Replies

When Weakland got the job in '77 he was likely a little more discreet. He says he never acted on his sexual impulses until he became a bishop.

I'm actually not concerned here about whether his "sexual impulses" were acted upon or even known prior to his ascendency to the position of Archbishop. Rather, I'm questioning his "denial of key points of Catholic teaching." When did that begin? Why didn't the interview process catch it? I'm assuming that his denial preceded his "impulses" here.

Some time ago, IIRC I posting a thread with an interview of a priest who was part of your "lavender mafia." When asked how his group could justify their actions given their vows, his response was something like "we decided that it wasn't a sin." If I can find the thread, I will post a link.

I'm assuming that we're conversing here in good faith and that your amazement is real and not faux.Think back to the '70s for a moment, Alex. When Weakland got the job, the Church was in turmoil. The papacy of a suffering and very saddened Paul VI was reaching its end. Rebellion, novelty and confusion were everywhere.

To me, it would be amazing if he hadn't been given the job. Numerous bishops of dubious orthodoxy were appointed at this time. The papal emissary , Archbishop Jean Jadot (the guy doing the "interviews") was responsible for some awful appointments. There's a school of thought which lays the blame for much of the chaos in Catholic America at his door.

You got that one right, actually. There was a strong notion in the 1970s that the entire Church was going to be further radically altered, and all sorts of doctrines would be amended. In essence, the Catholic Church would cease being Catholic. Many clergy figured if they agitated openly for specific changes, they wouldn't happen, but that if they cultivated the fields for changes, the Church might "evolve" their position. So, in the American church, all sorts of outrages took place, and the congregations were "cultivated" with all sorts of nonsense.

I've heard all sorts of varying reports as to the health and mental faculties of Pope Paul VI, who did not commit heresy, but absolutely horrifically failed to oppose such abominations. But these modern critics of John Paul II seem to have no sense of how far he brought the barque to being righted, or how bad things were before he came in. I also think he took some time in office to realize the extent of how bad things were, coming as he did from Communist Poland. For one thing, he admits he was too slow to respond to the sexual abuse crisis at first, because the Communists used slanders about homosexuality as a means of silencing political opposition. Nonetheless, by the early eighties, sexual abuse incidents were lower than they were at the conclusion of Vatican II, and by the late 80s, they were reduced by over 90%.

Almost all of the sexual abuse ended by 1990, before the American news media picked up on the story. And 80% of the sexual abuse was homosexual acts with adolescent men. True paedophilia was virtually unknown. So John Paul largely solved the problem before it was even known.