Ha! I was wondering the same thing. JD -- excellent use of epimone, which I have to say echoed my own inner musings on the Becciu announcement. From what (very) little I know of Becciu (most learned through Pillar reporting), hyperbole would seem to be one of the first phrases that come to mind when he has an announcement to make.
Love what the Pillar is attempting to do. My concern is how do you effect change in Dioceses’ where injustice takes place? How do you get rid of a Bishop who is unable to perform his duties and is enabled by traditionalists who have a mind of their own. How do you inform an apathetic laity. How do you survive as a follower of Jesus and Vatican 11? Everyone has theories but no concrete suggestions for those hanging by a thread. What about good priests unjustly accused? How does any priest survive after this terrible abuse situation. Looking for answers not a rehash of what has already been established ad nauseam. Sorry for the rant.
Just a reader here. Part (just part) of the difficulty is that we don't have effective parish councils/boards (what have you). I sat on one and it was basically there to help brainstorm marketing ideas. When I tried to gently move it into a more substantive direction, there were gentle encouraging words and ... silence. Though we did have a member who kept saying things like centering prayer shouldn't be promoted (to your trad mention). But no one wanted to engage with that member, which in hindsight would have been wiser (respectfully of course). --- I will defer to JD and Ed here (to the law!) but my understanding from their explanations of the law available to the Church is that there is very little (read basically nothing) that parishioners can do that has any force to remove Bishops (See, Kafka). On the falsely accused priests, I will admit to very little sympathy. I have a very sacrificial view of the priesthood. So I believe that if one dons that mantel, he is obligated to be far more open and transparent than the rank and file. If the Pope is the servant of the servants of Christ, then priests are servants to the people of God (we, the great unwashed). Thus, if a priest must obtain a new letter of good standing from his Bishop every time he travels and wishes to say Mass in another diocese, so be it. The fellows over at Catholic Stuff You Should Know were complaining ad nauseam about this requirement. The practice is there for the protection of the parishioners. I can think of no higher value, certainly not the convenience or privacy of priests who affirmatively chose to enter the priesthood and even less those who entered after 2000. More to your point, though, if a priest must step aside from his duties and suffer scandal due to a false accusation, then he must. As we are so often told, the Church is not a democracy. Accordingly, its due process rights are attenuated, especially for those whose power is augmented by the very undemocratic structure we are commanded to obey. I'm sure there is some error here, but there you have it.
I understand your comments even though I do not agree.I do not think Jesus would have agreed that everyone must suffer for the sins of others. That priest will have no life after a false accusation.He will be held at bay by others.I like to think of the woman caught in adultery and Jesus’ reaction. There are thousands who betrayed the trust of the faithful and a horror that is. That has placed every priest at risk. Any suggestions on this?
But would a bishop, rightly accused, be permitted to continue on? This was an issue in the meeting that resulted in the CYP document--priests asked "what if a bishop is accused?". They were told the bishops were also priests and would be subject to procedures as well. As we have seen, that has not been true, which is what many priests suspected would be the case and has contributed to the chasm between priests and their bishop.
How do you remove a bishop who supports and protects a man accused of sexual assault at (and expelled from) three seminaries? Especially when he appears to be protected in the highest places. And the highest places proclaim they want fairness and transparency?
Agree. And how do we unjustly persecute falsely accused priests when others are out there participating in abuse while they rot waiting for Rome to arise from their dogmatic slumber?
I remember +Weakland was visiting my parish and I had asked my pastor if he could get me the archbishop's autograph. Well he did, but the autographed prayer card perished in a fire at the parish office over the weekend.
Having seen now, as an adult, what his reputation and actions did to Milwaukee makes me appreciate that 'happy little accident.' I have a feeling his experimentation in the order of reception of sacraments and involvement in church music is a big contributing factor to why so many pews are empty here.
I'm wondering what our Cardinal Pell is thinking about Becciu's claims of reinstatement? Becciu was front and centre in getting rid of the Cardinal just trying to sort through the dodgy dealings in the Vatican finances. So many money transfers to Australia unaccounted for and not explained by Becciu during the unjust trial of Pell. I'll be keeping an eye on any musings that Cdl Pell might make about this turn of events.
The fact that they still call him Archbishop Weakland is a slap in the face to faithful Catholics, hypocritical, and continues to harm those who are victims of clerical and church related sex abuse. Can you tell us why he was not laicised?
Wake up before it's too late, ALL cover upper Prelates!! Sooner or later we all are facing the Creator. Including you whom the media never mentions and whose offenses are known only to your victim!
Pray for his soul? Yeah right!! Now let him be judged and castigated in the same measure as he did to the poor abuse victims!! If he's lucky enough to escape hell, let him not leave purgatory until he pays the last farthing through his nose!! What a wicked beast!!
While I certainly agree with your last sentence, I don't see in any of this a reason not to pray for Weakland's soul. We can't just pray for the good and the only-sorta-bad. "Lead all souls to heaven, especially those in most need of thy mercy." Especially those in most need!
I'd rather pray for the souls he led astray! For the countless lives of the victims he ruined! Or are those souls never in need of mercy? Neither in this life, nor the next?
Of course they are in need of mercy, and of course we all pray for them, but, still, this is no reason not to pray for Weakland's soul. Prayer is not a limited resource that we have to distribute carefully to the most deserving, lest we run out. We don't have to choose between praying for victims and praying for the souls of abusers. We can, and should, do both.
Wouldn't it be fun to be a saint? What glorious madness to have one's heart burning with love for God so that one wants what God wants, simply because He wants it and not even because it is also what is best for us; to be conformed to the heart of Christ, who pours the fire of his mercy on anyone who is willing to receive it, desiring all souls to attain the bliss of the beatific vision for which they were created. But how few are willing! What stands most in our way is perhaps not even the fear of the pain that we must suffer in being conformed to Christ crucified; what stands most in our way is perhaps our desire to see pain inflicted on others for their offenses. God's mercy and love for his creatures is a scandal to us and a stumbling block.
If we cannot desire to pray for a soul simply because of our great love of God, we should either desire to pray for a soul because this means an increase of merit which will give us a greater reward in heaven, or we should desire to pray for a soul because we ourselves fear hell (a hypothetical person who is asked to pray for a soul and says "no, I want them to suffer", but who does not fear hell themselves, has given the Gospels even less thought than a universalist who says "no, hell is empty so I don't need to pray".) But while we are doing one of these two less-perfectly-motivated things, we ought also to ask God to give us a greater love of him, because that would make everything considerably easier.
I have been incredibly happy to be a subscriber to The Pillar, and plan on offering a subscription to a priest I know who enjoys your work.
Thanks to you and Ed and the rest of the team for your important work - and for always being a truthful, faithful and charitable voice despite all the partisan rancoeur that seems to permeate the Church these days.
I will admit to doing what I try never to do - commenting while emotional; as well as the additional sin of indulging in whataboutism. However, as to the latter I can at least make the weak excuse that I am responding to the Nate's Mission spokesperson's use of the superlative. Before diving in, I echo all of the very positive comments that The Pillar is literally doing God's work in its reporting. I'll note that pointed criticism often comes from loved ones. On that note --- I don't think there is another prelate who was so pervasive and aggressive in his covering up of priestly sexual misconduct as Bernard Cardinal Law. Perhaps McCarrick and Weakland are up there on the podium with him, but I don't believe either were more protected by the Vatican than Law. JPII gave him a promotion if memory serves. Additionally, the connection of sexual abuse to doctrinal development/reform or liturgical reform is unnecessary and could be misleading. Lefty priests and Bishops are no more likely to abuse and cover up than their conservative counterparts (See, Cardinal Law). This sort of erroneous connection reminds me of the USCCB report on the causes of the scandal that basically said it was the 60s and greater societal acceptance of homosexual relationships. The report ignores the fact that the vast majority of sexual abuse perpetrators are heterosexual and that homosexual individuals are up to four times more likely to be the victim of sexual abuse. I do not have the study links ready at hand, but a few minutes of research bears this out.
Thanks for your comment and clarification, JD. I don't think it's ever malicious with the Pillar. The inference stemmed from the proximity of the theological disagreement and the level of detail of it to the abuse portion led to my commenting on it and the inference. Ultimately I guess I don't see the need to discuss an abusers theology whether left or right (using the terms for convenience not accuracy).
JPII handled all sexual abuse issues wrongly, JD. He worked hard to deny it existed and simply closed his eyes to the despicable behavior of Marcial Macial. When he summond the US bishops to Rome, he told them to tell the press to mind their own business. He simply refused to see the problem, and now he's a "saint."
This remark detracts somewhat from your main point; your thesis is that JPII handled all sexual abuse issues wrongly (and then you make some specific supporting statements that argue for the validity of your thesis), but to conclude by mentioning that he is a canonized saint (and to imply with punctuation that you have, at best, mixed feelings about that) simply confuses the matter.
I think it would be possible instead to write a cuttingly ironic prayer asking for his intercession with our heavenly Father to open the eyes of the blind (some detail could be gone into here to sharpen the point of the irony) and to cleanse with fire the hierarchy of the church of anything that is not directed towards the greater glory of God. This would both have efficacy (since it is a prayer) and provide a way to wrap up your thesis without weakening it.
I took the opportunity while I was already writing to make the point, perhaps not so clear, that rushing to sainthood does not permit near enough time to reveal whether that is justified.
If you would prefer to ask for the intercession of the saint who took longest to be canonized, I think the record may currently be held by St. Joan of Arc.
Right on J.D. Thank you for the work that The Pillar is doing. Much needed. Whether it is appreciated by some in the Church, maybe not, but you aren't working for them anyway. Keep up the good work.
"Conspiracy-minded folks will soon begin to say that Francis is “reinstating” Becciu because he is concerned that Becciu will speak openly..." Count me in that crowd.
The Milwaukee Archbishop who used to be a Benedictine Abbott!
This story should be plastered everywhere.
I belong to AWAKE, the Milwaukee victim/survivor group. It’s less political than the Mpls./St. Paul Archdiocesan one. I am free to talk about my faith. I was recently reprimanded by the Archdiocesan victim/survivor advocate, because I shared how faith has helped me in my journey to heal. I have been silenced because my healing triggers victims.
My story is being unveiled on Sept. 30 through AWAKE.
But, is Beccui still on trial? 🤔
Ha! I was wondering the same thing. JD -- excellent use of epimone, which I have to say echoed my own inner musings on the Becciu announcement. From what (very) little I know of Becciu (most learned through Pillar reporting), hyperbole would seem to be one of the first phrases that come to mind when he has an announcement to make.
Love what the Pillar is attempting to do. My concern is how do you effect change in Dioceses’ where injustice takes place? How do you get rid of a Bishop who is unable to perform his duties and is enabled by traditionalists who have a mind of their own. How do you inform an apathetic laity. How do you survive as a follower of Jesus and Vatican 11? Everyone has theories but no concrete suggestions for those hanging by a thread. What about good priests unjustly accused? How does any priest survive after this terrible abuse situation. Looking for answers not a rehash of what has already been established ad nauseam. Sorry for the rant.
Just a reader here. Part (just part) of the difficulty is that we don't have effective parish councils/boards (what have you). I sat on one and it was basically there to help brainstorm marketing ideas. When I tried to gently move it into a more substantive direction, there were gentle encouraging words and ... silence. Though we did have a member who kept saying things like centering prayer shouldn't be promoted (to your trad mention). But no one wanted to engage with that member, which in hindsight would have been wiser (respectfully of course). --- I will defer to JD and Ed here (to the law!) but my understanding from their explanations of the law available to the Church is that there is very little (read basically nothing) that parishioners can do that has any force to remove Bishops (See, Kafka). On the falsely accused priests, I will admit to very little sympathy. I have a very sacrificial view of the priesthood. So I believe that if one dons that mantel, he is obligated to be far more open and transparent than the rank and file. If the Pope is the servant of the servants of Christ, then priests are servants to the people of God (we, the great unwashed). Thus, if a priest must obtain a new letter of good standing from his Bishop every time he travels and wishes to say Mass in another diocese, so be it. The fellows over at Catholic Stuff You Should Know were complaining ad nauseam about this requirement. The practice is there for the protection of the parishioners. I can think of no higher value, certainly not the convenience or privacy of priests who affirmatively chose to enter the priesthood and even less those who entered after 2000. More to your point, though, if a priest must step aside from his duties and suffer scandal due to a false accusation, then he must. As we are so often told, the Church is not a democracy. Accordingly, its due process rights are attenuated, especially for those whose power is augmented by the very undemocratic structure we are commanded to obey. I'm sure there is some error here, but there you have it.
I understand your comments even though I do not agree.I do not think Jesus would have agreed that everyone must suffer for the sins of others. That priest will have no life after a false accusation.He will be held at bay by others.I like to think of the woman caught in adultery and Jesus’ reaction. There are thousands who betrayed the trust of the faithful and a horror that is. That has placed every priest at risk. Any suggestions on this?
But would a bishop, rightly accused, be permitted to continue on? This was an issue in the meeting that resulted in the CYP document--priests asked "what if a bishop is accused?". They were told the bishops were also priests and would be subject to procedures as well. As we have seen, that has not been true, which is what many priests suspected would be the case and has contributed to the chasm between priests and their bishop.
I completely missed Vaticans 3 through 10, let alone Vatican 11!
Got it. Got it then. Not a good typist . Not a joke
How do you remove a bishop who supports and protects a man accused of sexual assault at (and expelled from) three seminaries? Especially when he appears to be protected in the highest places. And the highest places proclaim they want fairness and transparency?
Agree. And how do we unjustly persecute falsely accused priests when others are out there participating in abuse while they rot waiting for Rome to arise from their dogmatic slumber?
Weakland: very sad - but true!
I remember +Weakland was visiting my parish and I had asked my pastor if he could get me the archbishop's autograph. Well he did, but the autographed prayer card perished in a fire at the parish office over the weekend.
Having seen now, as an adult, what his reputation and actions did to Milwaukee makes me appreciate that 'happy little accident.' I have a feeling his experimentation in the order of reception of sacraments and involvement in church music is a big contributing factor to why so many pews are empty here.
I appreciate your sincere approach to institutional reform. Working in the system.
I'm wondering what our Cardinal Pell is thinking about Becciu's claims of reinstatement? Becciu was front and centre in getting rid of the Cardinal just trying to sort through the dodgy dealings in the Vatican finances. So many money transfers to Australia unaccounted for and not explained by Becciu during the unjust trial of Pell. I'll be keeping an eye on any musings that Cdl Pell might make about this turn of events.
Good point that I hadn't thought of.
The fact that they still call him Archbishop Weakland is a slap in the face to faithful Catholics, hypocritical, and continues to harm those who are victims of clerical and church related sex abuse. Can you tell us why he was not laicised?
And the same of Archbishop Apuron
Wake up before it's too late, ALL cover upper Prelates!! Sooner or later we all are facing the Creator. Including you whom the media never mentions and whose offenses are known only to your victim!
Pray for his soul? Yeah right!! Now let him be judged and castigated in the same measure as he did to the poor abuse victims!! If he's lucky enough to escape hell, let him not leave purgatory until he pays the last farthing through his nose!! What a wicked beast!!
While I certainly agree with your last sentence, I don't see in any of this a reason not to pray for Weakland's soul. We can't just pray for the good and the only-sorta-bad. "Lead all souls to heaven, especially those in most need of thy mercy." Especially those in most need!
I'd rather pray for the souls he led astray! For the countless lives of the victims he ruined! Or are those souls never in need of mercy? Neither in this life, nor the next?
Of course they are in need of mercy, and of course we all pray for them, but, still, this is no reason not to pray for Weakland's soul. Prayer is not a limited resource that we have to distribute carefully to the most deserving, lest we run out. We don't have to choose between praying for victims and praying for the souls of abusers. We can, and should, do both.
> Now let him be judged and castigated in the same measure as
This reminds me that I have heard, somewhere, that the measure with which I measure will be measured out to me.
Yep. We will all reap what we have sown. The Lord takes our treatment of the "least" very seriously. He counts it as being done directly to HIM.
Wouldn't it be fun to be a saint? What glorious madness to have one's heart burning with love for God so that one wants what God wants, simply because He wants it and not even because it is also what is best for us; to be conformed to the heart of Christ, who pours the fire of his mercy on anyone who is willing to receive it, desiring all souls to attain the bliss of the beatific vision for which they were created. But how few are willing! What stands most in our way is perhaps not even the fear of the pain that we must suffer in being conformed to Christ crucified; what stands most in our way is perhaps our desire to see pain inflicted on others for their offenses. God's mercy and love for his creatures is a scandal to us and a stumbling block.
If we cannot desire to pray for a soul simply because of our great love of God, we should either desire to pray for a soul because this means an increase of merit which will give us a greater reward in heaven, or we should desire to pray for a soul because we ourselves fear hell (a hypothetical person who is asked to pray for a soul and says "no, I want them to suffer", but who does not fear hell themselves, has given the Gospels even less thought than a universalist who says "no, hell is empty so I don't need to pray".) But while we are doing one of these two less-perfectly-motivated things, we ought also to ask God to give us a greater love of him, because that would make everything considerably easier.
I have been incredibly happy to be a subscriber to The Pillar, and plan on offering a subscription to a priest I know who enjoys your work.
Thanks to you and Ed and the rest of the team for your important work - and for always being a truthful, faithful and charitable voice despite all the partisan rancoeur that seems to permeate the Church these days.
I will admit to doing what I try never to do - commenting while emotional; as well as the additional sin of indulging in whataboutism. However, as to the latter I can at least make the weak excuse that I am responding to the Nate's Mission spokesperson's use of the superlative. Before diving in, I echo all of the very positive comments that The Pillar is literally doing God's work in its reporting. I'll note that pointed criticism often comes from loved ones. On that note --- I don't think there is another prelate who was so pervasive and aggressive in his covering up of priestly sexual misconduct as Bernard Cardinal Law. Perhaps McCarrick and Weakland are up there on the podium with him, but I don't believe either were more protected by the Vatican than Law. JPII gave him a promotion if memory serves. Additionally, the connection of sexual abuse to doctrinal development/reform or liturgical reform is unnecessary and could be misleading. Lefty priests and Bishops are no more likely to abuse and cover up than their conservative counterparts (See, Cardinal Law). This sort of erroneous connection reminds me of the USCCB report on the causes of the scandal that basically said it was the 60s and greater societal acceptance of homosexual relationships. The report ignores the fact that the vast majority of sexual abuse perpetrators are heterosexual and that homosexual individuals are up to four times more likely to be the victim of sexual abuse. I do not have the study links ready at hand, but a few minutes of research bears this out.
Thanks David. To be clear, I wasn't trying to connect his theology to his cover-up actions, and I don't think I implied a connection.
As to Law, it should be obvious to all that JPII handled him completely wrongly.
Thanks for your comment and clarification, JD. I don't think it's ever malicious with the Pillar. The inference stemmed from the proximity of the theological disagreement and the level of detail of it to the abuse portion led to my commenting on it and the inference. Ultimately I guess I don't see the need to discuss an abusers theology whether left or right (using the terms for convenience not accuracy).
Oh sure, I gotcha. I do think it's important to get a gull picture of the man. But I hear your point.
Thanks and agreed.
JPII handled all sexual abuse issues wrongly, JD. He worked hard to deny it existed and simply closed his eyes to the despicable behavior of Marcial Macial. When he summond the US bishops to Rome, he told them to tell the press to mind their own business. He simply refused to see the problem, and now he's a "saint."
> and now he's a "saint."
This remark detracts somewhat from your main point; your thesis is that JPII handled all sexual abuse issues wrongly (and then you make some specific supporting statements that argue for the validity of your thesis), but to conclude by mentioning that he is a canonized saint (and to imply with punctuation that you have, at best, mixed feelings about that) simply confuses the matter.
I think it would be possible instead to write a cuttingly ironic prayer asking for his intercession with our heavenly Father to open the eyes of the blind (some detail could be gone into here to sharpen the point of the irony) and to cleanse with fire the hierarchy of the church of anything that is not directed towards the greater glory of God. This would both have efficacy (since it is a prayer) and provide a way to wrap up your thesis without weakening it.
I took the opportunity while I was already writing to make the point, perhaps not so clear, that rushing to sainthood does not permit near enough time to reveal whether that is justified.
If you would prefer to ask for the intercession of the saint who took longest to be canonized, I think the record may currently be held by St. Joan of Arc.
Fantastic reporting and commentary!
Right on J.D. Thank you for the work that The Pillar is doing. Much needed. Whether it is appreciated by some in the Church, maybe not, but you aren't working for them anyway. Keep up the good work.
Not a typist. Sorry. Vatican 2
You guys are doing God’s work. Keep it up!
"Conspiracy-minded folks will soon begin to say that Francis is “reinstating” Becciu because he is concerned that Becciu will speak openly..." Count me in that crowd.
Why isn’t this in the national and world news?
It is. You're reading it right here at the best international Catholic news organization in the world.
:-)
The people who need to see this are not reading The Pillar. Why isn’t this in mainstream media?
which story in particular?
The Milwaukee Archbishop who used to be a Benedictine Abbott!
This story should be plastered everywhere.
I belong to AWAKE, the Milwaukee victim/survivor group. It’s less political than the Mpls./St. Paul Archdiocesan one. I am free to talk about my faith. I was recently reprimanded by the Archdiocesan victim/survivor advocate, because I shared how faith has helped me in my journey to heal. I have been silenced because my healing triggers victims.
My story is being unveiled on Sept. 30 through AWAKE.
It should indeed be heard and seen, Carol!
Thank you all ❤️🙏