Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Weak Defense

From today's article in the JS Online on Archbishop Rembert G. Weakland:

"We all considered sexual abuse of minors as a moral evil, but had no understanding of its criminal nature."
This is a fairly amazing statement. How can a person not believe there might be legal sanctions against something morally evil?

I've been willing to give Weakland the benefit of the doubt because I have always thought of him as a thoughtful and compassionate man. But then he writes this explanation for wanting a private funeral for Father Lawrence Murphy, who is thought to have abused up to 200 deaf children.

"So far, we have succeeded in preserving his reputation, and I hope we are able to do so in the future."
So, most important was this priest's reputation! How about the children molested by this priest?

It is not for me to condemn Weakland.

I'll let others make crude jokes at his expense, they have no decency anyway -- plus they have a political agenda since Weakland was a liberal voice in a conservative church. But Weakland's writings seem very self-serving to me.


  1. There can be no defense for what Weakland was responsible for. He may have been thoughtful and compassionate, but he was also, at the least, an accessory to the sexual abuse of children by failing to report the crimes which he was aware of. And even though he was in a position of authority in the Catholic Church, his statements, decisions and lifestyle did not co-incide with the teachings and beliefs of the Church.

  2. Well, in my defense, I thought he was thoughtful and compassionate before these facts came out.

    I'm very disappointed and, you are right Tony, there really is no defense for child molestation or sitting by and doing nothing while it occurred..

  3. "you are right Tony"

    See...was that so hard Tim? : )