Yes, and with specifics. In fact, Bishop Thomas J. Tobin even used the "d" word in reflecting on the life and memoirs of a certain Archbishop Rembert Weakland:
It strikes me that critics of Archbishop Weakland should be at least a little restrained in their umbrage, for after all there are many redeeming qualities of the Archbishop’s life and ministry. He responded willingly to the Lord’s call to the consecrated life; he has served the Church generously in a variety of difficult leadership positions; he has shown a determined commitment to the progress of the Church and the implementation of the Second Vatican Council; and he has consistently reached-out to the poor, the weak and the disenfranchised members of the Church and society. If his service has been marred by human imperfections, so be it. So is mine, and so is yours.
On the other hand, supporters of Archbishop Weakland should also be able to recognize the self-serving inconsistencies and contradictions contained in his story.
For example, although the Archbishop always took pride in his liberal theological tendencies and his public pronouncements on controversial issues, he seemed to be genuinely puzzled, even hurt, when others labeled him a dissident.
He passionately promoted the dignity of the laity and their role in the governance and ministry of the Church, but had little hesitation about quietly using their money to cover-up his egregious sexual offense.
He disparaged the secrecy of the Holy See but for twenty years hid his own indiscretions behind the walls of the chancery, indiscretions that were not just a matter of personal behavior but also profoundly affected the reputation and welfare of the Church.
He railed against what he considered the authoritarian pontificate of Pope John Paul II, but clearly used his own persona and authority to impose his vision of the Church upon his own fiefdom in Milwaukee, easily dismissing those who opposed him as conservative, right-wing nuts.
In short, like many dissidents in the Church, throughout his life Archbishop Weakland benefited generously from the support of the institutional Church, but never hesitated to criticize the Church whenever it served his own purposes to do so.
On the other hand, supporters of Archbishop Weakland should also be able to recognize the self-serving inconsistencies and contradictions contained in his story.
For example, although the Archbishop always took pride in his liberal theological tendencies and his public pronouncements on controversial issues, he seemed to be genuinely puzzled, even hurt, when others labeled him a dissident.
He passionately promoted the dignity of the laity and their role in the governance and ministry of the Church, but had little hesitation about quietly using their money to cover-up his egregious sexual offense.
He disparaged the secrecy of the Holy See but for twenty years hid his own indiscretions behind the walls of the chancery, indiscretions that were not just a matter of personal behavior but also profoundly affected the reputation and welfare of the Church.
He railed against what he considered the authoritarian pontificate of Pope John Paul II, but clearly used his own persona and authority to impose his vision of the Church upon his own fiefdom in Milwaukee, easily dismissing those who opposed him as conservative, right-wing nuts.
In short, like many dissidents in the Church, throughout his life Archbishop Weakland benefited generously from the support of the institutional Church, but never hesitated to criticize the Church whenever it served his own purposes to do so.
Read the entire August 27, 2009, column, "Archbishop Weakland’s Perplexing Pilgrimage." Big hat tip to Jack Smith of The Catholic Key blog.
"whenever a pilgrim wanders off the track and away from the group, he runs the risk of getting hurt or lost, and in so doing, impedes the pilgrimage, and diminishes the peace and joy of his fellow travelers."
Good grief. THIS IS WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE PRIESTHOOD! Weakland did not simply stumble; he disgraced his office by homosexual affairs and embezzlement. If this is the eulogy he gets, we really are bad off. Who cares hoe pleasant he was at tea time. Or benevolent to poor people as a bishop in the Church? Yes, Goid shall judge. We should be allowed to forget a disgrace.
Posted by: Joe | Wednesday, August 26, 2009 at 07:13 PM
I agree. Weakland is a disgrace. It is incomprehensible why he is still given an office in which to write, permission to refer to himself as "Archbishop Emeritus", and living accommodations. What on earth does it take to make the USCCB mad enough to DO something? Other than being Mother Angelica, loyalty to the Pope and the Magisterium, and/or founding EWTN, that is.
Posted by: Robert | Thursday, August 27, 2009 at 12:59 PM
Good information.
In short, like many dissidents in the Church, throughout his life Archbishop Weakland benefited generously from the support of the institutional Church, but never hesitated to criticize the Church whenever it served his own purposes to do so.
Posted by: Xenon HID | Wednesday, September 23, 2009 at 09:19 PM