And in terms weirdly reminiscent of the old attempts to divert attention from the fact that Clinton was being impeached for breaking the law, not for sexual improprieties. I don’t know of anyone who has attempted to argue that Weakland was an “abuser” (except for the sleazy grifter Marcoux who was obviously a gold-digging slime and whose claims of “abuse” are about as persuasive as a claim of virginity by Madonna). No. The problem was not “abuse” (in the sense that “abuse” has been used lately to refer solely to “child sexual abuse”). The problem was ripping off diocesan funds to cover tracks and maintain Weakland in power. (There was, of course, the infamous counter-suit to squeeze the family of an abused child for $4000 dollars that Weakland stage-managed too. And this, though profoundly abusive, was not “abuse” in the most recent “child abuse” sense of the term).
So please, don’t talk nonsense about those mean Puritans hounding Weakland from office because he loved not wisely but too well. Talk about the ripoff of the poor box and the crushing of the oppressed and abused victims of Fr. Effinger. Then you will be dealing with the actual complaint.