Page Title

Text Box: he was and is a homosexual, repressed his sexual desires until he became an Archbishop, then engaged in homosexual relations with numerous men. One of those men was paid $450,000.00, by the Milwaukee Archdiocese to keep quiet about his affair with Weakland. Before the disclosure of his homosexual relationships, Weakland was an advocate of the ordination of women to the Priesthood and consecration of women as Bishops, and of revision of dogma regarding homosexual activities, as well as changing economic laws which de facto differentiate between normal male - female marriages, and homosexual relationships. Since the disclosure of his homosexual activities Weakland has proclaimed Church Dogma on homosexual acts is in error and must be changed. Weakland knowingly hid his homosexuality prior to ordination. For a multitude of reasons this brings the viability of his ordination and subsequent consecration into question. Dogma is composed of directives from God and can not be changed. Canon Law is composed of directives from the humans who administer then Church and can be changed. The directive to worship no god but the true God comes from God, is Dogma, and can not be changed. The directive to keep holy the Lord’s Day comes from God, is Dogma, and can not be changed. The directive to not eat meat on Fridays was (is) Canon Law, and can be changed (and has been changed in some Jurisdictions). The directive to attend Divine Liturgy (Mass) on Sundays is Canon Law, made in accordance with the Church’s authority to implement Dogma, is binding under penalty of sin, and is subject to additional modifications by the Church - but the Dogmatic instruction to keep the Lord’s Day holy can never be changed. The directive against homosexual acts comes from God, is Dogma, and can not be changed. Homosexual acts are always wrong.

Text Box: Weakland has stated the Church must change its stance on homosexual acts. He obviously does not accept the fact and reality that the directive prohibiting homosexual acts comes from God and therefore can not be changed. He obviously has rejected God’s directive, deems his own desires to be superior to God’s, and superior to the administrative authority of the Church given to the Church by God. There are many homosexuals who accept God’s prohibition against homosexual acts just as there are many heterosexuals who accept God’s prohibition against heterosexual intercourse without the benefit of marriage. There also are a very large number of homosexuals who will gayly engage in homosexual activities claiming approval of the Roman Catholic Church for homosexual acts under the teachings and example of Weakland. And since there always is a large number of people who seek any excuse to sin, and any hint of official allowance or approval of sin, Weakland’s teachings will be perceived as official Church approval of what have been traditionally designated as sin. Empirically homosexuality has been common amongst Latin Rite Roman Catholic clergy, at least in the U.S.A., for many decades. The same applies to the Church in Ireland, which supplied large numbers of priest to the U.S.A. during most of the twentieth century, many of whom became bishops. If anything, homosexuality amongst Irish clergy was more prevalent and existed for a longer period of time than in the U.S.A. The importation of homosexual clergy, combined with the “native” homosexual clergy, lead to a culture similar to the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy of the American Armed Forces regarding homosexuality. Priest who were caught engaging in homosexual acts in bus stations, roadside parks, and other public places, were protected by their superiors. Many of those superiors were themselves homosexual, and even those who were

Text Box: not did not wish the wide prevalence of homosexual clergy to become public knowledge. It was a short step from protecting clergy caught engaging in homosexual activities, to protecting clergy accused and even caught engaging in pedophilia. Before it became accepted by the public that there was a problem with pedophiles in the clergy, true pedophile clergy were regularly reassigned and the accusations against them dismissed. Occasionally a persistent accuser would be paid money often under a written agreement which required the accuser to cease the accusations and never again refer to the incident. When it became impossible for the Church to conceal the rampant acts of pedophilia and the large number of pedophile clergy, the reaction of the hierarchy to such accusations switched from concealment of the accusations to acceptance of the accusations, monetary payment to the accuser, and often dismissal of the accused without investigation or evidence of the viability of the accusations. Many innocent priest were accused by money seeking accusers, and unjustly dismissed. Thus it was that the lack of moral fiber made evident in the era of quiet acceptance of homosexuality amongst the clergy continued through the period of overt pedophilia, and continues to this day. That lack of moral fiber continues to this day is obvious because there has been no official condemnation of Weakland’s teachings, and no action taken against him other than acceptance of his resignation as Archbishop. The laity, and also those clergy who wish to be true to Dogma and Church teachings, have received neither guidance nor assurance of the continued viability of traditional Church teachings, from the hierarchy. Problematic: Weakland’s rejection of

Go to page