JS Online: Weakland paid $450,000 to silence man's claim of sexual abuse, documents show: Archbishop Rembert Weakland asked the Vatican to speed up his retirement Thursday after a former Marquette University theology student revealed that he was paid $450,000 in hush money to silence his allegations that Weakland sexually assaulted him.

Oh, my.

That can't be a good thing.

And, of course, he and the Milwaukee priests have been conducting meetings all over the city, asking how Catholics feel about the abuse mess, and what they think should be done. With this coming out, surely the people who attended meetings guided by him will feel even more betrayed and lied to.

In any event, he's probably just the first archbishop to fall. To be sure, the others will be forced to resign or retire for the more mundane felony of concealment of crimes, rather than direct commission of crimes. And it's quite likely never to be called that. After all, were they any other sort of person, a normal citizen, who had hidden case after case after case of sexual assault, they would have been arrested and charged with conspiracy and concealment, both felonies major in their own right.

That said ... Marcoux' story is being described in interestingly different ways. In the Journal Sentinel, which has apparently interviewed him repeatedly according to the above-linked article: Marcoux said the two men shared two bottles of wine and several aperitifs during dinner. Then Marcoux drove Weakland home and Weakland asked him in for a nightcap. Inside the rectory, Weakland made advances, Marcoux said, adding that the combination of the alcohol and awe for priests that had been a part of his traditionally Catholic culture caused him to freeze. He said he rebuffed Weakland when the archbishop attempted intercourse.

How is this sexual assault or abuse? Marcoux was an actual adult at the time; he was 30 when they met. From the description given by Marcoux himself, it sounds like they had too much to drink, Weakland started something that Marcoux didn't want but couldn't figure out how to refuse at first ... but when he did refuse, Weakland seems to have accepted it and stopped. Where's the sexual assault? Apparently there were several "sexualized encounters" after that; how in hell does that work? If you feel that someone has assaulted you, why would you go back and let them do it again? If you're a child or an adolescent or an abused spouse, you may wind up with no choice, but he was a 30 year old adult who had his own place to live. He gives the reason that he was considering becoming a priest, and the friendship of the prelate of Milwaukee could only be a help in that goal. True enough. How is this worth staying around someone who not only assaults you, but apparently keeps trying to do so? Frankly, given the correspondence that's included, it sounds quite firmly as if Marcoux was blackmailing him, knowing that if any hint of attempted sexual encounters had gotten out, it would have derailed Weakland's career. To be sure, the threat of a lawsuit is not legally extortion in any way, shape or form, as the Milwaukee County DA states; however, anyone with half a brain would understand how it would be perceived.

In the ABCNews article: Marcoux says he met Weakland in 1979 while attending Marquette University. He says the incident occurred in the archbishop's apartment, after a dinner, when he asked Weakland for advice about entering the priesthood.
     "A short time later he was sitting next to me and then started to try to kiss me," Marcoux said. "And I would say, well, think of it in terms of date rape."
     Weakland forced himself on him, pulling down his trousers, and trying to fondle him, Marcoux said.
     Over the next year, Marcoux says he only wanted a friendship, but the archbishop wanted more. He says the relationship essentially ended soon after Weakland wrote an 11-page letter to Marcoux, dated Aug. 25, 1980.

That is certainly what one could reasonably think of as sexual assault (although, again, there seems to be no suggestion that Weakland didn't stop when finally asked to -- and since when is a kiss "date rape"? Someone tries to kiss you, you don't want it, you say no and leave, or tell them to) ... but why in the name of heaven would you want a friendship afterward with someone who had done that to you?

At this point, I can't help but have a studied lack of sympathy for Marcoux.

Interesting: in all the articles on this, there's a striking lack of analysis of Marcoux' actions or versions of his story. I suppose nobody wants to question abuse victims' stories, especially during the ongoing self-immolation of the Church.

Side note: It's actually possible for an archbishop to make more than $450,000 in honoraria? And keep it? It seems rather unlikely. And even if it were possible, according to Weakland, he'd originally handed the money over to the Church ... which will now cause him untold grief. As it stands, the Milwaukee County DA may investigate Weakland for what he is very carefully not calling embezzlement or misappropriation of funds, trying to determine the actual source of that money.

Side note 2: Why is it that bishops are required to retire at age 75, but the pope isn't?