Skip to comments.Former Milwaukee Archbishop Rembert Weakland Admits He's Gay
Posted on 03/29/2010 2:17:12 PM PDT by MinorityRepublican
A Roman Catholic archbishop who resigned in 2002 over a sex and financial scandal involving a man has written a memoir that describes how he struggled with being gay.
Archbishop Rembert Weakland, former head of the Milwaukee archdiocese, "is up front about his homosexuality in a church that preferred to ignore gays," Publisher's Weekly wrote in a review Monday.
The book, "A Pilgrim in a Pilgrim Church: Memoirs of a Catholic Archbishop," is set to be released in June and is described by the publisher as a self-examination by Weakland of his "psychological, spiritual and sexual growth."
The Vatican says that men with "deep-seated" attraction to other men should not be ordained.
Weakland stepped down quickly after Paul Marcoux, a former Marquette University theology student, revealed in May 2002 that he was paid $450,000 to settle a sexual assault claim he made against the archbishop more than two decades earlier. The money came from the archdiocese.
Marcoux went public at the height of anger over the clergy sex abuse crisis, when Catholics and others were demanding that dioceses reveal the extent of molestation by clergy and how much had been confidentially spent to settle claims.
Weakland denied ever assaulting anyone. He apologized for concealing the payment.
In an August 1980 letter that was obtained by the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, Weakland said he was in emotional turmoil over Marcoux and signed the letter, "I love you."
"During the last months, I have come to know how strained I was, tense, pensive, without much joy," Weakland wrote. "I felt like the world's worst hypocrite. So gradually I came back to the importance of celibacy in my life."
The revelations rocked the Milwaukee archdiocese, which Weakland had led since 1977. But when he publicly read a letter of apology for the scandal, Milwaukee parishioners gave him a a standing ovation.
The Archdiocese of Milwaukee released a public statement last week alerting local Catholics that the book is soon to be published and that it deals in part with Weakland's relationship with Marcoux and the scandal.
"Some people will be angry about the book, others will support it," the archdiocese said.
Weakland, who has been a hero for liberal Catholics because of his work on social justice and other issues, will also address in the memoirs his failures to stop abusive priests.
In a videotaped deposition released last November, Weakland admitted returning guilty priests to active ministry without alerting parishioners or police.
Advocates for abuse victims said that Weakland's cover up of his own sexual activity was part of a pattern of secrecy that included concealing the criminal behavior of child molesters.
The archbishop did not respond Monday to an e-mail request for comment. Weakland, a Benedictine, plans to move to St. Mary's Abbey in Morristown, N.J., this summer.
U.S. Catholics have long debated whether the priesthood had become a predominantly gay vocation. Estimates vary from 25 percent to 50 percent, according to a review of research on the issue by the Rev. Donald Cozzens, author of "The Changing Face of the Priesthood."
Cozzens, a former seminary rector, said in an interview that Weakland's acknowledgment of his sexual orientation "cuts into the denial that relatively few priests or bishops are gay."
But Russell Shaw, a former spokesman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, questioned whether the book would have much impact.
"That one controversial archbishop acknowledges what everybody's known for several years," Shaw said, "I don't think that's going to make any big difference."
you don’t know crap about me and unless its biblical insofar as qualifications for bishop which none of the priests in the catholic church meet as far as i can tell this discussion is moot
Where did she answer if her parents supported the Church and School?? Where...I must have missed it.
>> Then dont permit men with sexual urges to become priests. Better to have fewer faithful priests than more unfaithful ones.
Easier said than done. Ask the pope. Staffing a worldwide church exclusively with celibate clerics may very well be impossible.
esp sense most catholic believers have faith that peter is the first pope of the church
and there is biblical scripture that supports that peter was married and the only documented marital status of any apostle in the gospels although it was believed only john was single out of the 12
why would any bible believing organization want it any diff?
I know what you post, which is what I used for reference.
Paul declared his celibacy outright. Peter’s mother-in-law was mentioned, and his wife was mentioned separately=. The rest are Biblically undeclared.
The dichotomy of Peter and Paul would seem to suggest that apostles could acceptably choose from celibacy or marriage. The fact that the marital status of the other apostles was not addressed seems to indicate that marital status really isn’t that big a deal either way ... certainly not a deciding factor in who should lead the church.
If you will reread my post to you, you will notice that I included the post in which GraceG answered you. I am very surprised that you missed her eloquent reply, which made quite an impression on me. I’m also surprised that you could read my comment and not notice that I specifically mentioned the number of Grace’s post. Perhaps you are not reading with very much carefulness and attention?
freep mail me privately if your curosity is getting the better of you
You’re right that the discussion is moot as it relates to you personally. I should be careful to be more generic.
we know tho that paul was a persecutor if there is such a word of the church before God descended the holy upon him so who knows what his inclinations were before that happened
It’s PASSOVER...I’m doing DINNER.
oops holy spirit
Well, then I’m sorry that you couldn’t finish your Catholic education. I went to a 2 Room Catholic school and it was FABULOUS!!
Except for the fact that Peter’s wife was long dead.
where is that in the bible?
Well, it might be better in the abstract.
In the lived reality, as they say, Catholics need priests - more than a few - to benefit from the sacraments.
I don't know if you've noticed, but the life of a solitary pastor, caring for as many as two thousand souls, with no fellow priests and no spouse, has become very, very hard.
Not that it was ever easy - but your prescription to increase radically the demands on each priest while further isolating him from his fellow priests, both through overwork and geographic distance, doesn't seem promising.
“why would any bible believing organization want it any diff?”
Different from what? The Catholic church is no different today. If you are an anglican priest and marry, and then convert, you can still become a Catholic priest.
Nothing has changed. The Apostles, some like Peter were married well before they were called. This is why Paul says that “are you married, remain married”. Yes it is true that married men were sometimes ordained. But ordained priests did not marry.
I have had my differences with the church over the last few years, so I tend to stay out of these threads. However, your comments have been so ignorant and moronic that I felt the need to chime in. How many of these gay/celibate/pedophile priests do you know personally? I have met and been friends with literally hundreds in my lifetime and I was never molested, hit on or even made to feel uncomfortable. The priests I have known were men who sacrificed their lives to the service of their communities. Most were on call 24/7 to be with their parishoners in some of the worst moments of their lives. They live lives of sacrifice and service that leaves no time for a family of their own (which is the reason for the vow of celibacy in the first place). Their reard of late has been to be branded with a scarlet P due to the actions of a statistical few. You obviously know nothing more than what the NY Times or Boston Globe has written. The same publications that you would excoriate for conservatism are spot on when it comes to Catholic priests? Please. Your “everyone knows” and “common sense should tell you” style of arguments are exactly the same kind of logic used by the mob in charge of the WH and Congress today.
“But ordained priests did not marry.”
They did in the book of acts.
>> Except for the fact that Peters wife was long dead.
In 1 Corinthians 9:5, Paul wrote ...
(NIV) “Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas?”
Cephas, as I understand it, is anoter name for Peter.
I struggle with being happy all the time..........
>> I have had my differences with the church over the last few years, so I tend to stay out of these threads.
You should’ve gone with your first instinct. I never mentioned pedophilia.
“I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but the life of a solitary pastor, caring for as many as two thousand souls, with no fellow priests and no spouse, has become very, very hard.”
It has always been so, and yet the principle remains the same. A priest must be faithful. A priest must be willing to give up his life in the flesh for a life in the faith.
“Not that it was ever easy - but your prescription to increase radically the demands on each priest”
How am I changing anything. You say I am making radical demands on the priests by calling them to uphold the vows that they made to the Church. I am not changing anything, simply asking that they remain faithful to these vows for the rest of their life.
“while further isolating him from his fellow priests,”
On the contrary. A parish which preaches the word of Christ and lives the word will find vocations. You are basically saying that the Word is not enough, when such is not the case. Yes, we could be easy, but people are not looking for the easy way. And even if they did, would we want them?
I’ll say again, it is not the number of priests, but the quality that is important. We must have faithful priests.
dang, you’re good
The word is pariagein, which means ‘to lead about’.
“Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well
as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and
The NIV doesn’t do a very good job in some places.
Rembutt was a disgrace to the priesthood.
>> The word is pariagein, which means to lead about. Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? The NIV doesnt do a very good job in some places.
OK. Your re-translation doesn’t really change the word “wife”, though.
Rembutt did not give up.
Present tense in the verb.
“Have we not the right to lead about,” etc. And that’s all Paul is arguing here. That they have the right, even if they do not do so.
what is matthew 8:14 in latin?
He’s not talking about taking a wife along for a mission journey. He’s talking about the ability to lead.
“Have we not power to lead about a sister-woman, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?”
Also works as well. The word used here is adelphos guneika which could also be rendered as sister-woman.
The greek word you are looking for is pentheran which means ‘mother in law’.
The whole verse:
“And when Jesus was come into Peter’s house, he saw his
mother-in-law laying down, and sick of a fever.”
I’m not contesting he was married. But there’s no evidence that his wife was in fact alive at the time he became an Apostle.
“Im not contesting he was married. But theres no evidence that his wife was in fact alive at the time he became an Apostle.”
There was when Paul wrote letter to the Corinthians.
And if you don’t believe that where in the Bible does it say otherwise?
No, there wasn’t. I’m sorry. I’ve already examined the passages you quoted, and I think that sister woman is a better translation here than wife.
This is a problem with the vernacular, an English translation cannot take precedence over the words as they were written.
well if Matthew 8 talks about Peter having a wife and Corinthians talks about Peter having a wife then I’d say the Bible is saying Peter had a wife after Christ’s resurrection and that Peter was married.
No, that’s not what Matthew 8 says.
All Matthew 8 says is that Jesus went into the house of Peter’s mother in law.
Yet, we don’t hear anything about his wife? Why was his wife not accompanying Peter and Christ to the house of her mother?
At the very least the only thing you can assume from Matthew 8 is that at some point Peter was married. We do not know that she was still alive at the time. Nowhere is her name recorded in scripture, unlike many of the other people.
As for Corinthians, I’m not sure the passage is referring to Peter’s wife. It’s not as an unambiguous passage as the one in Matthew 8.
If that’s all the evidence you have for your position that Peter’s wife was alive when he was an Apostle, then I’m sorry, you haven’t convinced me that you have correctly interpreted scripture.
if i wasn’t married to my husband his mother at that point wouldn’t be my mother in law
Indeed, he was married to his wife. :)
Thanks for confirming that we are still on the same page here.
and there is a scripture somewhere in the NT (don’t test me please) that says you can’t take away from or add to it and it still remain the word
honestly, i feel you need to look up the word “denial” in whatever language you feel most comfortable with
On the contrary, I’m looking at the Greek, which is the original. I don’t see how I’m adding or changing words, when I am going on what they wrote.
As for denial, I once believed in sola scriptura, and even then I wouldn’t have found your arguments compelling. You are reading into the text what you want to find there.
i’m reading Matt and Corinthians and taking them at face value you?
Grace your FOS and know nothing of the Catholic Church. Schools are closed when enrollment does not warrant keeping them open.
My children went all through Catholic schools and universities and were never hit on or molested.
and most of them were married men too.
Not according to Scripture. Out of the 12 we only know definitively that, at one time, Peter was married.
The Catholic Church needs to do one or all of the following:
The Church has survived nearly two millenia without letting people like you dictate what to do but I'll refute your nonsense anyway point-by-point.
1. Let Priests Marry and encourage Married priests.
21 of the 22 Churches sui juris which comprise the Catholic Church ordain, as a norm, married men.
2. A far better vetting process for weeding out perverts from the priesthood.
The vetting process isn't the problem. Disobedient Bishops who have thumbed their noses at the Church's ban on ordaining homosexuals is the problem. By the way, what kind of vetting process do these or these organizations have and where are your bullet points telling them what to do to clean up their act?
3. Give them drugs to kill their sex drive preemptively.
What does your doctor prescribe for you?