UPDATE, MAY 11, 2009: Weakland is Gay
__________________
Reading the full June 2008 deposition of Milwaukee's former Archbishop Rembert Weakland makes my stomach churn.
Last week, portions were released. On Thursday, we were treated to more.
From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
Now-retired Archbishop Rembert Weakland, in a videotaped deposition released Thursday, said his attempts to oust two sexual abusers from the priesthood were stalled by a protective church hierarchy. He also attempted to spread blame beyond himself to court officers, his fellow bishops and the high offices at the Vatican.
A portion of Weakland's deposition, taken over two days in June in a lawsuit against the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, was released to the media last week. In it, Weakland, now 81, admitted that he transferred priests with a history of sexual misconduct back into churches without alerting parishioners. In the testimony released Thursday by Jeffrey Anderson, the St. Paul lawyer who filed the suit, Weakland also acknowledged that reports of abuse were not turned over to law enforcement authorities, that some incriminating mental health records were destroyed and that bishops spoke in code in correspondence discussing abusers who had been moved outside their diocese.
Those statements prompted a call Thursday for a criminal investigation by a group known as the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. Peter Isely, a spokesman for the group, turned over a transcript to the Milwaukee County district attorney's office. Kent Lovern, the office's chief deputy, said the records would be reviewed.
Rita McDonald, a Marquette University emeritus professor of psychology who was long involved in archdiocesan affairs, was critical of Weakland for spreading the blame to others.
"He accepted some responsibility for what happened, but he never called the police," McDonald said. "There was always that caveat: 'You have to understand how things were back then.'
"Well, didn't you know it was sinful? Didn't you know it was a crime? What the bishops needed was a whistleblower in their midst, someone to say this is wrong and we have to tell the truth."
Weakland testified that he held a local church trial - a formal internal proceeding that he said had not been done elsewhere - to get rid of two abusive priests in the 1990s. The priests appealed to the Vatican their removal from the ministry.
In 1998, Weakland testified, he went to the Vatican and met with officials in the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, a top church office then headed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who is now Pope Benedict XVI.
...Weakland said the failures of others left him with what he perceived as two choices in dealing with abusers: Send abusers for treatment or move them to other dioceses.
Bishop Richard Sklba, who served under Weakland and now serves under Archbishop Timothy Dolan, was the "go-to guy" for church investigations of sex abuse cases, Weakland testified.
"He was auxiliary bishop, so I would say he was my main go-to guy on many things," Weakland said. "Certainly he would be involved in all of them (sex abuse cases)."
Weakland obviously was not a "the buck stops here" kind of leader.
He is eager to spread the blame around and point fingers.
Of course, it was appropriate for Weakland to answer the questions truthfully. If that means naming names, then it does.
But there doesn't seem to be remorse on his part. He's not willing to take responsibility. Frankly, he appears rather stupid. It's as if he doesn't get it.
He seems so detached. It's creepy.
Then, there's this:
Weakland also was questioned extensively on the scandal that resulted in his sudden departure from his post in 2002: The payment of $450,000 to a man who accused the archbishop of date rape in 1979. In 1998, the man, Paul Marcoux, wanted Weakland to buy back a love letter for $1 million. Weakland's personal lawyer went to then-District Attorney E. Michael McCann, and criminal charges were considered.
"Counsel had advised that since it involved - would have involved - depositions all over Europe, etc., that the cost of trying a case like that would have been as much as the $450,000," Weakland said.
"Date rape"? I hadn't heard the term "date rape" used in connection with Weakland and Marcoux.
That's nauseating.
Weakland talks about extortion and presents himself as a victim. Marcoux isn't innocent, but neither is Weakland.
The reality is the sex abuse scandal may bankrupt the Archdiocese of Milwaukee.
People have spent a lifetime faithfully donating a portion of their paychecks to the Church. They put their trust in church leaders. They were betrayed.
The trial won't begin until summer of 2009. In the meantime, the archdiocese is rolling out a massive fundraising campaign, "Faith in our Future."
All donations will be placed in a trust. The structure "has been put in place to safeguard donations to the campaign so that they will be used solely for the purposes intended by donors."
What does that mean?
It means the funds currently being raised and placed in the trust won't be used in connection with the sex scandal. They'll be protected.
A very positive spin is being put on the "Faith in our Future" campaign. It's as if it has nothing to do with the financial dire straits the archdiocese may find itself in as a result of the trial.
It's really a bailout. The Catholics of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee are being asked to provide funds to keep it all from falling apart.
And why all of this mess and all of this pain?
Because church leaders considered themselves to be above the law.
A crime is a crime. The sexual abuse of children is a criminal matter. How is it possible for a responsible individual to think otherwise?
It's really remarkable that no one in the church hierarchy thought it necessary to turn offenders in to the police.
Weren't there any pangs of guilt at the time abusive priests were being shuffled from parish to parish and hush money was being paid out?
Are there any now?
__________________
Read Weakland's full deposition here.
No comments:
Post a Comment