How Can Anyone Defend This Monster?That's right... I said 'monster'
This is simply offensive at so many levels. Unfortunantly, the CNA article leaves out that Weakland paid his boyfriend almost a half million dollars in hush money.
Here's some of the aticle from The Catholic News Agency; (Emphasis mine)
Former Archbishop Rembert Weakland, whose resignation Pope John Paul II accepted in 2002 when he reached the age of 75, was found to have had a homosexual relationship with an adult male seminarian who he paid to keep quiet about their involvement. The former archbishop has also admitted to moving pedophile priests around to different parishes, FOX 6 TV reports.
Although his misdeeds took place years ago, a new bronze relief pedastal that portrays the former archbishop alongside images of the Virgin Mary, St. John and various other figures including children is now causing a stir.
The Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) has decried the piece of art and expressed in a statement Wednesday a desire to know why the former archbishop is being “pictured in the biblical scene of Jesus protecting the little children” as Archbishop Weakland has also faced accusations in the past of covering up priestly abuse in his diocese.
Portraying this defacto heretic as a 'Man of God' rates right up there with this bit of propaganda from the middle of the last century --
posted by Kevin Whiteman at
9:42 AM
9 Comments:
Didn't Weakland not only pay close to a half a million in hush money, but half a million in DIOCESAN FUNDS in hush money?
He claims it was his own money from speaking fees, etc. He conveniently forgot that he is a Benedictine monk (former Abbot of the Order in the U.S.). Monks take a vow of poverty . . . allegedly. ;-((
Maybe Weakland believes that it is his own body and he can do with it as he pleases.
This could be contended legally; for example, maybe he gave his body to his male sex partner. Thus Weakland's body would be the personal property of someone else.
So, what Weakland did was sell his body into the slavery of another person. The odd thing is that he also sold money in addition to his body.
The good news is that in that case Weakland would not have the legal right to sell his body to the devil.
But suppose he sold his soul to the devil and his body to some other male human (can't really use the word "man" in this context).
There would remain two parts of Weakland left, his heart and his mind. I wonder if he's sold these to anyone?
Maybe a canon lawyer could straighten out the Weakland affair, so that we could all know who got what and how much it cost, and what's left and whom it belongs to.
Why is this being made an issue now? That relief has been there since they re-dedicated the "renovated" cathedral back in 2002, I believe.
FJH,
According to the article, it was commissioned in 2000. No mention of when it was unveiled.
Regardless, as I said on my posting, this thing is just wrong at so many levels.
Breathtaking vanity on Weakland's part.
I am still shaking my head at this. Not only did he defy the Vatican & wrecknovate the Cathedral, he had the gall to glorify himself in what I see as a blaphemous use of the BVM to give himself cover.
What Weakalnd did to that once beautiful and historic cathedral (not to mention the waste of money in an otherwise operational church) is a sin by itself.
To my mind, BOTH the bust of Weakland AND that basrelief should be removed from the Cathedral's nave and placed in the basement.
He was, after all, the Archbishop. But the lower level is fitting for him--in so many ways.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home