Tuesday, January 21, 2014


Weakland faces the press

We have reached a point in the history of the Church where Cardinals, Princes of the Church, have openly called for the legitimization of unnatural vice.  It is true and we can no longer turn our heads away and say this is impossible in the Church of Christ.  As low a point as that is in Catholicism's history it is I fear only a harbinger of things to come.

When men such as these feel comfortable about speaking their minds on this subject it is a sure sign that a festering problem is going to get far more serious before any healing can begin.  And it shows that they sense if not a kindred spirit at least a weakling in Peter's Chair who will not oppose them.  The following article sums up this new situation concisely:


Recall that we are not talking about disgraced homosexuals like Rembert Weakland, or un-"outed" ones like Bernardin (and God knows who else), who are no longer in power.  We are speaking about Cardinals who are heading major dioceses, like Schonborn.  Their prestige will undoubtedly embolden other prelates, who will come forward with their own declarations of "tolerance" toward this unspeakable perversion.  With a perceived weakling in the papacy such expressions of sympathy and support for sodomy are likely to increase.

Whether it is bravado, stupidity, cunning or an overly trustful humility that animates the current Pope's views on this subject he seems not at all troubled by appointing to high positions people who have no trouble looking the other way when it comes to sex perversion.  It cannot be naivete, not at this late date.  Can it be bravado?  Does the Holy Father believe that he has the situation well under control and that he has the capability to handle it nicely, and that we in the pew should not trouble ourselves over it?  Is it simple stupidity: that he doesn't think it is really that big of a deal?  Surely not.  Can it be cunning?  That he is willfully protecting these men?  One doesn't even like to think that that could be true.

Is he so simple, so "overly trustful" in the goodness of mankind that he believes his smiles and his leniency will wash away all this evil?  I truly hope not.  He did promise to "look into it".  Still waiting......

Where does that leave us?

We do know that some in high positions in Rome have adopted the preposterous current view that sex deviates are "born that way".  That being the case we should not be surprised if soon we hear that felons, adulterers, wife beaters and bank robbers are also born that way.  Since there is no longer any sin in the world, let alone mortal sin, all these things must somehow be seen as merely different ways of living.  We must, to use Vaticanese, "accept" and "love" them....and never suggest that perhaps a visit to the confessional might be a good idea in the long run.

This is the twisted thinking that now has found a home in the minds of certain prelates in the Catholic Church.

That some of these Cardinals are secret homosexuals there seems little doubt.

Then there is the thorny but very real problem of blackmail.  Throughout recent political history homosexual blackmail has been a very effective tool used by villains to get things done.  The British spy scandals of decades ago gives us a clear picture of how this works.  Homosexual blackmail was effectively used by Soviet Russia to gain information from buggering government workers who had access to classified information.  It is being used today by Israelis.  And I have no doubt whatever that the USA, thanks to the capabilities of the NSA, is engaging in it too.  We must therefore assume that it is being used in certain circles of the Church.  For example, the fact that Rembert Weakland enjoys a fairly peaceful and comfortable retirement instead of being exiled to a monastery in Sudan is probably indicative of the fact that he knows a few things that might embarrass some higher-ups in Rome.  If someone else has an explanation for why this man was never canonically dealt with - and instead enjoyed the "acceptance" at their Episcopal installations by such men as Timothy Dolan and Jerome Listecki - I would like to hear it.  Why are men like Vincent Nichols and Donald Wuerl promoted far above not only their Catholicity but their competence?  It would be, I believe, quite naive to attribute there elevated status merely to normal Vatican protocol.

Hilaire Belloc once famously wrote:

"We sit by and watch the Barbarian, we tolerate him; in the long stretches of peace we are not afraid. We are tickled by his irreverence, his comic inversion of our old certitudes and our fixed creeds refreshes us; we laugh. But as we laugh we are watched by large and awful faces from beyond: and on these faces there is no smile". 

He might as well have been talking about those who watch South Park as well as our current Princes of the Church who also delightedly revel in their inversion of our old certitudes.  But those prelates who engage in these inversions might wish to take especial note of Mr Belloc's last words in this quotation: those watching from above are not amused.    

What do we do?  Other than heartfelt and consistent prayer, and emulating Saints like St Anthony who held his Bishop's feet to the fire ("And now you, O mitred one!"), and demanding with our voices and our blogs that Bishops start acting like Bishops of the Catholic Church, I have no clue.

But one thing seems clear enough.  God wants us to do something about this.


Anonymous said...

The holy, the good, the joyful, the faithful, the innocent are all in the chain of victims of the evil. As the evil becomes more powerful the blackmailers and the blackmailed become the rulers and the victims the ruers of rulers. I would be dishonest if I said that I see anything but triumph of the evil and regret of the good all around me.

CJ said...

The guttural voice, the voice of Satan in his pride, boasted to Our Lord: "I can destroy your Church."

The gentle voice of Our Lord: "You can? Then go ahead and do so."

Satan: "To do so, I need more time and more power."

Our Lord: "How much time? How much power?

Satan: "75 to 100 years, and a greater power over those who will give themselves over to my service."

Our Lord: "You have the time, you will have the power. Do with them what you will."

Joe Potillor said...

Ever since the election of Pope Francis, the enemies of the Church that are inside of Her have been a way that not even JPII could pull off. Either this is God sorting the sheep from the goats, or we're witnessing a mass apostasy. You can tell a lot about a person by who their friends are

Aged parent said...

You may be on to something, Joe. This whirlwind we are going through does have the effect of bringing out into the open the true enemies of the Church (you could also say that when you stir things up the scum rises to the top).

It does have the effect of, if nothing else, showing us more clearly who the Church's enemies are. And that is useful information indeed.

Aratinga said...

Clergy may say anything about anyone without fear of discipline or retribution. The only exception is any priest who dare says "Introibo ad altare Dei, ad Deum qui lætificat iuventutem meam" is headed for trouble.

Anonymous said...

Good post. LOL at the title - Fairy Princes- love it. Still LOL.

Anonymous said...

I think you should allow that Weakland had his failure early in his time in Milwaukee when he was plopped into a place where he knew few people. The other man was preying on his feelings. After this happened he repented and became a better bishop because of it for over 20 years, unbeknownst to the rest of us. The hush money as a mistake, but has all been repaid to the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. He is no advocate of any lifestyle. When it became public in 2002 he publicly again repented (on TV even) and left the public eye. We named a big basilica in Rome after a denying apostle.

Aged parent said...

Dear anon @8:39 am:

Thank you for your response.

I did a little quick googling looking for evidence that Weakland repaid the archdiocese the hush money that was forked over. If you could direct me to a reliable source for that info I would appreciate it.

But with all due respect I believe your defense of this man is a weak one. It is made considerably weaker by the publication of Weakland's recent narcissistic autobiography wherein he admits his sexual perversion, doesn't seem terribly repentant about it and indeed castigates the Church for its teachings against this unnatural vice. It is kind of like a bank robber chiding the state for having laws against bank robbery. His words in his book are those of a petulant teenager and give us a very good picture of the man.

Having lived through his fiefdom personally, from 1977 onwards, I can assure you that he was one of the worst prelates it has ever been my experience to see. He turned St Francis Seminary into a homosexual movie grind house where priests of the diocese were forced to sit through homo pornography in order to better "understand" these people. That it was nothing more than a recruiting tool for buggery is and was quite obvious to many.

He was the darling of the media all during his sorry reign - and still is, considering his name is rarely if ever mentioned in connection with the homosexual priest scandals and the buggering of adolescent boys which has now come to light and is costing the Archdiocese of Milwaukee untold millions, so much so that it has had to declare bankruptcy. Weakland can add that to his list of accomplishments, that he brought a thriving archdiocese to financial catastrophe and humiliation.

You say this made him a "better Bishop". I disagree; it made no change in him whatsoever. He is still a bad Bishop and if he didn't have sodomite friends in Rome right now protecting him he would be reduced to the lay state and be sitting in jail somewhere. The fact that he is a yet untouched by ecclesiastical justice is evidence of the fact that he knows many in the hierarchy who are queers and is most likely using that as a form of blackmail to keep himself untouched and able to write more self-serving autobiographies.

He left the public eye, you say? If only that were true. The clownish Timothy Dolan and the clueless Jerome Listecki both had him attend their installations as Bishops of Milwaukee. For awhile he had his own blog, or may still have for all I know, wherein he continues to agitate for toleration of sexual perversion as well as aberrant liturgical practice.

Finally your comparison of Weakland with St Peter the Apostle is something that I am not sure anyone would attempt to make. But since you have made it I will merely respond by saying that Peter repented for the rest of his life for his betrayal of Christ, the tears coming so frequently that it left visible indentations in his face. Weakland's betrayal of Christ has produced not tears from the disgraced Archbishop but on the contrary calls for Christ's Vicar to stop teaching what Christ taught.

I would say the attitude of Peter was a bit different than the attitude of Rembert.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...