I cam across the 2009 NYTimes interview with Archbishop Weakland, evidently updated. I was thinking of him in connection to the McCarrick scandal. McCarrick was acting out as a young priest, Weakland, being a monk, didn't act out until he became Archbishop.
If for no other reason, the following statement seems to me reason enough why the Church should not ordain gay men:
[Weakland] "He said he had been aware of his homosexual orientation since he was a teenager and suppressed it until he became archbishop, when he had relationships with several men because of “loneliness that became very strong.” - NYT
It's all about language and always has been. Weakland says gay - I know the arguments for and against it. I don't care. The very real problem is how dissidents really want to change Catholic teaching. Weakland says the Church is wrong, and that 'objectively disordered' is a pejorative term. Fr. Martin praises Weakland as gifted and brilliant, and so on. Really? When an Archbishop tells people he thinks a term from moral theology to express objective immoral behavior as objectively disordered is pejorative? We are in big trouble.
Archbishop Weakland, 82, said he was probably the first bishop to come out of the closet voluntarily. He said he was doing so not to excuse his actions but to give an honest account of why it happened and to raise questions about the church’s teaching that homosexuality is “objectively disordered.”
“Those are bad words because they are pejorative,” he said. - NYTActually, the Archbishop does speak to excuse his actions, because as he states in the interview after saying the Church is wrong, he explains:
“If we say our God is an all-loving god,” he said, “how do you explain that at any given time probably 400 million living on the planet at one time would be gay? Are the religions of the world, as does Catholicism, saying to those hundreds of millions of people, you have to pass your whole life without any physical, genital expression of that love?” - WeaklandClerical change agents.
One thing useful about the Weakland interview is that he also speaks to the difference of peadophilia and abuser priests and the issue of homosexuality. "Archbishop Weakland is still pained that his scandal, involving a man in his 30s, became intertwined with the larger church scandal over child sexual abuse." As we all know everyone freaks out if one even suggests that just being gay disposes one to seek out teens for sex, and or, prepubescent boys for sex. Weakland speaks disparagingly about how bishops trusted therapists advice and were more concerned for the priests than the victims:
In the interview, he blamed psychologists for advising bishops that perpetrators could be treated and returned to work, and he blamed the Vatican’s tribunals for spending years debating whether to remove abusers from the priesthood. - WeaklandAs one friend remarked, "This idea that homosexuality has nothing to do with it... or that people are saying all gay people or all gay priests are potential pedophiles - it’s deliberately glossing over things and conflating things to hide an agenda. It also makes the assumption that it is wrong according to Catholic teaching, research, and common sense that homosexual sexuality is the same as heterosexuality."
That's what Weakland and Fr. Martin are saying. So if you spend a lot of time correcting language, just be aware of how much you are doing exactly what the apostles of equality want you to do. Talk about ontological terms all you want, Weakland already considered himself as gay and was instructed by Rome not to say that. It didn't stop him from advocating for change in Catholic teaching. The real language they are concerned about is telling people homosexual acts are sinful, and the disposition towards same sex activity is objectively disordered. You know what I'm saying.
As my friend noted: "This refusal though to see that there really is an effort to overturn church teaching on sexual issues - especially gay sexual issues - and that it is in some way related to clericalism and the abuse crisis is bonkers."
Unless McCarrick himself speaks,
we may never know how and why
he ascended the ranks despite his sexual misconduct.
As in Weakland's case it may be deemed to be
more “of a private order,”
And strictly an “administrative affair."