Rembert passes the buck
By Diogenes (articles ) | March 26, 2010 12:39 PM
In July 1996, Archbishop Rembert Weakland wrote to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith about a problem that, he said, had "only recently… come to light"-- the charges against Father Lawrence Murphy. Only recently? That was 40 years after the first complaints against Murphy had arisen, and 3 years after Archbishop Weakland himself has sent Murphy to a psychologist for evaluation.
Today, from his comfortable retirement, Weakland complains that the Vatican didn't respond quickly enough to his inquiry. "They certainly delayed a lot more than I would have liked," he said. But three months after he wrote to the CDF, a canonical trial of Father Murphy was underway. That's three months, not three years.
So who was responsible for the delay? The same man who was responsible for the disciplinary oversight of priests in the Milwaukee archdiocese. The same man who was responsible for the personal behavior of Rembert Weakland. The same man who's now pointing a finger toward Rome.
An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus:
Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach five million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you!
Progress toward our Spring 2013 goal ($27,765 to go):
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: Gaudete802 -
Apr. 03, 2010 10:54 AM ET USA
I think we need to state the truth in this matter a homosexual archbishop ignored or swept under the rug the criminal behavior of a pedophile priest under his authority for over 20 years. Now during that time no further accusations were raised concerning this priest and he was not in any active ministry. Then he suddenly starts a trial and sends a notice to the Vatican as if they had to approve that trial when he had it in his power to order a trial all along. Let's admit Weakland was a disgr
Posted by: Frodo1945 -
Mar. 27, 2010 9:38 AM ET USA
I wish one of our real Bishops would rebuke Bishop Weakland and defend the Pope. I am waiting but the silence is deafening.
Posted by: Pseudodionysius -
Mar. 26, 2010 6:36 PM ET USA
What did Pat Buchanan say about homosexuality? The love that dare not speak its name has become the vice that won't shut its mouth.
Posted by: patriot6908 -
Mar. 26, 2010 5:30 PM ET USA
What a poor, sad, disgusting old soul. With all the talents that the Lord lavished on him, he managed to destroy them along with harming many in his flock who trusted in his failed leadership. May he find contrition and repentance before he faces Our Lord.
Posted by: jasoncpetty3446 -
Mar. 26, 2010 3:04 PM ET USA
I'm sure Archbishop Weakland was waiting by the phone for the Vatican to solve this problem for him. Funny, but I remember a lack of concern for the Vatican's solution to another problem where the archbishop was concerned (http://www.seattlecatholic.com/article_20020228_Follow-Up_on_the_Milwaukee_Cathedral_Renovation.html).
Posted by: adamah -
Mar. 26, 2010 1:43 PM ET USA
His last name fits him. What a pathetic individual. He should lead a life of silence and penance, begging God for mercy for all the damage he has done.