Weakland is a Weak, Weak Man

Over at Inside Catholic, Brian Saint-Paul discusses what appears to be a sensational, unthinkable and questionable statement by disgraced Milwaukee Archbishop Rembert G. Weakland, who will claim in his upcoming biography that he did not know that the priestly abuse of children was “criminal.”

Writes Saint-Paul:

For all his flaws, Rembert Weakland is an intelligent man. The claim that he didn’t realize that having sex with a child violated the law is absolute nonsense. He’s lying.

Most of us would be inclined to agree. Weakland is a troubled man who lost his See after being caught using almost half-a-million dollars in church monies to pay off a young man with whom he’d had an affair. Though the young man was (thankfully) not a minor-and there is no indication that Weakland himself had ever exploited a child-the bishop still proved himself unfit for office, and was rightly retired.

However, as much as I agree with Brian that Weakland sounds preposterous and dishonest, and that it seems beyond belief that anyone could NOT know that child sexual abuse was criminal activity, it is important to remember that Weakland is a man of his times, and times have not always been as they are now.

I don’t like writing about this issue, and I am in no way defending anything Weakland has done, but putting time into context a little, I can remember-‘way back in the day-when child exploitation was considered “terrible” and “nasty” and “mean” and “morally reprehensible” but not exactly “criminal.” My recollection is that if a child told a terrible secret about abuse, that child would be disbelieved or punished or told to “be quiet” about it. It was not until the late 1970’s and early 1980’s that there was a real move to raise awareness of, and criminalize, the sexual exploitation of children.

And even then, I do recall very clearly that in the 1970’s and 1980’s the psychiatric professionals and counselors were advocating “rehabilitative” therapy (chemical or psycho or both) for pedophiles, and that this went on for a few years, until the rate of recidivism was discovered to be over 90%.

I am sure that a great many Bishops believed this (or wanted to believe it) and considered that recommendation (backed, as it was, by a “science” – which we know is never wrong) was reassurance that bad priests could be shuffled about from parish to parish, destroying lives.

The word is that in his upcoming book, Rembert Weakland is going to try to rehabilitate his reputation, and I am sure he will be featured on all the shows. He’ll be interviewed by media members who will give him a big build-up, calling him an important “intellectual touchstone” for the Church (Weakland was, in fact, a darling of the more progessive element of the church); they will keep him at arms length, dangled between their two manicured fingers, just long enough for him to usefully trash/blame the Church or dish some dirt, before they toss him away in disgust. He’ll be given the same sort of now-we-love-you-now-we-don’t-now go-away treatment Scott McClellan got when he wrote his Bush-bashing “bestseller.”

Weakland seems a troubled man and a weak man who-against the very best advice in the world-is putting his trust in the princes of the world, whether they be medical or media men, rather than taking refuge in the Lord.

We are all sinners. None are perfect, save Christ, and all fall short. And none of us would want our sins revealed to the world, or the state of our souls speculated upon. As Montaigne said, “There is no man so good, who, were he to submit all his thoughts and actions to the laws, would not deserve hanging ten times in his life.” I believe that.

But it seems to me that if you are an Archbishop who has contributed hugely to scandalizing the church you presumably love, and to serving the Lord you have sinned against, there are better means of rehabilitation than to sputter about what you did not know, and seek your absolution from a fickle and exploitative world. Let us pray for him, and for ourselves.