The Pecore affair

This last case is particularly tragic and an outline of the events will reveal the full horror of what we are facing in the Church today. As one American observer says, what we are seeing is only the tip of the iceberg. And it's a very big iceberg.

In 1983 a "pastoral team" (Fr. Fred Rosing, pastor, and associates Frs. Dennis Pecore and Peter Schuesler) was appointed to the Mother of Good Counsel parish in Milwaukee. During 1983 hundreds of parishioners and teachers became concerned about the behaviour of "the team".

The school principal Fr. Bruce Brentrup expressed concerns to the team regarding moral conduct. Despite his service of 15 years he was dismissed ("forced out") by the team in 1984.

On July 26, 1984 three teachers collaborated on a letter to Archbishop Weakland. The letter was signed by one of the teachers, a member of the staff for 10 years, Dr. Paul Niebler. The letter outlined high handed behaviour on the part of the team, their financial mismanagement and "Improper conduct and scandal". This detail was given: "An assistant has on several occasions taken young boys to his private bedroom one at a time." The teachers hoped that Archbishop Weakland would "be able to do something before this turns into a full fledged scandal…"

Archbishop Weakland replied to Dr. Niebler on 13 August 1984 threatening legal action and undermining his job security. Later in 1984 all three teachers lost their jobs. The termination notice was signed by the team's pastor, Fr. Fred Rosing on 12 October 1984.

In 1986, Gregory Bernau reported Fr. Dennis Pecore for sexual molestation.

In January 1987, Fr. Dennis Pecore was charged with sexual abuse of minor, Gregory Bernau. The abuse dating from January 1984 lasted until December 1985 and included both oral and anal sex. The boy was 14-years-old when the abuse began.

On 24 July 987, Peccore pleaded guilty to paedophilia and received a jail sentence. Other details surrounding the case are these:

According to The Milwaukee Journal (8/5/88) the victim "said his mother called the rectory and asked if her son was there; the other priests told her he wasn't. It was only when she knocked at the rectory's door that they acknowledged he was there." [Emphasis added]

On 17 May 1988, the victim gave a signed declaration that on two occasions Fr. Fred Rosing visited the bedroom of Fr. Pecore while the sexual abuse was taking place. Bernau says: "... Fr. Fred could also see me lying in Fr. Dennis's bed and said 'Hi Greg'. Nothing else was said or asked of me". Despite his complicity in this tragic affair Fr. Rosing continued in his role as pastor of mother of Good Counsel parish, Milwaukee.

On 2 May 1988, Gregory-Bernau wrote to Judge Robert J. Miech. He reveals the attempted cover-up and the conspiracy of silence which appears to attend such matters in the contemporary Church. Bernau says:

"I am the victim in the sexual assault case... I am writing, along with all the other people of the Archdiocese, to have you open the Bernau Settlement Agreement to the public. Here are my reasons: (I am referring to the document Petition to seal settlement agreement.)

1. I feel that I have been exposed to public ridicule and derision and if the facts are put forth to the public, they will not do or say anything worse than they have already said or done.
   
   
2. I feel that the public already knows what went on between Father Dennis Pecore and myself, so if the Settlement Agreement is opened the public will not cause me any physical or emotional injury.
   
   That is my reasoning on the said document, following are my personal reasons:
   
   
3. If the Archdiocese wanted to protect me, they would have not put me through all the hassles they did.
   
   
4. In the first place my mother, father, or myself never wanted the Settlement Agreement to be sealed. It was the Archdiocese's idea to seal it and when our family saw the clause in the agreement that said it was to be sealed, we strongly objected.

Finally, I would like to add that I am very disgusted with all the secrecy and homosexuality in the Archdiocese. I think if this Settlement Agreement was open to the public, they would find what has been going on and put pressure on the priests. One last comment, I do think the Catholics that support the Church financially, should know where their money is going!"

"Judge Robert Miech ruled the record should be opened to the public. Damages paid amounted to $595,000 and legal fees were $200,000.

Cardinal O'Connor Concurs

Weakland was roundly condemned by a number of professional people including judges and district attorneys for questioning the innocence of some adolescents who had been sexually abused by priests.

Tom Phillips appeared on television to expose the corruption in the Milwaukee Archdiocese. He wants us to carefully note that Weakland was informed in writing in 1984 when the sexual abuse of Gregory Bernau was taking place. Instead of investigating he threatened those who contacted him and apparently saw to it that they lost their jobs. Phillips' dossier - which contains all the documentation exposing this massive "cover-up" was made available to the Melbourne archdiocese in late 1992.

The Milwaukee Journal Metro (18/3/88) reports that:

"Archbishop Rembert Weakland has sent a letter to all priests in the Milwaukee Archdiocese in an attempt to prepare them for the fallout that may occur after a critic (Tom Philips) appears on a television show tonight".

In the letter, dated 14 March 1988, Weakland warns the priests of the "amateur" character of Tom Phillips' documentation; his "Fundamentalist" approach, and his "narrow point of view." He finishes his lengthy attack on Phillips with a clever display of guile. To his hapless priests, Weakland says:

"I know that many of you frequently have to deal with difficult and often judgmental people in your parishes. My heart goes out to you. Jesus certainly did not please everyone, and the frequent references in this Lenten Season to the tensions between himself and those who did not understand what the Good News was all about should be more meaningful to us all. Peace!"

To be an "amateur" of course, is no sin. To be a corrupter of morals and a pretender is quite another thing. However if Weakland prefers the testimony of professionals here is William F. Buckley, Editor of the New York National Review:

[Weakland] "hopes to cow Mr. Phillips into line by invoking the very authority he himself so scandalously flouts. These are grievous days."

Tom Phillips received this message from the office of New York's Cardinal O'Connor:

"The concern you express is genuine and the documentation is very disturbing. Reading it is difficult enough, living it must be very painful."

We should pray for the faithful Catholics of Milwaukee. They still face ten years under the "leadership" of Weakland. And pray too that orthodox Catholics will stand up in great numbers to oppose this great menace. Make no mistake: the only real vipers in this whole sordid affair are most certainly those who support officially sanctioned visits by Weakland, even by their silence.

* * *

- PART II -

When Archbishop Weakland accepted the invitation, extended by the Melbourne archdiocese, to be Keynote Speaker at the National Liturgical Music Convention, he was probably unaware that a storm cloud was about to break over his head in his home town, Milwaukee.

So that in October 1992, when certain Melbourne clerics were overreaching themselves in the search for superlatives to describe the high-powered liturgical event scheduled for April 1993, the latest in an ever growing line of paedophile priests, Fr. William Effinger, was unexpectedly confronted in Milwaukee by one of his long-suffering victims. This action has triggered an unprecedented expose of clerical paedophilia and brought to light the duplicity of those who contrive to suppress the facts.

Corruption and Cover-Ups

It is a well documented fact that Archbishop Weakland's diocese is especially marked by sex scandals. The Milwaukee Journal (29/10/92) reports that men and women claiming to have been childhood victims of Fr. William Effinger "swamped the district attorney's office with telephone calls. By 10.30 workers had taken about 25 calls". Some callers said Effinger first "plied them with martinis". The lawyer representing Effinger's victims believes that Effinger sexually assaulted "as many as 150 children".

Archbishop Weakland has been aware of Effinger's paedophilia since 1978. The victim in the 1978 incident received a payment from the Church and Effinger was reassigned to another parish. To those who questioned his judgment Weakland said he "followed the advice of psychologists" in letting Effinger continue pastoral work. A prestigious group of psychologists who pointed to the recklessness of Weakland's action, however, threw doubt on his claim saying:

"Since the early 1970s, all reputable psychologists have been saying that child sex abusers should not be returned to situations in which they could molest again."

When challenged further, Weakland went to ground refusing to provide the names of those who allegedly advised that an offending paedophile could be returned to parish work. The lawsuit lodged in 1993 naming Weakland, says that he acted:

"wilfully, intentionally and in wanton and reckless disregard of the rights and safety of the plaintiffs by failing to remove Effinger and should be assessed punitive as well as compensatory damages."

The Milwaukee Journal (17/2/93) reveals that Weakland is now fighting a disclosure demand by attorney Robert L. Elliott who has challenged Weakland to provide information about sexual abuse complaints against priests since 1968. Elliott described the archdiocese's attempts to conceal information from the public as "outrageous" now that the victims have come forward.

After Weakland's return to Milwaukee from Melbourne, yet another lawsuit for paedophilia was lodged by a teenager against Fr. Peter Burns and the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. The Milwaukee Journal (28/4/93) reports that the victim, 13 at the time of the sexual assault in 1988, is suing the Church claiming it failed to act against the priest after a similar incident a year earlier.

Meanwhile at Milwaukee's Sacred Heart School of Theology, former seminary rector, Fr. Jerome Clifford, resigned following multiple allegations of sexual misconduct.

The Milwaukee Journal (28/3/93) lists other concerns at the seminary:

• A student placed a personal ad in a gay publication, giving the seminary telephone number for contact

• A student was arrested for soliciting sex from a male police officer in a public park

• A student owns 2 gay bars in another state

William F. Buckley writes in the Los Angeles Times (24/3/93): "Insurance companies will no longer write liability protection to the Church, so riddled is it by current scandals". Fr. Charles C. Fiore told the Milwaukee Sentinel (4/9/1992) that he expects before long to be able to name a bishop:

"I personally know of six bishops who are paedophiles ... the evidence, while it is convincing, is not such that it would stand up in a court of law as yet".

According to The Free Lance Star (11/11/89) a group called "Catholics for an Open Church" charged that a cardinal, a bishop and an archbishop "engaged in cover-ups" of priests molesting children. On 6/11/89 in The Washington Post this group singled out Cardinal Bernadin of Chicago and Archbishop Weakland of Milwaukee "for not taking appropriate action against paedophile priests in their dioceses". Even if Rome can't bring herself to discipline these wretched souls the Church in America looks set to be routed by financial ruin. American author, Jason Berry, estimates that the financial cost to the Church for sex crimes will reach $1 billion by the year 2000.

Clerical Dissembling: Rembert Redefined

Apologists for Weakland, who tried to give the impression that his contribution at the Melbourne Convention would be strictly musical, must have felt vindicated by the two brief reports in Australian secular papers. The controversial issues in which Weakland has so embroiled himself overseas didn't rate a mention. The Age (22/4) reports: "Some in the religious orders, led by Archbishop Weakland, argue for a return to a more elitist form of music, to Gregorian chants, choirs and classical hymns..." Compare that however, to this article written by Paul Likoudis for The Wanderer (25/7/91):

"The articles in the New Yorker and Milwaukee Magazine illustrate some of Weakland's paradoxes. His past as a music scholar in the great Benedictine tradition is revealed - but as Milwaukee Catholics complain, he has never supported their efforts to bring Gregorian Chant into parishes. According to Milwaukee Catholic Larry Stich, Weakland once declared that there was no music suitable for Catholic worship produced before 1965."

The claim that Archbishop Weakland was in Melbourne exclusively to share his musical expertise fell flat too when it was revealed that Weakland was in fact to address a closed meeting of priests on the role of the ordained ministry. This is a topic on which Weakland is notoriously unreliable as his article Out of the Kitchen and into the Vatican. (New York Times, Dec. 1992) clearly shows. Advance publicity from the Melbourne archdiocese elevated Weakland to the status of a "visionary". In a promotional circular, Fr. D. Panton, Chairman of the Senate of Priests, described Weakland's visit as an "extraordinary blessing". He was introduced at his press conference on his arrival as a "modern day prophet".

Curiously enough even Weakland's defenders, who were granted a disproportionate amount of space in The Age to answer journalist Michael Barnard's article Keynote Archbishop is Off Key (18/3/93), couldn't seem to agree whether Weakland enjoys prophetic status because of his complete solidarity with Rome or because he habitually thumbs his nose at Rome. Serious contradictions emerged particularly in the juxtaposition of the lengthy articles by Melbourne Archbishop Frank Little and Thomas H. Stahel SJ, the American correspondent for left-liberal Eureka Street. So that while Archbishop Little (25/3) described Weakland's "unimpeachable" orthodoxy, and insisted on his "ongoing solidarity" and "communion" with "the Holy See and the Pope in Rome", Stahel (15/4) posed this rhetorical question: "Is there anything at which he (Weakland) has not succeeded with the possible exception of pleasing John Paul II?"

Stahel's article provides further evidence that relations between Weakland and Rome are, in fact, strained. In the face of ongoing attempts by the Melbourne hierarchy to prove Weakland's orthodox we draw on Stahel again:

[Quoting Weakland] 'Yes, I'm sure that they [Rome] are thinking up ways to keep me in line, to criticise me, to isolate me ... to get worked up over something like Fribourg, to feel bad about it! To look over my shoulder and wonder if Rome will be pleased with what I say?'

" ... the archbishop is not unwilling to speak and act according to his own lights, even if those lights do not correspond exactly with official Roman preferences.

"...he [Weakland] said of the 1987 Synod of Bishops ... that 'he would never go through such a charade again'... About the Vatican bureaucracy… Weakland says: 'I spent 13 years in Rome; the Vatican is demythologised for me. It is not the repository of truth and right thinking that some make it out to be - not at all'."

The cockiness and contempt so evident here were noticeably absent in Weakland's statements in Melbourne.

Not only the Melbourne hierarchy, but Weakland too seemed anxious to shed his "progressive" image for the duration of his visit. In the light of the rapidly deteriorating situation in Milwaukee perhaps we should not be surprised. The problems Weakland faces in Milwaukee are acutely embarrassing for him and his liberal defenders.

Whatever the motivation for Weakland's low-key approach on his 1993 Melbourne visit, however, Catholics everywhere should be aware that a number of vital issues were suppressed, as they always are on his overseas jaunts as guest speaker here and there.

Both Archbishops, Little and Weakland, complained bitterly that their views had not been sought by the,media. But what Melbourne Catholics don't know is that Channel 7's Warren Wilton and The Herald-Sun's Anita Quigley kept us informed of their constant appeals to both Archbishops (including a call to Weakiand's Milwaukee office prior to his visit) to put their case against those who had raised concerns about the visit. Both Archbishops steadfastly refused these approaches by the media to make any comment whatsoever. Although Archbishop Weakland suddenly developed a certain coyness about talking to the media it has been more usual for him to seek out the press to record his every controversial opinion. Indeed part of the appeal for Weakland's liberal lackeys is his reputation as ecclesiastical iconoclast.

Paul Wilkes wrote in 1992 (The Education of an Archbishop) of Weakland's boldness in sending to Rome an "explosive" draft proposal addressing the priest shortage. Weakland's suggestions contradicting the conclusions of the 1990 Synod aroused "serious concerns" in Rome, and drew this stinging rebuke from the Apostolic Nunciature (10/2/91):

"... your intervention cannot but appear to be out of place and, objectively, a sort of provocation".

There was little to be heard in Melbourne from the Weakland repertoire that has so endeared him, over the years, to the secular press and Modernist forces worldwide. Given the Milwaukee Archbishop's reputation for "puncturing balloons" (Weakland's own description of his role); his striding around the globe warning Rome of her impending irrelevance; his dismissal of Pope John Paul II as a "ham actor" and his boasting after his Vatican rebuke on the abortion issue that bishops in Conference were now "competing to see who could sit next to me", Melbourne Catholics may have been surprised to have seen a remarkably subdued prelate on his arrival here.

In place of the characteristic swaggering, Weakland appeared cautious and defensive, but when questioned, reckless to the point of contradicting many of his own earlier statements and denying established facts. We were delighted of course to learn from Kairos, the Melbourne diocesan paper, that Weakland now supports "the Church's view on abortion". We admit to having had our doubts following headlines like this one in The Milwaukee Journal (24/11/90) proclaiming Weakland's defiance on the on the abortion issue: Weakland plays down snub by Rome, says he won't change.

The Press Conference

There was just a touch of the old bravado when Weakland arrived at his press conference thanking Melbournians profusely for the surprising amount of advance publicity. He should have blushed for shame to have added: "I have not received the same degree of attention in the United States".

Those who are familiar with the veritable flood of material, the banner headlines and relentless outpourings from the secular press in America covering Weakland's activities over a number of years will recognize the devilish posturing going on here. It is a fact that Milwaukee Catholics wake to newspaper revelations implicating their chief "pastor", trumpeted by headlines like these in the Milwaukee Sentinel: Weakland critical of celibacy (17/7/1991); Weakland warns of disaffection with Rome (15/5/91); Weakland says he knew of sex allegations against priests (18/10/92); Weakland questions male only priesthood (23/10/92); Weakland wants gays in military (25/5/93).

Mark Warren of Channel 2 asked Archbishop Weakland to describe for us his "brand of Catholicism". Weakland's reply was as extreme an expression of subjectivism as one is likely to hear:

"My brand of Catholicism?" he responded, "It's my brand of me."

This is Weakland's position in a nutshell. And therein lies his dilemma and the whole distorted Modernist view of self in which man, as Philip Trower says, becomes the "arbiter of religion". Weakland's problem then, is not merely a matter of "style" as he so frequently pretends. His problem is one of philosophy. It's his subjectivism and individualism which he can't reconcile with the Catholic tradition. From this perspective, as Trower recognizes, man comes first and God plays an ever diminishing role. Religion is not based on objective facts about God known from His creation and by Revelation. It has its origins in man's ever changing "needs". Thus Weakland's "listening sessions" on issues such as abortion, have come to replace the absolutes that emerge from Christ's commands.

Weakland told Paul Wilkes of the New Yorker that the Church still hasn't come to terms with the issue of sexuality - "the Galileo issue of the day". According to Weakland:

"... the Church is reluctant to accept the results of the human sciences; instead it harks back to the days when you could say, "This is black, This is white; This is right, This is wrong'."

Weakland appears to hold a strangely naive view of what science is and what it can offer. In any conflict of ideas he simply assumes that the voice of secular learning is a higher authority than the voice of the Church.

Plugging for pluralism in a pastoral letter (Dec. 1992) he makes the astonishing statement that Catholics educated in liberal universities assume a "more informed" attitude toward Church pronouncements. It came as no surprise at the press conference, then, to hear of Weakland's involvement in the Myer-Briggs program, widely advertised as "an indicator of personality types where there is no (sic) right or wrong ways to behave, only differences".

The influence of this insidious, subjectivist philosophy is widespread. Time magazine in an article The Battle over Gay Clergy (13/11/89) notes that clergymen "influenced by the liberalization in theology and society reject or redefine the official concept of celibacy". The article quotes the regional director of priestly education in one of the larger men's orders: "We'll never know what is right or wrong until we ... look at people's experiences". This prominent priest explained to Time that his superiors have been "quietly aware" of his long-running homosexual relationship. However, "they expect him to be judicious, not to change".

The reaction of Weakland's defenders, to the action Rome took in blocking an honorary degree to be conferred on him by the University of Fribourg, varies a good deal. Those who claim that Weakland is in full union with Rome have no option but to ignore the fact. The Australian Broadcasting Commission's Ellen Fanning made the extraordinary claim that Rome's veto was made in response to Weakland's opposition to Ronald Reagan's policies! Others, like Eureka Street's Thomas Stahel S.J., claim falsely that Weakland was denied the Fribourg doctorate "because he had held six 'listening sessions' on abortion and contraception." Though pressed at the Melbourne press conference for an explanation of Rome's action, Weakland prevaricated indicating that the reasons for Rome's action were not clear to him. Weakland's listening sessions may well give the false impression that Catholic truth is settled by Gallup polls or similar exercises, but the truth, that Weakland was at pains to suppress at the press conference, is that Rome acted in response to a statement, prepared by him following the sessions, in which he challenged Church teaching and made a number of false claims.

In response to that statement Archbishop Pio Laghi, head of The Vatican Congregation for Education, issued the order to leaders of Fribourg University with this explanation:

"With regard to Archbishop Rembert Weakland, this prelate has recently taken certain positions relative to the question of abortion which are not without doctrinal importance and which are causing a great deal of confusion amongst the faithful in the United States. The granting of a doctorate… would only add to the confusion".

Weakland expected us to believe that he knows nothing of this.

Professor of Theology at Notre Dame University, Fr. James Burtchaell, has provided a valuable analysis of Weakland's abortion statement for the National Catholic Reporter (15/6/ 1990). In his penetrating criticism Fr. Burtchaell charges Weakland with "incompetence and bias", as well as his presentation of the "unequivocal" Catholic position on abortion as "too simplistic" in a "pluralist" society.

Rembert and New Creation: Porn for Catholic Kids

Sex-education programs in Milwaukee Catholic schools have also come under scrutiny. Writing for the Milwaukee Sentinel (24/7/90), Catholic columnist Margo Szews says:

"For the past 13 years, Weakland-directed catechetical programs have been teaching abortion and contraception according to 'situation ethics' ... adolescents learn that abortion and contraception are 'opinion questions', and that 'there's no right or wrong'... books and programs that teach the absolute morality of Catholicism are not listed in the archdiocesan bibliography and are not permitted in Milwaukee area Catholic schools."

Weakland's comments at the press conference about one of these sex-education programs - the New Creation series - currently in use in several Milwaukee Catholic schools, is of utmost importance to our assessment of his credibility. This program endorsed and implemented by Weakland is one of four - all based on situation ethics - which each school must use in order to retain accreditation.

Of the New Creation program Margo Szews says: "Eight-graders will learn no fewer than six methods of artificial contraception, and seventh-graders can read that incest 'may not be harmful... It is more like experimenting with sex with your brother or sister before you begin to have sexual relations with other people'."

James Likoudis, writing for Homiletic and Pastoral Review (Feb. 1987), describes this program as: "the worst sex education atrocity yet to be inflicted upon Catholic parents and their elementary school children". Catholic education, he says, is "disgraced" by this "corrupt and corrupting" program. More important still are Rome's references to the program in 1986 as "scandalous" and a "travesty of sex education".

At the press conference, therefore, I addressed this question to Archbishop Weakland:

"The New Creation sex education program was endorsed and implemented by you. Rome calls it 'scandalous', you have said it is in line with Rome's guidelines. It even condones incest Are you still claiming it's in line with Rome's guidelines?"

Archbishop Weakland replied: "That is not the program I saw. That is not the program I saw. Nor would it be a program I would approve."

In light of documentary evidence available to the contrary, Weakland's response can't fail to leave us with the gravest doubts about his integrity. Faced with the disturbing details surrounding the New Creation issue he became defensive, denying any knowledge of the program whatsoever. At this point I produced Weakland's letter defending the use of New Creation, reminding him that it bore his signature. In order to defuse the situation Archbishop Little quickly interrupted me, to remind the assembly that we have already had one forgery [reference to an earlier daft and futile incident in which someone had faked Cathedral letterhead and forged Little's name to warn Weakland off coming to Melbourne]. Censorship? Certainly. Innuendo sliding to slander? You bet! It seemed that Archbishop Little himself planned to get much "premeditated" "mileage" from the alleged forgery.

Weakland of course, has a pressing reason to attempt to distance himself from this New Creation program. As Cardinal Gagnon's letter shows, Rome has condemned it in the strongest terms (1). More remarkable, however, is Rome's call to arms against the unscrupulous characters who are pushing the program. Note well that Weakland's bizarre response that the program is in line with Rome's guidelines(2) comes 3 months after Rome's clear condemnation.