the Church did nothing? How am I supposed to believe in the 'one, HOLY, Catholic and Apostolic Church' if the leadership doesn't live with integrity and the Vatican fails to discipline those leaders. I don't understand why Catholics are surprised by the contents of this man's autobiography since the Church did nothing to stop or even discourage him in 2002. If I was looking for the spotless bride of Christ, this is certainly a Church that wouldn't rank high on my list of suspects. If the bishops and pope are supposed to be the backbone of the Church, then it seems like something has really gone wrong.

A discouraged Canuck

[AMauldin]

Tim V expresses my dismay as well. I'm a new Catholic and while it's not surprising to have miscreants in any group, it seems pretty hypocritical to give folks like Weakland, and other abusive priests within the Church a pass. Add to that mess the spectacle of "Catholics" like Pelosi, Kerry, the Kennedy clan and Kathleen Sebelius actively promoting homosexuality, abortion on demand and cafeteria Catholicism in general, then faithful Christians, like Tim V and those of us who have swum the Tiber "...feel really stupid" to echo Nora, above.

Either such behavior and actions are wrong, or they aren't. If Weakland et al want to advocate such behavior, there are other venues for them. The Holy Church shouldn't be one of the options.

[Todd]

Archbishop Weakland has brought shame to himself and to his Church, but let it also be said that Cardinal Law and others compounded those two aspects with being complicit in the direct harm of minor children and adolescents. If the retired archbishop has gone so wrong, at the very least, his accomplices in immorality were consenting adults. There is no similar excuse for the archpriest of Santa Maria Maggiore, other than his own protest: "We thought we were doing okay."

[Jack]

I just don't like the guy because he beat up on Mother Angelica when she defended the real presence against that bizarre pastoral letter from Cardinal Mahony. Little did we know then that Weakland was a wolf in sheep's clothing. But, I'm sure Mother Angelica knew.

[Manuel G. Daugherty Razetto]

I see calm wisdom, insight in the words of Dr Peters : "something must be done" / " here is the time to act against Weakland lifetime contempt of Church Law and teaching"
Before the daring objectivism and impudent relativism we see in the attitude of Archbishop Weakland, how can any self respected follower of God's Revealed Word reamain silent. They alone induce us to state that this is by no means new at all. Already in 1980 a Father Robert Nugent was promoting homosexuality as an acceptable Church moral issue. Then in 1983 archbishop William D. Borders of Baltimore supported Gay rights activity. Let us not forget that it was none other than Cardinal Ratzinger who upheld the church's Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, in a letter from Rome. The 1980's brought as well the infamous case of Father Charles Curran, theologian at the Catholic Univ. of America, who persistently defended his erroneous views til Cardinal Ratzinger condemned him and took away his professorship of Catholic theology, as we all know.
Should not the holy Father instruct Cardinal Levada the right path to follow?