Ad Limina Unlimited Comment and Response

BCI was surprised at some of the comments on our post from yesterday, Ad Limina Unlimited: Part 1.  If there is any confusion in the intent of BCI from that post, allow us to apologize and clarify it today.

This comment from “BetterthanNothing” particularly surprised us:

Yes, Cardinal O’Malley told us only a little bit of his trip from Rome. Yes, he could haves mentioned more. But for fairness purposes, I bet he shared much more than most of the other bishops in Region 1. Weren’t there about 15 or so bishops on that trip? How many wrote anything publicly?

Comparing them to Region 2 bishops which was after the USCCB meetings and in a slower time, relatively speaking, is a little unfair. Comparing to 1 or 2 bishops and not demonstrating that he did less is not bery fair The least you should write is that he said more than everyone or nearly everyone in his region and more than (roughly) 27 of 30 of bishops thus far.

And comparing O’Malley to Hubbard in a negative way is shocking! Would you prefer Hubbard here in Boston?

Please keep context in mind, both in terms of OMalley at least writing more than most and being an above average bishop. Yes, he is not Chaput, Burke, Dolan or several others, but he is no Hubbard either. Let’s thank God for THAT!

Here is the response from BCI:

BetterThanNothing, You seem to have almost totally misunderstood the purpose of this post and our message. If that is BCI wording, then we accept and apologize for that, but we do not see in our post what you are interpreting.

BCI did NOT say or imply we wanted Bishop Hubbard here in Boston, nor did we compare Cardinal O’Malley to him. For the record, BCI would NOT want Bishop Hubbard here in Boston (so we agree on that!). We said, BCI is not necessarily a fan of the Albany diocese or the leadership there. “They have many problems themselves, so Albany is not put forward here as a “model” diocese. BCI is merely sharing excerpts from their report, as some of the details are clearly applicable to Boston.” What in the world makes you say BCI compared O’Malley to Hubbard in a negative way? All we said is that Hubbard gave more details in his report. That is factual and objective information. Anyone can look at the two reports and see that.

As for the 12 other bishops on the trip, 5 of them are Boston auxiliaries–it would be highly inappropriate and out-of-line for an auxiliary bishop to communicate the results of the ad limina when their Cardinal archbishop is the one blogging and is the ordinary for the archdiocese. 2 are from Manchester (incoming and emeritus) so it is not surprising that nothing was said there. None of the other bishops on the Region 1 ad limina visit blog.

Bishop Tobin of Rhode Island did communicate before he left a summary of their diocesan status in areas including Child Protection, Vocations to the Priesthood, Evangelization, Human Life Guild, Catholic Education. That is here: http://www.thericatholic.com/news/detail.html?sub_id=4460 Even in 300 words, Bishop Tobin communicated more about his report on the state-of-the-diocese than Cardinal O’Malley communicated in two lengthy photo-packed blog posts.

Cardinal O’Malley has been Archbishop of Boston for eight and half years, and if he remains here until he is 75, then we have another eight years ahead. When exactly is he going to share something about how he sees the current state of the diocese and his vision for the path ahead? What we mostly hear is that we are compliant with the child protection guidelines and in financially better shape than when he got here. Are we going to go sixteen years without a leader who can tell us where he thinks we are today and where he would like to see us go? C’mon!

This archdiocese took hundreds of hours to prepare a report of hundreds of pages in length for the ad limina visit. Is it too much to ask that somebody of the 20+ people at 66 Brooks making $100K+ in salary and benefits spend a few hours and distill the highpoints down into a “state of the diocese” report that could be shared with Catholic faithful?

BCI is not impressed by the average bishop. So, comparing Cardinal O’Malley to the “average bishop” is not of interest to us. The stakes in Boston are also a lot higher than in other parts of the country, and the impact of what happens in Boston has ripple effects elsewhere in the country and world. So, Boston needs an outstanding leader, not just someone who is above average.

We could go on and on about this.  In the beginning of 2011, Cardinal Wuerl of Washington, DC (of whom BCI is also not a great fan) published a 1900-word letter on the “state of the church” in the Washington DC Archdiocese.  It begins:
“At the beginning of the New Year, the question was raised a number of times by reporters: “How would you describe the state of the Church in our country, in the archdiocese?”  On the whole, I think a fair answer is “Good — but it could always be better.”   More…
BCI has been tempted to write one, but we have been hoping and praying that the Archbishop of Boston and his staff would do this instead–not for us, but for the greater good of the archdiocese.  BCI has contemplated writing a “best and worst of 2011,” but unfortunately, the list of the “best” is fairly short and the list of the “worst” is fairly long and would paint a harsh picture of public deception after deception and multiple violations of trust, starting in January and running throughout the year.
Will the Archbishop of Boston share his own view of the state of the archdiocese and vision for the future?  Should BCI write our own version to make up for the leadership vacuum?  Should BCI publish the lengthy list of the best and worst, in the hopes that the archdiocese will better realize how the ongoing pattern of deception is breaking trust with Catholic faithful? (If anyone from the RCAB has an opinion on this latest one, please drop us a line).  Will the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston finally step and lead, now that he’s half-way through what could be a 16-year tenure in Boston?  Or will we keep spinning and languish with business as usual another eight years until 2020 when he reaches 75-years-old and must submit his resignation?
What do you think?
About these ads

17 Responses to Ad Limina Unlimited Comment and Response

  1. Lazarus' Table says:

    I recently learned about ‘bella figura’, a Roman concept I believe, that stresses the importance of ‘appearance': the way one looks, talks, comports one’s self. An alternate term might be ‘public personna’– the ‘image’ that a person wishes others to see.
    ‘Bella figura’ teaches you how to be sincere, even if you have to fake it. It encourages you to rehearse your spontaneity. You get the idea. Sizzle over steak. Appearance over substance.
    ‘Bella figura’ figures prominently in church life, particularly among the hierarchy. A bishop is never to reveal anything that would make the church look bad, right? It’s how the church got so good at coverups and so bad at authenticity.
    Any kind of report, statement of vision, setting of goals, etc by the Archbishop would be presented with ‘bella figura’ very much in mind. “Let’s put on our best face, and cover up the zits with some makeup”. It would mostly be fiction at worst, wishful thinking at best.
    Since appearance is all-important to RCAB, perhaps it would be better if a formal, emphatic statement of ‘how to church appears to us’ were issued to RCAB. Certainly BCI tries to do this, but as long as BCI has been around, and how so many dreadful, scandalous issues have been uncovered and discussed, thing s still remain status quo. Renewal in church life has always had to start from the grassroots. More so today.
    Is there a vehicle –Voice of the Faithful, Globe Spotlight Report, Channel 4 Eyewitness News Investigation, etc– that could speak the truth to power, and shed glaring light on our church’s reality.
    The proposed ’10 Year Anniversary’ observance of the church’s reluctant purging prompted me to go back, research, reread and view again testimonies, depositions and reports that began 10 years ago. It’s one big story of denial, deceit, institutional preservation over individual destruction. Noone at 66 Brooks is going to be any more open, honest or ‘real’ today. The Archbishop’s wishes, perceptions, directives are ‘right and just’ simply because they come from the archbishop. (Even God himself is expected to bow before the archbishop.) There’s no need for input, external guidance or opinion when one is living in a state of ‘infused perfection’ (as some theologians described bishops.)
    “When the people lead, the leaders will follow.” Don’t expect any leadership from those who have their heads up their..er, ah.. birettas.

  2. Just1Priest says:

    BCI: Thanks for the update and clarification. I also wondered the purpose of the post yesterday (not exactly for the same reasons as “BetterThanNothing”).

    You seem to be asking the Cardinal to write a “state of the Archdiocese” speech, kind of like a politician or a CEO to a bunch of shareholders. Many of us priests are thinking that the Archdiocese is becoming too much like a business so I am not sure I would recommend that he go much further than a typical pastor does in an annual letter/annual report, which is a simple statement of where we’re at and where we hope to go in the next year. The only time I see my brother priests writing longer, more “strategic” 5-year or 10-year plans is when fundraising consultants recommend it as part of a capital campaign. The people appreciate it but I am always concerned that the fundraising consultants (who work for other human service organizations) are trying to turn the Church into a generic non-profit, stripping the Church of a lot of what it’s about so that we get more funds to do our ministries, but not necessary be a better Church. The Church is God’s family. How many fathers/mothers in households write up a “state of the family” report versus simply discuss it? Similarly, I wonder about your central thesis that the Cardinal is somehow not serving us well because he hasn’t written a “state of the Archdiocese” letter or given a speech JUST about that.

    The Cardinal for 2-3 years has been talking about the same 4/5 priorities (evangelization, faith formation, priestly and lay leadership training, and strengthening parishes/parish resources) when he meets with priests. In the most recent pastoral planning convocation this was extended to a 5th about welcoming Catholics home (which before was part of evangelization I think). The Cardinal discussed the priorities at the convocation and the video is posted for people to watch. Each year the Cardinal publishes an annual report of the Archdiocese, which is mostly about finance, but again it has more information that practically any other diocese in the country. It doesn’t state pastoral priorities, per se, but there is still good information there. And the previous Vicar General was always talking about those 4 priorities and wrote a couple of columns in the Pilot explaining them.

    The Cardinal has also written 2 pastoral letters recently which could and probably should be understood as explanations of 2 of his priorities (preparing Catholics to be better evangelizers and trying to encourage people to invite and welcome Catholics back to Sunday Mass).

    I’m not saying that BCI is necessarily doing this or intending this, but I’m sick of Catholic “leaders” trying to turn the Cardinal, our shepherd, into a CEO or stripping the religious elements out of our Church to make us a better “service organization.” Churches are different than other organizations that “do good”. We do it for different reasons (see Benedict’s first 2 encyclicals). And Bishops aren’t CEOs, they are pastors and fathers.

    There are plenty of things that I’d love to hear the Cardinal say. In each case, I want him to act like I would act if I was in his shoes. But there is very little where I’m unsure where he actually stands. I don’t always know the reasons (for example for why he chooses a few of his close advisors to be his advisors, or to why he chooses to pay so many chancery people so much), but it is clear to me that he has heard the criticism and has continued on the same path. So I know that it is HIS choice. Sure, it disappoints me, but the Holy Spirit chose HIM to be our shepherd to help lead the Archdiocese of Boston at this chapter in its history. Good priests need to pray for him and support him, even if we disagree with the decisions, the same way that family members should honor their father and mother even if they knowingly wish their actions and decisions would be different. For example, I wish the Cardinal personally did more to build up priestly fraternity. There are days I confess that I wish he were a diocesan not a religious priest because I think that would make him better. But for some reason the Holy Spirit wanted a Franciscan, detached, Archbishop perhaps to dilute the clericalism that has been part of our history. The Holy Spirit has also chosen an erudite, academic Pope to challenge us to really think and to unite faith and reason. We need to trust that the Holy Spirit is really in charge of the Church, despite its warts and the weaknesses of its human leaders.

    Does BCI really not know what the Cardinals priorities are, after studying and writing about the Archdiocese for many months? Or is it that you are similarly disappointed that he isn’t saying the things you would say or telling us his priorities in the way we were prefer him to do it (like a US President or Corporate CEO)? As a priest, I am sure his priorities are what he has said they are – protecting children and then the 4/5 priorities that he and his Vicar Generals have been talking about for 3 years.

    • J1R says:

      WOW….I wish I could write that beautifully. I am an astute, observant
      person, and, had the fortune to witness a wonderful parish for the
      past several years: In my experience, there is absolutely
      no comparison to be made comparing a devout priest and religious
      sister to a “run of the mill” not -for -profit employee at any organization. There were countless times I have been so moved
      by their pure essence, devotion and decency as human beings.

      I know I was lucky to find this parish, and, to witness the beauty
      of most of its staff. And, I pray the future holds more parishes and
      priests and religious who will emulate their example for the future
      of our children.

    • Another priest says:

      Beautifully expressed. “The Cardinal for 2-3 years has been talking about the same 4/5 priorities (evangelization, faith formation, priestly and lay leadership training, and strengthening parishes/parish resources.” but surely you realize there’s a difference between talking about them and doing something about them. If you see progress and results, then you must be doing your own thing in these areas. Have you looked at the dreadful RENEW programs for “faith formation”–ARISE and Why Catholic?–it’s faith “sharing” not faith “formation” and the program is little more than a discussion group. How can people evangelize when they have not first been formed? I haven’t seen or heard a vision for Catholic education except for the move to close parish schools and create diocesan-run academies. The Catholic Schools office has done nothing for my parish school in years. The ad limina report from the other diocese revealed a recommendation the bishop build-up priests–that’s not happening. Our Cardinal has said nothing publicly about the future of St. John’s seminary in years. I’m not sure what parish you’re at or what your responsibilities are if you work in the Pastoral Center, but your view of what it’s like here is very different from what I and my fellow priests are experiencing.

    • Mary Reilly says:

      The argument that the Holy Spirit “wants” each bishop to be bishop and “chose” Cardinal O’Malley doesn’t hold water for me. The Holy Spirit may guide and inspire the selection of bishops, but the final decision is still made by a human, who is subject to their own human fallibilities. Sean O’Malley was chosen by Pope John Paul II, not the Holy Spirit.Then on top of that you have the human weaknesses of the person named as bishop that might prevent them from serving effectively and fulfilling the responsibilities of the role.

      What went wrong with the Holy Spirit “choosing” and “wanting” Bishop Weakland to be bishop? Or Cardinal Roger Mahony? Or Bishop Hubbard, or Bishop Clark? If the Holy Spirit “wanted” Cardinal Law to be Archbishop of Boston, why did Law allow to happen what happened under his Holy Spirit-wanted episcopacy and then lose control of the archdiocese and have to resign?

      Even if Sean O’Malley was the right person for the job in 2003 to help heal the diocese of the sexual abuse crisis and a problem of clericalism, that doesn’t mean he’s up to the task at hand today. The deception and corruption he’s allowed and is allowing is disgusting. Just because he’s heard the criticism and it’s HIS human choice to ignore it doesn’t mean the Holy Spirit is in favor of the deception, high salaries, children of gay parents in Catholic schools, praise and coddling of Fr. John Unni and his gay pride Masses, etc.

      With all due respect, you sound like you must be one of the Cardinal’s priest-secretaries or something drinking the Pastoral Center Kool-aid.

      We do need to pray for the Cardinal, but I agree with BCI–he needs to decide if wants to step up and lead or not. If not, then it’s going to be a LONG eight years ahead.

      • Kwai Chang says:

        I say a big part of the problem is that RCAB’s number 1 priority is the ambiguous “Protecting God’s Children.” Salvation of souls, worship of the Trinity.. has taken a second place. Parishes and Pastors must comply with the Office of Child Advocacy, but there is no requirement that they comply with the Office of Saint Peter.

    • If Just1Priest is really a priest, I worry about what kind of catechesis and formation he had in the seminary and I worry about what he’s preaching every day and weekend.

      As Catholics we believe that the Holy Spirit inspires the election of the POPE, not specifically diocesan bishops, and the Holy Spirit merely INSPIRES the decision.. Before the election of the Pope, Cardinals chant the Veni Creator, (yes, in Latin), to seek the guidance from the Holy Spirit. On the morning of the day when the cardinal electors meet, they assemble in St Peter’s Basilica to celebrate Mass. Then, they gather in the afternoon in the Pauline Chapel of the Palace of the Vatican, and process to the Sistine Chapel while singing the Veni Creator.” This explicit petition states that Cardinals are open to and not opposed to the Holy Spirit’s guidance.

      O Finger of the hand divine,
      the sevenfold gifts of grace are thine;
      true promise of the Father thou,
      who dost the tongue with power endow.

      Thy light to every sense impart,
      and shed thy love in every heart;
      thine own unfailing might supply
      to strengthen our infirmity.

      Drive far away our ghostly foe,
      and thine abiding peace bestow;
      if thou be our preventing Guide,
      no evil can our steps betide.

      The seven gifts of the Holy Spirit include wisdom, understanding, wonder and awe, right judgment, knowledge, courage, and reverence. In Luke 11:13, Jesus says, “Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him.” Cardinals, as successors of the apostles, are guided by the Holy Spirit. (See John 20.21-23, where Jesus explicitly gives the Holy Spirit to his apostles along with the authority to forgive or not to forgive sins). So, if Cardinals seek guidance from the Holy Spirit and God the Father in heaven gives the Holy Spirit to those who ask him, then the Holy Spirit guides those Cardinals to select the Pope.

      As for the appointment of bishops, it’s a complex process that normally takes 6-8 months–it’s administrative and political. It involves the papal nuncio, people at the local diocesan level, drawing up a list of potential candidates by the Nuncio and then reference-checking them, consultations with other archbishops and the USCCB president if it’s for an archdiocese, sending the list to the Congregation for Bishops in Rome, a vote by the Congregation for Bishops on the nuncio’s recommendation and a possible request for new candidates, and finally a decision by the Pope on the Congregation’s proposed candidate.

      In more 25 years as a priest, I’ve never once heard it said that the Holy Spirit “chooses” a bishop, let alone the Pope. Such an egregiously wrong statement by the writer makes me discount the credibility of his other words, eloquent as they may have been.

      • Just1Priest says:

        BostonPastor – Thanks for pointing out that some might be misled by my statement that the Holy Spirit chose Cardinal Sean to be our shepherd. I didn’t mean that literally or technically, but I acknowledge that it does read that way. I am sorry to anyone misled by that.

        However, just like people may have been misled by my comment which might make it read that God had a direct role in the selection, I am concerned that your response can be interpreted that only human beings had a role (direct and indirect) in Cardinal O’Malley’s selection (or the selection of any bishop). If that is your point, that is false. It negates the ongoing and guiding role of the Holy Spirit in the Church and in the lives of all Christ’s disciples.

        People across our Archdiocese and in my parish prayed for months back in 2003 that God would bring good out of the clergy abuse crisis and send us a Shepherd who could help to heal the wounds and begin to renew the Church within our Archdiocese. God hears our prayers and answers them according to His will. I have deep faith that God did hear our prayers and helped guide this selection through the human means of the Church’s process of the selection of Bishops and the prayers of the Holy Father, those at the Congregation of Bishops, the Nunciature and all those involved in the process.

  3. Time for a change says:

    Save 1,800 words

    Boston is bad and getting worse because of lack of vision and leadership. Help wanted – Archbishop of Boston, apply to the Holy Father. Note in your application that the position has been open for almost a decade.

  4. BetterThanNothing says:

    Dear BCI,

    Thank you for the post and or your thorough response to my comment. I apologize that I misread main elements of your post.

    My central idea is that sometimes I think BCI and some other commenters look at most of what the Cardinal and the Archdiocese does with a negative prism to begin with. That might not be a fair comment on my end regarding BCI in totality, but I have thought that on some posts. Yesterday’s blog I thought was one of those. He wrote something about the ad limina. You could give him a B or a C (if you want to rate Tobin or Hubbard’s posts an A). But I felt that yesterday’s criticism was exaggerated (kind of like his ad limina post had nothing of value).
    I wanted to comment that at least he wrote SOMETHING which is much better than most other bishops.

    I like a lot of what Just1Priest wrote, particularly about judging OMalley as a pastor and father not a CEO. It is important to evaluate anyone fairly by agreeing on the expectations. I agree with J1P that it might not be fair to expect annual state of the archdiocese briefings and a list of best and worst from the Archdiocese – maybe that is something the Pilot could do.

    All that being said, I want to commend BCI for all it does to foster discussion and dialog and for the very civil way it dealt with my comments yesterday.

    Happy New Year to all.

    • BTN,
      No problem. Apology accepted.

      You are absolutely correct that sometimes BCI looks at what the Cardinal and the Archdiocese do through a negative prism. The well-documented history in recent years of deception, non-responsiveness, cronyism, mismanagement and other corruption is such that it is very difficult–bordering on impossible–to trust anything we see and hear from them. This coming week, BCI will report on a situation of deception and misrepresentation of information by an archdiocesan entity which at first pass could be worse than just about anything else we have reported on to date.

      Yes, the Cardinal deserves some credit for blogging about the ad limina (indeed perhaps a “C”), and BCI felt as though we did give him credit in this BCI post on November 19:

      http://bostoncatholicinsider.wordpress.com/2011/11/19/ad-limina-limited-edition/

      BCI wrote:

      “In the meantime, BCI wanted to share with you a post from Cardinal O’Malley’s blog, where he reported on the recent “ad limina” visit to Rome. This was one of the more substantial blog posts by the Cardinal and below are excerpts from his blog. Readers will note in his post that in some situations, he shared the general topic of was discussed with the dicastery visited, and in other cases, (such as the Congregation for Bishops and Apostolic Signatura) he only mentioned that the visit occurred. That is of course because the discussions were private, and in some cases pertinent to governance (or lack thereof) of the Boston Archdiocese.

      BCI would like to see the Cardinal give to Catholics some sort of “state of the diocese” report as he sees it, similar to what other bishops have done for their dioceses. We have been waiting for one for a while, and if none is issued soon, BCI will post our own version.”

      Though it was indeed one of the more substantial blog posts by Cardinal O’Malley, that is of course, in relative terms compared to his other blog posts which objectively, are rather like a photo diary of his travels. Now that we read what another bishop reported on his ad limina, we learned rather important information regarding diocesan governance that BCI felt was worth sharing.

      BCI would be surprised to see The Pilot do a 2011 year in review, but BCI has been surprised by the archdiocese before.

      Thank you for the positive feedback on what BCI is doing to foster open communication and dialogue. As we have said many times before, we wish BCI was not even necessary and we hope some day the archdiocese will address the fundamental concerns we have been airing so this blog no longer has material to write about. But based on what we continue to see, we think we will still be at this for a while.

      Best wishes for a Happy New Year.

  5. qclou says:

    To : Just1Priest:
    what a thoughtful and well reasoned letter !
    I commend you on your analysis and commentary, especially the temperate manner of your writing style.
    Be a more frequent commentator please, I will look for your blog posts.

  6. Itstheorientation says:

    As I reside in the Archdiocese of Washington DC have to say that if you are looking for something ala the letter you cited from Wuerl, you might as well hire a Miss America candidate to write you some half truths (I consider them downright lies) and platitudes on why she is for world peace. To illustrate a lie:

    “and a late-term abortionist has recently begun practicing in the state because of its permissive abortion laws.”

    Actually late-term abortionists have been practicing in the state since at least 1992. It was because of a botched abortion scandal that the abortionist who Wuerl is talking about, Dr. Carhart, was brought in to replace an exisiting abortionist who today was charged w/murder due to the scandal:

    http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2011/12/30/authorities-abortion-doctors-charged-with-murder/

    For ten years one woman and her children went to this Germantown abortuary while late term abortions occurred there — now both Baltimore and DC dioceses (as well as protestant churches) are joining the protest, but late-term abortions have been on-going in the Maryland while Wuerl & O’Brien did nothing (until recently) but try to get the state to fund Catholic schools, abolish the death penalty and not take away the statute of limitations for child abuse crimes.

    In his comments on priest abuse he has never given an accounting of how many priests engaged in abuse, how much money the diocese has paid out for it, and how many priests they are still shielding who haven’t yet been publicly exposed, but always states that anyone who works w/children (always the lay parents) now has to have a background investigation and of course trumpets how kindergarteners and nursery school children are now given sex instruction–so as to be able to fend off priestly abuse.

  7. Lazarus' Table says:

    Ever “analyze” how Jesus taught? 1) He did something that usually raised eyebrows (e.g., washing disciples feet). 2) Then he explained what he did and what it meant. 3)Then he told the disciples to do the same. The teaching was first in the doing.

    I don’t know anyone who does not want the Archbishop to do well and be healthy and happy. But thew situation in the diocese is so very demoralizing that we look for ‘big things’ from our bishop. Maybe too big, maybe unfairly.
    Just1Priest’s was a wonderful post, far more charitable (I’m ashamed to say) than my own. But how can we talk about vision, evangelizing, and all the rest when we appear to be so complacent about the scandal and injustice self-breeding at 66 Brooks, e.g., the outrageous salaries (how dare we ask anyone to volunterr for anything when those folks get paid so much), the cronyism, careerism, and in some cases out and out deceit?
    “Take the plank out of your own eye and then you’ll see clearly enough to take the speck out of your brother’s.” We all could stand removing some of our own ‘planks’– even those at 66 Brooks.

  8. Carol says:

    From what I am reading here, the comments seem to fall into two categories:

    1. Disclosures about the Cardinal’s tenure that do not paint a very flattering picture of his efficacy with teaching, sanctifying and governance.

    2. Why can’t we just ignore what is painfully obvious to all of us and find something positive to say as the pews empty out from the lack of being fed sanctifying grace and his crusades to perpetually paint priests as undercover pedophiles – and as he liquidates 300 years of Boston Catholics building assets for Christ’s heirs.

    I don’t have the faintest idea what the Cardinal’s personal convictions are, any more than I could honestly say what Ted Kennedy’s were.

    While he claims to want to dismantle the cronyism, he has fortified it.

    While he claims to be personally faithful to doctrine, he appoints people to teach children to disavow the faith. When parents and faithful bring it to his attention, he is supportive to teachers and preachers who disavow the faith and hostile to those who bring the malformation of the faithful to his attention.

    While he says he wants to evangelize, the programs he puts in place are not doctrinal. They are platforms for the malformed to share the values they have learned from Christopher Hitchens and those three days in Woodstock.

    While he says he wants to protect children, the program he put in place invites pedophiles to come to CCD to tell perverted and detailed stories about where to rub each other, how to make decisions about when to say yes and when to say no to children who are incapable of making those kinds of decisions. And, guess who they’re telling children to report to (the cronies in the Chancery) and who is untrustworthy (parents and relatives).

    With all due respect, our role as parents and evangelists who have the duty to pass on the faith is not the fiat to improve Cardinal’s self-esteem and emotions.

    I really don’t see any servility to Christ in focusing on the Cardinal’s own personal beliefs while his episcopal matrix is the systemic malformation of souls in his charge and in our charge as parents, relatives friends and neighbors.

    I’m here to remind us of the reasons we have this blog:

    There is no system for reporting legitimate problems with governance, the malformation of souls and the genuine safety and well-being of children. No system where errors and problems are met with a pursuit of truth and the remedy that serves Christ and souls.

    The reign of the Cardinal’s see is serving the public relations image of the Cardinal. He uses everything, and at every expense, to polish himself and undermine the legitimacy of problems developing in what we all know is his abandonment of his see.

    After eight years of his governance, Catholics who are educated, knowledgeable and experiencing the chaos, mistruths, character assassinations, trust has been irrevocably damaged.

    We are in a glide. In that glide, we needed a system to expose it which forces them to do what is right and just and service to Christ and souls. Since his see is about polishing the Cardinal’s image, this blog spoonfeeds them their own poison.

    Please. Let us not turn this effective vehicle serving Christ into another public relations tool to polish the image of the Cardinal.
    If that’s the monkey business you’re looking for, read Terry Donilon’s press releases, the Boston Globe, the Pilot, Catholic TV and the Cardinal’s blog. Leave us in our innocence!

    Blessed Feast of the Epiphany and Happy New Year.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 586 other followers

%d bloggers like this: