St Johns Seminary “Squeezola”

We were going to hold this story a little longer to give you all of the historical context first, but feel like it is urgent to get this one out for you all.  It concerns how Boston College is squeezing the property of St. John Seminary at the same point when the seminary is prospering and needs more space.

We hear that tensions are increasing, with BC taking back space the seminary was previously using.  Several reports–now confirmed–indicate that BC has recently pushed St. Johns out of their music room, and is booting St. Johns faculty from their dining room as well.  Normally we would wait to verify this from multiple sources, but it aligns with a pattern we have been seeing already.  So, this blog feels compelled to come out and say it appears no one at the top of the archdiocesan food-chain is pushing the seminary needs over BC’s encroachment.  That is why we are calling this a “Seminary Squeezola.”

As most people know, back in 2007 the Archdiocese sold off the huge majority of the land and buildings owned by St. John Seminary to Boston College when the archdiocese needed to raise cash.  We will go into the details of the transaction at another time.  The archdiocese took the cash and according to St. John’s Annual report, the archdiocese owes St. Johns  $4.8 million (plus interest) as of January 2011 from the 2004 sale of seminary land, and another $36 million in 2017.

How the cash-poor archdiocese will pay back those debts from the land they forced the seminary to sell is a story for another time.  So is the question of why Chancellor Jim McDonough is on the board of the seminary, when his main business is consuming money for the archdiocese–which presents a humongous conflict of interest vs advancing the formation of seminarians. More on that another time… 

So, the great news about St. Johns is that it is prospering and needs more space!   We heard glimpses of the good news back in 2008 when the Boston Globe reported on the “Stunning Turnaround for St Johns Seminary.”

Today there are about 100 students studying at St. Johns.  We get numbers from different sources, but this breaks down to about 80-84 residents, and 17 day students.  27-30 of those are from Boston, maybe around 10 are Neo-Catechumenates, and the rest come from other dioceses.  We hear great things about rector, Bishop Kennedy, the overall program, and quality of seminarians and staff at the seminary.  The seminary has run out of residential space in St. Johns Hall.  They are out of classroom space, because Bishop Peterson Hall was sold to BC, and may need to bus seminarians to the Masters of Arts in Ministry (MAM) building in Brighton for classes. 

To help solve the residential space problem, the seminary has been negotiating with BC to purchase back about 62 rooms over the refrectory (dining hall).  These were leased to BC in an arrangement which was a 99-year lease for $1, which is effectively a sale for legal purposes.  Now BC wants somewhere north of $1.5M to sell the rooms back to St. Johns and is apparently driving a hard bargain.  BC fired a shot across the bow letting them know “who is in charge” by trying to use the St. Johns chapel and pipe organ without asking permission back in September.  Now we hear they are taking back the small music room and faculty dining room they had legally acquired but were letting St. John’s use.

We wonder which side of all this Jack Connors is on?  Where is he when you need him to push for the seminary and archdiocesan needs for a change and tell his alma mater they should back off?  Cardinal O’Malley has stated his unequivocal support for the seminary in the past (“My commitment to St. John’s Seminary and its work of preparing men for the priesthood remains as strong as it has always been.”)  Where is he in this picture?   Besides Bishop Kennedy, who above him is standing up for the needs of the seminary and our future priests?

Apologies for the incomplete information today and tone of anger and frustration.  We are miffed. 

If anyone from the seminary would like to comment, please feel free to in comments or via email (bostoncatholicinsider(at)gmail.com).

About these ads

38 Responses to St Johns Seminary “Squeezola”

  1. Sam Adams says:

    Somewhat true. I have insiders at both the Seminary and Boston College. I am unable to confirm that BC used the SJS chapel and organ in September, but it is not true that BC is taking anything from the Seminary. The faculty dining room, music room, and kitchenette were all additions to the Seminary when Bishop Peterson Hall was built. As such, they were clearly sold to BC at the time of the sale of Peterson. BC graciously let SJS use these rooms for two additional years at no cost, and BC informed the Seminary last year that they would need them when they began renovations of Peterson this November. It is not clear what they are being used for or if they are really needed at this time, but it appears that BC is merely trying to make clear that they bought this property. My man on the inside of the seminary says that there seems to be a denial by many of the seminarians that BC bought the property fairly. There is also denial about the many good things BC has done for the Seminary, such as allowing seminarians to now check books out of the library and having it open at reasonable hours, which it never was when it was owned by the Seminary. BC also frequently gives seminarians free sporting tickets, and since BC has taken over the dining service, after a brief period of horrible food, with the co-operation of Bishop Kenendy, BC has improved the food at the Seminary. Seminarians have also for a long time had access to BC’s gym and receive $2,000 off on each BC class they take.

    However, it is also unclear why BC wants the rooms above the kitchen. Negotiations were entered into about the rooms, with BC willing to sell them back if they could use the SJS chapel once a week at noon on Thursdays. This conflicts with current SJS usage of the chapel. According to my insider at the seminary, the seminary had zero interest in allowing BC to use the chapel. According to my insider at BC, that is not true, as the seminary was willing to negotiate about the use of the chapel. It was BC that would not agree to what was perceived as overly strict terms of banning women from setting foot in the sanctuary. The reason BC says it wants to use the chapel is that it is looking for a large enough chapel on the Brighton property for all its theology students to attend Mass in. However, BC has such a chapel in Peterson Hall, which they are still pushing forward in dismantling, even though they admit they need a chapel that size. Additionally, in St. Williams Hall, they erect a fake wall to make the chapel smaller and more intimate.

    Why the squeeze? My BC insider says that it seems Father Leahy, president of BC, thinks that buying SJS and having the seminarians study at BC would make BC a more Catholic institution. Father Leahy has very noble minded goals, but he forgets, my friend says, that Jesuits have been in formation for eight years before arriving at BC to study, whereas diocesan seminarians have not been. The formation is completely different, and Father Leahy does not realize this fact and is acting inprudently in his desire to help the Church.

    • Except... says:

      Dear Sam,

      What points did the blogger raise?:

      The chancellor and the cardinal leveraged a huge conflict of interest to enrich the Archdiocese and BC at the expense of the seminary. Was it a coincidence that this began in 2004, and continued into 2007, while the then-Chairman of BC’s board straddled Commonwealth Avneue to also sit on the Finance Council of the Archdiocese?

      The seminary is full, and the lay formation program is growing even more rapidly. They need every square inch they can get in both locations, and the cardinal should go to the maximum to ensure that not another square inch is taken from them.

      There is not another place the seminary, either priest or lay formation program, can go that makes sense. From an academic perspective, they are unique, they do not duplicate what BC does, and they are essential to the future of the Church in the Archdiocese of Boston.

      BC has hundreds of acres, at least a hundred buildings on four campuses linked together (including dozens of worship spaces) and a clear mission as a primarily undergraduate, co-ed college. OK, so that means apart from being educational institutions, BC and the seminary have nothing in common.

      Now to my points:

      Sharing the library was a term of the sale, the same sale that sold the library for a small percentage of what it’s worth. Read the documents.

      If BC and the seminary were both serious about co-existing, they would form a small group of academics from both institutions who can meet on a regular basis and discuss how both can flourish given the absurd yoke that has been lashed to them by the sale agreement, sweethearted by McDonough (at Jack Connors’ insistence?) in 2006-2007. If the 2007 agreement is valid (would make a great take-home for law students), then good faith requires both parties to make best, not grudging, efforts to make it work. Period.

      • Sam Adams says:

        Except, I didn’t say BC was nice for letting the Seminary use the library. I said they have improved the library. Life in the Seminary is better now that BC owns these things. Seminarians who were around for both have said so to me.

      • Anonymous says:

        “Life in the Seminary is better now that BC owns these things”

        Selling the library and changing food services does not mean the archdiocese should have sold ALL of the property around it! There are far greater issues at stake here than improving the food and getting a few free football tickets.

      • Sam Adams says:

        Anonymous, I agree, actually. Bishop Peterson Hall should never have been sold. I don’t think anyone thinks that was a good idea. But it was. So no sense crying over spilt milk.

        All I’m saying is, let’s stop trying to make BC look awful for trying to advance its own mission, which also involves the training of priests.

    • Seminary Observer says:

      The blog post fairly captures the essence of what is going on. Though you are also correct in much of what you said, you are giving BC more credit than they are due. The fact of the matter is that BC is acting totally un-Christianlike about this entire thing. I assume you are familiar with the set-up. The music room is surrounded by SJS offices and classrooms, and BC has no practical use for it. And the faculty dining room is just a small room that also provides no significant benefit to BC. However, ask anyone at the seminary about the great inconvenience losing it causes the SJS faculty. Is BC being reasonable? No, they are being totally unreasonable. If they had the best interest of the Church in mind, why wouldn’t they allow the seminary to keep using those rooms? It would not be a major loss on their part. How does “BC merely trying to make clear that they bought this property” serve the Body of Christ or the greater good of the Catholic Church in Boston?

      There is no way that anyone–faculty and seminarians alike–at St. John’s would ever want the place to be run by the Jesuits. It would shut down before that happens, and the diocese would stop sending men there.

  2. Jane says:

    BC can no longer be called a Roman Catholic School, rather it should be called an Episcopalian School. Maybe that’s why the BC administration is giving St. John’s Roman Catholic Seminary, such a hard time in getting back the space they need for residents and classrooms.

    When will our Roman Catholic identity in Boston be restored. We must pray that God will hear our concerns, and show us the way out of this dilema.

  3. Joan Moran says:

    Cardinal O’Malley wanted to sell ALL of the Seminary to BC. He has no allegiance to the seminary..he is not a diocesan priest. I bet he would not sell the Seminary that belongs to his order…I believe the only reason he did not sell the last remaining building is some of us wrote to the Pope and he stopped it.

  4. A Sad Boston Priest says:

    IN O’MALLEY ENTERPRISES {Formerly the RCAB]FEWER PRIESTS IS BENEFICIAL. THE UNQUESTIONED POWER OF O’MALLEY’S LAY CONTROLLERS IS WELL SERVED BY SILENCING THE PRIESTS AND/OR DISPOSING OF THEM THROUGH NEGLECT OR MANUFACTURED FALSE ACCUSATION. IN THIS WAY, THE REAL FOCUS OF A HEALTHY BANK BALANCE AND SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS DEALS FOR THE LAY ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATORS ARE ACHIEVED WITHOUT SNAGS AND THERE IS NO NEED TO SUPPORT THE SICK OR DISABLED IF THEY ARE STRESSED TO AN EARLY DEMISE. IN OTHER WORDS PRIESTS ARE SUPERFLUOUS IN THE CONNORS/O’MALLEY CORP.
    THIS ALSO NEGATES THE NEED FOR A BELIEVEABLE EXPLANATION OF THE MILLIONS MISSING FROM THE PENSION FUNDS OF THE LAST 15-20 YEARS OF THE CHRISTMAS-EASTER COLLECTIONS.

    IN THIS MODEL IT BECOMES OBVIOUS THAT THE SEMINARY IS OBSELETE. O’MALLEY ET AL CAN HIRE THEM OR RECRUIT THEM FROM LESS EXPENSIVE RELIGIOUS ORDERS LIKE THE CAPUCHINS ETC … OR ‘BUY’ THEM WHILE DOING BUSINESS IN DUBLIN.

    BYE, BYE DIOCESEAN PRIESTHOOD!!

  5. Fr. D says:

    While I don’t have answers to the financial woes of the Archdiocese, nor all of the intricacies of their sale of SJS to BC, I can speak with what I think is a common sense solution to this situation.

    Have SJS merge with Bl John XXIII in Weston. Incorporating it into the structure or better yet, build additional housing for the SJS seminarians.

    This allows the Archdiocese to dispose of ALL the property (their ultimate intention anyway) avoiding all of these ridiculous skirmishes which will be perpetuated forever given the odd sale of parts of building, part of grounds, chapels to be used irregularly, etc.

    By merging the two seminaries in Weston, O’Malley avoids all of the ugliness associated with notifying Rome that he intends to close a major seminary, but merely move its physical location.

    Constructed rightly, the deal could have BC both buying the balance of what they already own for millions more and even purchase additional grounds adjacent to Bl John XXIII seminary. A win-win. BC is rolling in cash and would most likely be amenable to such a deal. It gives them total and complete ownership of a huge block of property they have coveted for a long, long time.

    However, is there the will to accomplish this?

    • Sam Adams says:

      A merger with Blessed John would be a disaster. You’d be better off building a brand new building somewhere else. John XXIII and SJS are not attempting the same thing in terms of formation. Additionally, St. John’s Hall is a historic building with a tradition that should be maintained.

      • Fr. D says:

        Sam,

        To merge the two into one probably would be. However, I am talking of sharing a common campus, perhaps classroom space (differing professors, although there could be some common profs) and perhaps worship. Differing residences on a common campus.

        Do I think this to be the ideal?….not on your life. Does it beat wondering if the men’s room I am using belongs to SJS or to BC because I have crossed some imaginary line…it does. What exists now is a bizarre absurdity which cannot survive in its present form. Was the Archdiocese correct in the sale? That answer is above my pay grade, but to be sure, the historical significance of the seminary is gone. It was sold to BC. Someday, it will be a hall within their system with a historical plaque noting its former life as a seminary. Sad, but the reality of the situation.

    • Except says... says:

      Fr. D.,

      You make the same mistake the chancellor makes. The seminary is not the Archdiocese’s property. The seminary is a separately chartered educational corporation founded before corporation sole. It is not the chancellor’s wallet, nor the cardinal’s.

      Sam and I are in agreement, that you cannot merely lump together Blessed John and St. John’s, anymore than the Jesuits can sell Holy Cross and move the students onto BC’s new land in Brighton. Two completely different institutions with two completely different missions. (Ask every Classics major HC ever produced is s/he would ahve preferred BC.)

      Men from all over the U.S. reside in Weston for six years to transition from a professional life and perhaps being widowed to priestly formation. They are father and grandfathers, retired military and experts in many fields.

      In Brighton, men from primarily Massachusetts, and also New England, come from college or a brief career to take on what amounts to a second bachelor’s degree and a master’s. They use public transportation, they play basketball, they go running, they walk to the drugstore. It’s two different environments for two completely different kinds of formation.

      Why would a seminary that is functioning at the top of its game (Blessed John or St. John) fold its tent and slink away? The sale of Peterson was more than spilt milk. A small redress for that blunder would be to smooth the path to getting back rooms and not giving up any more.

      It’s time reasonable people got serious about working together for the welfare of all, and time for the pickpockets, carpetbaggers and pit bulls to go to confession.

      • Anonymous says:

        Amen. SJ Seminary is not going anywhere. It is the heart of New England Catholicism. BC may own the property around it and some random rooms within, but the seminary as a whole is not moving. Maybe having less will inspire people to get off their butts, start fighting for the faith, and promote vocations to the priesthood! It’s already begun! 5 years ago, all the liberals and BC administration were predicting that St. John’s would be closed by now, and subsequently sold to BC. And look, it’s practically full now!

      • Fr. D says:

        The chancellor and I know the truth, and that truth is this (and believe me, this truth does not set anyone free). Once the decision is made to sell, vacate or otherwise leave this arrangement in Brighton, it will all be accomplished regardless of the legalistic corporate arrangement. Just like the initial sale was accomplished in spite of corporate arrangement.

        To me, Weston seems the best bet. They don’t have the money to build anew, but perhaps expand (kinda like St John’s and St. Clement’s Halls). BTW, is Fr. “T” Daly still among the living?

  6. Quality Guy says:

    Ah. but the REAL problem is what to do with the remains of Cardinal O’Connell ???

    • A Sad Boston Priest says:

      BURY THE REMAINS WITH JACK OR ISABELLA GARDNER OR AT THE GARDNER MUSEUM WHERE HE HELD MANY FUND-RAISING SALONS OR BURY HIM WITH CUSHING AT ST. COLETTA’S … OR SEND HIM TO BERNIE LAW TO BE ENTOMBED WITH HIM AT ST MARY MAJOR’S … WHO REALLY CARES???

  7. Jack O'Malley says:

    I don’t understand what this petty kerfuffle is all about.

    BC is a non-Catholic institution controlled by apostate Jesuits and has been since at least the sixties. The RCAB is a non-Catholic institution bent on a course of post-liberation theology “Catholic social justice” and a protestantised liturgy to supplant the True Mass. A Satanic marriage of the Freemason Hannibal Bugnini and the Wiccan Mary Daly. The Smoke of Satan rises from their noisome demon-lair beneath the Dustbowl.

    How else to explain the relegation of the Vetus Ordo to the boondocks of Newton or the catacombs of the Cathedral? O’Malley (no relation, AMDG) gets the revenue stream and slowly garrotes the Ritus Antiquus. With his oligarchy of venal laymen, has he betrayed his latent Masonic sympathies?

    What a cynic! Compare O’Malley to his brother Capuchin, Archbishop Chaput. O’Malley parades theatrically about in sandals and coarse robe while dismantling (oops, “reconfiguring”) the remnants of a once-great archdiocese. He presses the flesh with the abortion fanatic Obama at Kennedy’s funeral and praises Obama’s henchmen Kerry and Menino.

    Meanwhile Chaput appears dignified in Roman collar and episcopal attire and vigorously condemns polititcians who vote pro-death. And in Denver? What is Denver? Why does the Holy See not set O’Malley adrift on a raft down the Liffey with a pint o’ plain and bring Chaput to Boston? Moreso, why does the Holy See not strip BC of its pretentious and mendacious Catholic appellation?

    Probably for the same reason Bernie Law is still eating on the dime of the faithful.

    Keep up the good work, bloggers, and keep the Faith. You are fighting the good fight. Restaurabitur olim Ecclesia.

    • A Sad Boston Priest says:

      KEEP IN MIND THAT O’MALLEY ASPIRED TO BE A THESPIAN IN HIS COLLEGE YEARS … FROCK OR SAFFRON ROBES ARE COSTUMES CHOSEN BY THE DESIRED PR IMPRESSION … ALL AN ACT! KEEP IN MIND THAT THIS ‘MONK’ WAS A MONSIGNOR AT AGE 33 …
      I DON’T KNOW MANY MONKS STRIVING TO BE MONSIGNORS … ALSO KEEP IN MIND ST FRANCIS HIMSELF REFUSED PRIESTLY ORDINATION BECAUSE HE WAS UNWORTHY … I WONDER WHAT HE WOULD SAY ABOUT CHAPUT OR O’MALLEY … I SUSPECT NOT MUCH.

  8. Jack O'Malley says:

    QG: Ah. but the REAL problem is what to do with the remains of Cardinal O’Connell ???

    Rumor has it that he will be moved to the crypt of the cathedral. It is devoutly to be hoped that his spinning therein will disrupt the episcopalian novus ordo “services” being conducted above.

  9. [...] Bloggers, Boston Catholic Insider First, for those who have not yet read our Sunday post,  St. John Seminary Squeezola, we suggest you make that your first stop today. Boston College has just taken back small rooms (a [...]

  10. Ignored Pastor says:

    I am an eagle, my older brother is a double eagle, my younger brother is an eagle, my sister in law is an eagle, and two of my nephews are eagles. So when I say that BC is a ravaging beast, consuming what it can of the Archdiocese, I say it not out of prejudice, but out of experience. The Seminary deal was never going to work. You cannot form priests in an environment surrounded by those compromising with the culture of death. This is a typical RCAB disaster: we had a perfect facility, and now we have hopelessly compromised it. Just as Jack Connor’s Partners Health Care will consume the best parts of Caritas Christi, his alma mater will feast on the remnants of the Seminary. The deal was done a long time ago, ladies and gentlemen.

  11. A Boston Priest says:

    Before the Chancellor sold all that seminary property to Boston College in 2007, the Apostolic Visitation team to St. John’s Seminary specifically said that NO MORE PROPERTY SHOULD BE SOLD FROM THE SEMINARY. However, the Chancellor decided to reject the advice of the Apostolic Visitation….

    One hopes that the dioceses of Ireland will not imitate the Archdiocese of Boston and reject the advice that comes from their upcoming Apostolic Visitation.

  12. bitsnbytes says:

    Did any of the real estate people go to the trouble to tell the seminary staff exactly what parts of the building were being transferred? Did the lawyers even examine it for themselves, or did they just draw a line on a map and let the chips fall where they may?

    I guess Fr. Farren the rector was right to argue that the deal would set the seminary on a downhill course. Leaving SJS with a maximum capacity of 100 Is one way to limit the influence of a seminary considered conservative.

  13. O-FISH-L says:

    Although not a lawyer, I have some experience with property. How do two different entities own rooms in the same building? Has SJS been reduced to condo status, with BC owning other condos in the same building? This is beyond bizarre.

    While we’re on BC, in 2009 after a 30+ year absence, they finally got around to putting crucifixes back in the classrooms of this “Catholic” institution. Much to the chagrin of many of the faculty, see link below. Funny, around 2006 I vividly recall then-WRKO talk host John DePetro (at my urging) asking a BC official if it was true that “Catholic” BC didn’t have crucifixes in all classrooms. The official said that information was untrue. Well, in 2009 many students and faculty said the crucifixes began appearing for the first time. Ooops!

    http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/02/11/bostoncollege

    • Andrezj Jawie says:

      I would hardly say that “many” of the faculty were opposed to the placement of crucifixes. Only four went on the record against crucifixes. (Others may have been opposed but they said nothing. Who knows?) A whole host of others said they supported the decision but felt left out of the decision making process. That’s a very big difference.

      • O-FISH-L says:

        @Andrezj Jawie: Apparently you beieve Professor Carpenter is being untruthful? Do tell.

        “[Dwayne Eugene] Carpenter, a professor of Hispanic Studies, said the [crucifix] issue was seriously debated in a recent meeting of the college’s department chairs (Boston College lacks a Faculty Senate at this point). He’d like to see an open forum addressing the subject. So far, he said, it’s been addressed mostly in private conversations, of which he’s had many.

        “I think there were many people who were upset.”

      • Angry Parish Council Member says:

        O-FISH-L, it appears that Andrezj’s characterization is more accurate. Here is the actual article:

        http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/02/11/bostoncollege

        If you read the whole article from February 2009, it really does sound like Prof. Carpenter was trying to fan the flames. He is the one to say that HE had “many” private conversations, and HE said HE THINKS “many people” were upset.” If they were really all upset, why was there not massive public protest by the faculty of this egregious move by a “Catholic” college? He said, “I’ve already heard of several faculty who have said, ‘You know, this is not a welcoming place, this is not the place that hired me, and I’ll be looking for a job elsewhere.”

        I haven’t heard of any mass exodus of BC faculty, and if any profs left because there are crucifixes on the walls of a so-called “Catholic” college, then perhaps those profs are better suited to another school and BC is better off without them.

  14. br. Charles says:

    For me, as a student at BC and a somewhat more basic level, I can’t help but always notice that BC seems like an extraordinarily prosperous enterprise when compared to our other Catholic institutions. I can’t help but always be asking myself: Why does BC seem to have so much money and power while many parishes and schools, etc., seem to have so little? When I’m at school I worry about this a lot.

    • Andrezj Jawie says:

      Brother Charles, it’s called an endowment. Boston College has $1.341 billion. Compare that to Notre Dame with $4.795 billion or Harvard with $25 billion.

  15. [...] Johns Seminary Squeezola: The 2007 Sale of Property to BC As you may recall, in Seminary Squeezola, we reported on how Boston College is encroaching on the limited space left for St. John’s [...]

  16. Tom says:

    For the record, Boston College is not a “Catholic” institution, and hasn’t been since the Jesuits ceded ownership to a non-Jesuit board of trustees many years ago. Some board members are not Catholic, and some of the Catholic board members are not Catholic (but say they are). BC claims that it is in the Jesuit “tradition”, but it is definitely NOT a Catholic owned college.

  17. Jack O'Malley says:

    Tom,

    Exactly right. The board of trustees is one thing. The damn theology department is something else. Since BC is not under the jurisdiction of Cardinal “Seán” (or, in proper nuncupation, Seán Cardinal O’Malley), to whom do we turn to revoke its alleged “Catholic” affiliation. The Holy See? Cardinal-designate Ray Burke? Dream on.

    But in a spirit of Catholic charity, may the soul of Mary Daly rest in peace. After a bit (or a bit more for that matter) of thermally purgative posthumous penitence. But may Bugnini illumine Hell’s firmament forever. And may Papa Montini … I forbear to reproach a successor of Peter and the Vicar of Christ. Still … may he … :what the hell, Peter himself denied Christ thrice. May the Judas Hannibal Bugnini hang himself in the potter’s field of Hell for having deceived the gullible Montini. Let that be his paltry and only salvation.

  18. [...] new readers, in our first exciting episode, St Johns Seminary “Squeezola”,  we reported on how Boston College is encroaching on the limited space left for St. John’s [...]

  19. Lazarus' Table says:

    Following these posts (while good they are posted) is at times a bit disheartening because the more one discovers how the administration of the archdiocese operates the more one realizes that the commitment to the proclamation of the Kingdom has been replaced by the commitment to ensure the survival of select portions and persons of the institution of the church. Of course, these select few believe they are the Kingdom and are quite willing to inform God daily what they expect of Him.
    The road we are traveling is crowded with wolves in sheep’s clothing who prey on vulnerable sheep and who may really believe they are doing God’s work, but are leaving in their wake alienated laity, broken priests and a secular culture that knows it has nothing to fear from the Catholic Church.

  20. [...] new readers, in our first exciting episode, St Johns Seminary “Squeezola”, we reported on how Boston College is encroaching on the limited space left for St. John’s [...]

  21. Anonymous says:

    I’m surprised no one is talking about the white elephant in the room…Cardinal Law was playing Russian Roulette with our children by shuffling abusive priests from one parish to another. Many good priests were hurt by those crimes and the stigma continues. Cardinal Sean made difficult decisions to pay for those sins and all Catholics are suffering from it, not just those involved with the St. John’s Seminary.

  22. [...] the best interest of the seminary in order to benefit Corp Sole. Given that the Archdiocese owes  $4.8 million to the seminary in January and another $36 million in 2017, how in the world can the chief finance officer of the archdiocese, McDonough–the [...]

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 593 other followers

%d bloggers like this: