Cronyism: Part II

July 29, 2010

We are working hard to keep our cool after getting yet more reports of cronyism in the Archdiocese of Boston.  With so many former Abington Bank employees now working in key roles at the Pastoral Center, “Fr. Ned” wrote and asked us to sponsor a contest to rename the archdiocese.  His two submissions were “Abington Bank Employee Alumni Association” and  “Archdiocesan Bank of Boston.”  If readers have other ideas, feel free to send them via confidential email or public comments.

You read in Conflicts of Interest Part I and Part II about how Ann Carter, a former Abington Bank board member whose PR firm is paid perhaps as much as $1 million/year or more from the Archdiocese, played a key role in hiring former Abington Bank CEO James McDonough as Chancellor.  (Ann did PR for Jim at the bank and made lots of money when the bank was sold, and now Jim watches over how much Ann’s firm is paid after she helped hire him).  We wrote to the archdiocese and Ms. Carter asking for answers to a few questions about the conflict of interest and are still awaiting a response. Earlier this week you learned how a former head teller and branch manager at Abington Bank, Judy H, became executive assistant/office manager for Cardinal O’Malley with no prior church experience after a “worldwide search.”  There is more we can barely keep up with.

The director of real estate for the Archdiocese today is Ms. Deborah D, who replaced a long-time archdiocesan employee.  Here’s what they do:

The Real Estate office assists in the sale, purchase or lease of all Archdiocesan real estate as well as all parish property. The Real Estate office acts a liaison between the realtors, attorneys, tenants and the parish. The Real Estate office facilitates the hiring of all appraisers, realtors and counsel, when needed. Additionally the Real Estate office will manage all approvals for sale/lease/purchase transactions.

Where did Ms. D work before this that prepared her for her job in the church selling real estate?  You guessed it–she was at Abington Bank, as Loans Review Officer.

Then there’s the new “executive assistant” in the Chancellor’s office, Ms. Joanne S.  Where did Mrs. S. work before this?  She  is listed as “clerk” in this Abington Bank proxy statement.  Many insiders report that Chancellor McDonough’s exec admin makes more than $100K/year.  Apparently a loyal, long-time admin for the chancellor’s office was pushed out on “early retirement” to make room for the newcomer.

The Chancellor’s office also has on staff a full-time “operations associate,” Mr. Jed H.  We are told he is a  recent college grad with no prior church experience getting paid a salary well above normal college grad starting salaries and more than many long-time Pastoral Center employees. We are trying to determine exactly what he does that is different from the administrative staff in the Chancellor’s office. [UPDATE: We have been told he may no longer be at the archdiocese]t

Is anyone wondering how much of the 18% tithe they need from parishes is going toward these sorts of expenses?  Didn’t they just lay people off to save money and balance the budget?

Not to be forgotten about is Mrs. Carol G, the Executive Director of Human Resources, who oversees all of this hiring.  She of course reports to the Chancellor himself.  Mrs. G has also become a protege of Fr. Bryan H, who apparently authorized having Ann Carter (the PR vendor) on the search committees for both  the Chancellor and the communications secretary despite the clear-cut conflict of interest.

It is normally a positive sign when a business leader attracts former employees who want to work for him or her again–BUT that holds when it is a similar business or organization.  If Jim McDonough were CEO of another bank, it would be a good thing for him to bring former “rock-star” employees experienced in banking to work for him again where their experience would help the business.  But this is the Catholic Church, not a bank.  It’s a non-profit that can’t afford to pay high salaries with a mission to spread the gospel and carry out the saving ministry of Jesus Christ, not a bank where people get paid high salaries and the goal is making money.

To summarize for today, we reference several of the Pastoral Center Operating Principles

We seek to give glory and honor to God and rebuild trust in Christ’s Church, following the guidance of the Holy Father and Archbishop of Boston.

We treat each other and those whom we serve fairly, with dignity and with honor, holding ourselves accountable for our commitment to service.

In consideration of the grave conflicts of interest this blog has reported already, we welcome your comments on how you think the archdiocese is doing in the trust and accountability departments these days?


Cronyism: Part I

July 26, 2010

cronyism [kroh-nee-iz-uh m]
noun the practice of favoring one’s close friends, esp. in political appointments.

You should note that we the blog writers cannot verify every comment posted by a reader—some are accurate, some are not necessarily—but the comment posted on July 22 by “concerned” in response to Conflits of Interest: Part II is consistent with what we have observed and what many other  people have told us.   “Concerned” wrote: “ There were a lot of long-term and loyal employees that were forced out. It’s interesting that the place has actually gotten worse with all of the McDonough clones now there. Somewhere, there should be a balance between Christianity and good business practices. Right now neither Christianity nor good business practice exists.”

Thus, we continue our reporting about conflicts of interest with a small but important example.  When the Cardinal’s office was purged of all the experienced staff except one, the HR director, Ms. G.  contacted an outside search firm to fill the position of executive secretary (administrative assistant) to the Cardinal.  After a worldwide search, they ended up hiring the former head teller from the Abington Bank, Ms. H.  We are told that she literally did not know how to spell “Monsignor.”  You can see her background easily yourself.  Just check out the Pastoral Center directory here and look for the person who is Office Manager in the Cardinal’s Office.  Now look here, or here to see who held the branch manager for Sovereign Bank (which acquired Abington Bank) here.

A lot of sensitive information passes through the Cardinal’s office.  Most priests, pastoral center employees, and laity would no doubt like to know that whomever is immediately serving the Cardinal have some history in the Church and knowledge of the Church, has primary loyalty and trustworthiness to the Cardinal rather than another cabinet member, and came into the role solely on their merits.   In this case, what we know is that the Chancellor came into his role via a conflict of interest with influence from a former board member of his bank on the search committee who is also friends with Jack Connors, and then the new office manager for the Cardinal’s office came into her role via prior working relationship with Chancellor at the bank he was running.  We often hear that people write personal and confidential letters to the Cardinal and do not get any response.  A reasonable person might ask whether this has something to do with it.

Conflicts of Interest: Part II

July 22, 2010

Here is the next installment in the discussion of the Rasky Baerlein/Ann Carter/Boston Archdiocese  conflict of interest. As you may recall from Conflicts of Interest: Part I , Rasky Baerlein is the long-time PR firm for the Archdiocese, and there are some aspects of their relationship with the archdiocese that appear inconsistent with good governance of any organization, whether it be Catholic or secular.

We mentioned in Conflicts of Interest: Part I that Ann Carter , CEO of PR firm Rasky Baerlein, played a key role on the archdiocesan search committee  that hired Chancellor Jim McDonough, and was previously on the Board of Abington Bank when Jim McDonough was the bank’s CEO.  Ms. Carter joined the Abington Bank board in 2002 for a two-year term, and her term was extended to 2006 by a shareholder vote in July 2003.  (She chaired their Audit Committee during the same time period when the bank was restating their 2001 earnings and revising 2002 financials due to an accounting error).  According to Abington Bank’s July 2003 annual shareholder meeting financial disclosure, Carter held 12,400 shares of stock (or .32% of the shares outstanding).  Jim McDonough held 244,665 shares or 6.28% of the stock.  (These shares are often given as an outright grant to board members, or as options to purchase stock at a pre-determined price).  What that means is that when Abington Bank sold to Seacoast in June of 2004 for $139.4 million, it is fair to estimate that Ms. Carter’s shares were worth .32% of $139 million or about $450,000. If these share were granted to her as a board member, then that would have been all profit for her.  Mr. McDonough’s shares would have been worth about $8.7 million.  Within months, even before that acquisition was even complete, Seacoast sold itself to Sovereign Bank  for $1.1 billion.  So, those shares worth $450,000 in June of 2004 were worth even more in the subsequent sale months later, but we do not know how much more.

What is important for you to know is that in late 2004-mid 2005, Ms Carter made a substantial amount of money on the sale of Abington Bank by virtue of  Jim McDonough having her serve on the Board, and then in December of 2005, Ms Carter (who is also a friend of Jack Connors) was put on the Archdiocesan search committee and played a key role in hiring Jim McDonough as Chancellor.  His appointment was announced on June 5, 2006.  As we stated previously, she was also on the search committee that selected communications secretary, Terry Donilon.  Both of these cabinet officials have decision-making authority over how much Carter (the person who helped select them) would be paid for work by the archdiocese.   We have been told by several sources that staff members at the archdiocese objected to this conflict of interest, but were overruled, and we have been told that their concerns at the time were overruled by current Secretary for Healthcare and Social Services, Fr. Bryan Hehir.

In addition, we know that Rasky Baerlein PR services are used by four different groups in the Archdiocese corporation sole—the Communications secretary (Terry Donilon), the Office of the Delegate (that handles sexual abuse claims), Caritas Christi, and Catholic Charities.  But Rasky has a billing arrangement where they charge each entity separately and where the archdiocese does not aggregate those four  separate charges to show if the annual payments were to make Rasky Baerlein a “top-paid vendor” in the archdiocese’s annual report.    Hypothetically speaking, if each entity were to pay Rasky $25,000/month for services, the Archdiocese would be paying Rasky $100,000/month or $1.2 million annually, but it would not show up on the annual report as a “top vendor” because the charges are billed to four separate agencies.  Even if that is an acceptable accounting practice, it would defeat a purpose of giving transparency to top vendor charges when ones like this are excluded from the archdiocese’s annual report. We do not know the actual amount Rasky is paid and welcome the archdiocese clarifying for us the exact amount of the Rasky billings. If we are mistaken they would be a top vendor we will make an appropriate correction.

It is difficult to understand how the Communications Secretary and Chancellor–who owe their current jobs at least in part to Ms. Carter, who served on their search committee amidst a clear conflict of interest–could responsibly decide on how much to pay her and her firm today, or even on whether to continue using this firm vs other less expensive PR agencies.  This conflict of interest also raises major questions over whether all qualified candidates were objectively considered by the search committees for these roles, and how many qualified candidates may have been passed over.  Furthermore, it is difficult to understand how this arrangement benefits the archdiocese today, and it is also difficult to understand how failing to disclose the aggregate amount paid to Rasky by the various archdiocesan agencies is consistent with the stated goal and principle of financial transparency.  Twenty one positions were recently eliminated at the archdiocese to save money.  Healthcare benefits to priests have been cut.  The clergy and employee retirement funds are underfunded by tens of millions of dollars.  Parishes are being asked to give a mandatory 18% of their contributions to the archdiocese.    Something does not feel ethically right about this arrangement with Rasky Baerlein and Ann Carter.

We will email all of the parties involved in this from the archdiocese and ask them to disclose why this conflict of interest was permitted, why the arrangement remains in place today where people even somewhat indebted to Ms. Carter decide on how much her firm is paid for services, and what steps are being taken to immediately address these conflicts for the common good of the archdiocese and to restore trust with priests, chancery workers, donors, and laity.  If any readers would like to add more to this, we invite you to comment below or to send us confidential email at (

Conflicts of Interest: Part I

July 19, 2010

If you did not get to read our last post, “Responses to Injustice? Inconsistency?” we invite you to read it.  Today we begin a series of posts that focus on grave conflicts of interest, and illicit, perhaps corrupt behavior in the Pastoral Center/Chancery which affects everyone in the Archdiocese—pastors, priests, laity, donors, and Pastoral Center employees.  We have been asked to cover this for weeks and start today with the Archdiocese’s relationship with Ann Carter of public relations firm Rasky Baerlein.  Today you will learn about ethical conflicts in the hiring of Cabinet Secretaries Terry Donilon and Jim McDonough.  Next post we will cover financial irregularities and more about the conflicts.

Ann Carter (also known by her married name as Ann Jameson) is CEO of PR firm Rasky Baerlein, the long-time communications firm used by the Archdiocese.  Many people have seen her name appear in public statements from the Archdiocese.  She also is a close friend of Jack Connors, Jr.

Ms. Carter was on the search committee in early 2005 that selected Communications Secretary, Terry Donilon–the position that would determine when she was retained, how often and for how many hours she was retained, and what she and her firm would be paid. She was quoted in the Boston Globe on April 15, 2005 in their announcement of Donilon’s appointment saying, “Terry Donilon is an experienced communicator who loves the church.”   The person quoted in such announcements is usually the person who led the search.  People inside the archdiocese familiar with Terry’s work indicate that he is spelling-challenged and writing-challenged.  We are told that resumes of far superior candidates interested in the job never made it to the full search committee.

Ann, the PR vendor for the Archdiocese,  was also on the search committee that selected Jim McDonough as Chancellor in 2006. Jim was former President and CEO of Abington Bank, where Ann had served on the Board of Directors and also as Chair of the Audit Committee.  According to the bank’s Annual Report, Ann served in these roles while Jim was running the bank.  She would have made a substantial sum of money when the bank was subsequently sold, but that is a topic for a future post. The Chancellor search committee was led by banker, Neal Finnegan, and included banker Giles Mosher, HP Hood head John Kaneb, Fr. Art Coyle, philanthropist Joanne McGrath, and venture capitalist Jo Tango.  We are told that Finnegan chaired the committee mostly in name only and followed Carter’s lead to select the former CEO of the company where Ann had served as a vendor (in a PR capacity) and financial stakeholder in a Board capacity. The chancellor approves the budgets and expenditures for every department, including Communications.

In the case of both search committees (Communications and Chancellor), the Archdiocese was warned by archdiocesan staff members against the absolutely unethical conflict of interest of having a vendor/contractor (Carter) on the search committees to hire those who would determine whether her firm was engaged and how much her firm was paid, but those concerns were overruled.  We are investigating how those concerns came to be overruled (and by whom) and we welcome your anonymous comments and emails on that area. Clergy, laity, and employees may all wish to ask how this conflict of interest serves the good of the Church fiscally.

In our next post we will also discuss how the separate billings from Rasky to multiple entities across the Archdiocese corporation sole have been orchestrated so the high aggregate fees paid to Rasky are hidden from financial disclosure documents and “top vendor expense” listing by the Archdiocese.

Responses to Injustice? Inconsistency?

July 16, 2010

Our post “ Injustice? Inconsistency?” (about how priests are treated by the Archdiocese in various situations) has stimulated some comments and emails that we feel compelled to share with readers and with the Archdiocese.  Here’s what we received from a reader, ‘Marilyn.”  We are publishing it exactly as written, but we have added a few extra details in [brackets] for additional clarity.

 To Boston Catholic Insider:

One of your examples [Fr. C.] is said to live with the man commonly understood to be his longtime “boyfriend,” also a priest [Fr. K], in a rectory [St. A.] where the “boyfriend” is assigned as parochial vicar.  If it were his longtime girlfriend, would it be tolerated?  Their close friends, another pair of ordained men, keep busy as a pastor [Fr. J.] of a parish near 128 [St. S], the other one allegedly no longer in ministry [Fr. B], but tell that to the people who are devoted to him at a church downtown. [P.C.]

These men enjoy full benefits in exchange for toning down their rhetoric bashing the church, and no longer publicly promoting same sex marriage.  They live in rectories.  They have vacation homes and lots of time off and cars that few priests can afford (because two of them have private incomes).  And they will have pensions and benefits from the RCAB.  Two of them were not allowed to remain as pastors due to audits that showed significant financial misconduct.  (Ask the auditors.)  Meanwhile, the combined Mass attendance served by the parochial vicar and the pastor at the two parishes don’t total 500 people.  Give those micro parishes to the priests in the next parishes to cover, and shutter the rectories that are now home to the men who shatter their vows.

If these men’s domestic arrangements involved women, what would happen?  When a priest thumbs his nose at his vows, let’s get him out, no matter who the other party is.  Priests who are living the vowed celibate life as it was meant to be lived, meanwhile, work without days off, have only their stipends to pay their expenses, and cannot retire until their wheels fall off.  (One pastor I know of is over well over 75 and celebrates nine Masses per week, including one at the nursing home.)

Where’s the leadership?  Why are the vows of matrimony expected to be kept by those to whom they are made (spouses), but vows made to the ordinary aren’t expected to be kept if the parties involved are sufficiently obnoxious?  And why does the ordinary think the people don’t notice?

 [Wow!  Marilyn, thanks so much for writing this powerful message.  Just to expand on what you have written, as was mentioned in our previous post, one of the priests cited above testified to the Massachusetts Legislature in favor of gay marriage, and though his testimony was corrected by the Mass Catholic Conference, the act of his testifying against the Church was never publicly addressed  by the Archbishop or Archdiocese of Boston.  Yesterday, Catholic News Agency reported that Archbishop Carlos Jose Nanez of Cordoba has begun canonical proceedings against a priest in Argentina who promoted same-sex ‘marriage.’  

Fr. Jose Nicolas Alessio received an enormous amount of media attention for his statements supporting gay “marriage” while he was pastor of St. Cajetan’s in the city of Cordoba. According to AICA, the priest has continued to make statements to the media in support of same-sex “marriage.” “As a cautionary measure, the archbishop has prohibited him from the public exercising of the priestly ministry, which means he cannot celebrate Mass or administer the sacraments of the Church publicly, and therefore, cannot continue as pastor,” the news service reported.

Regarding Fr. J , we also extend Marilyn’s powerful message.  As she mentioned, he was on the record in support of gay marriage, and a commenter on an article at in 2004 wrote te following about him:

I am reminded of how he was chased out of St. B’s. Fr. J verbally attacked and threatened a group of parishoners for whom he blamed for his demise. Telling one woman she would “rue the day”. In fact, Fr. J performed a “homosexual marriage” in the church even though it was against the doctrine of the Catholic Church. That is the reason he was told to leave St. B’s and never come back. Fr. C was guilty by association. Fr. J managed to alienate several parishoners and his friend, Fr. B wrote scathing letters to several parishoners in St. B’s.

Beyond that, his current parish, St. S, near Route 95/128 was targeted for closing in 2005 but he and the parish fought the decision.  Fortunately for the pastor, they had an ally on the Meade-Eisner Reconfiguration Review Committee, namely powerbroker Jack Connors, Jr, who is a native son from the same town as the parish.  The parish got an unusual reprieve by the Meade-Eisner Committee. They were to stay open until March of 2008, when the six-year term of the pastor was to end, at which point Cardinal O’Malley said he would reassess the future of that parish. They are still open today with the same pastor, so apparently the pastor’s term was renewed and the Cardinal did not have a problem with the situation described above. 

In Argentina, a priest publicly opposes the Church’s teaching on marriage, and when he refused to “amend his ways and retract his statements” in support of same-sex “marriage,” the archbishop undertook a canonical procedure to remove him from public ministry.  In Boston, they give a priest who has done the same thing a nice job in campus ministry where he can get a second income or they keep him in a pastoral leadership role.  And apparently they also let them live in a rectory with their “boyfriend” to scandalize the faithful, while also rubbing this scandal in the faces of hard-working priests who are living their priestly vows working tirelessly with no days off on a small stipend, and who can’t retire until they are 75. 

Meanwhile, back at the Pastoral Center (Friday afternoons off in the summer), they wonder why there are morale problems in the Boston presbyterate, thereby making it tough to get new vocations to the priesthood.  Perhaps the senior Cabinet steering committee might want to take this post up as a topic of discussion at an upcoming meeting.  We welcome comments and additional confidential messages. Just click on Contact Us.

True Cross Relic Stolen, Caritas/Cerberus Update

July 14, 2010

We will cover two different topics briefly today–the theft of the True Cross relic from the Holy Cross Cathedral, and a short update on the sale of Caritas to Cerberus. 

Most people have probably heard about the theft of the relic of the True Cross from Holy Cross Cathedral, first noticed on July 1.  This is one of the oldest and most treasured possessions in the archdiocese, and we need to all pray for its return.  Beyond the troubling reality that a priceless relic like this was stolen, a few other aspects of this should raise eyebrows.  First of all, why 12 days pass after the theft was detected before the Archdiocese said something–and only after Catholic blogger, Kelly Thatcher, (Lady in the Pew) posted about this and spread word asking for prayers.  Maybe the police asked that it be kept quiet for a few days in order to investigate in some secretive manner.  But could someone at the $5.5 million/year communications machine of the Archdiocese let us know what other big things they’re working on we haven’t noticed that left them unable or unwilling to respond to the Globe’s diatribe on Sunday and more importantly, tell Catholics about the theft and ask for prayers?  Is someone asking wealthy Catholics like Jack Connors, who the Globe reported is worth $500 million, to establish a reward for the return of the relic?   Where is the passion and urgency in the communications to try and get this back ASAP?  Another blogger said to us, if the Cathedral had money to spend replacing a beautiful ambo that didn’t need replacement, why couldn’t they have installed a security camera or webcam to protect the relic?  Intelligent, “smart” IP video surveillance systems have become very inexpensive, and can remotely watch a location like this and instantly send an alert when something changes in a scene.  Had something like this been in place–costing on a one-time basis a fraction of what the Archdiocese pays Rasky Baerlein for their public relations retainer every month–the theft might have been prevented entirely, or if not prevented, then recorded AND within a minute afterwards, cathedral and security officials could have been alerted.  In addition, we could not help but notice the unusual theological depth to the statement by Communications Secretary, Terry Donilon, “The relic of the True Cross is an important sacramental that helps Christians contemplate the crucified Savior and the great suffering He endured for the salvation of the world.”  Has Terry been taking a theology course in the MAM program, or did someone feed him the quote?  Lastly, this comment on another blog from “TheLastCatholicinBoston” merits reposting: 

It certainly is a very symbolic loss. To think of the martyrdom who died for such causes, and the archdiocese makes a statement after 10 days. They watch the nickels as the priceless is stolen from under their noses. They capture Internet space with Catholic TV and blogs yet can’t keep a watchful eye on the True Cross. The devil’s undercover blood martyrdom of abortion in America is similar – the thief is in our midst, seeking the ruin of souls. 

On to the next topic, Caritas/Cerberus.  Everyone seems to be piling on the bandwagon finally raising concerns publicly.  The Globe had a column on it last week focusing on the likelihood of competition vs smaller community hospitals from a for-profit Caritas.   A couple of pro-life organizations have weighed-in, and we would like to correct a few errors in what these other organizations have written in recent days. The American Life League, in their post, “CERBERUS, HADES AND THE ARCHDIOCESE OF BOSTON” said: 

But we already know that adherence to Catholic moral standards is unlawful for any hospital that participates in the Massachusetts universal health care insurance program (the model for ObamaCare), because the program requires participants to provide abortion, contraception, sterilization, etc. In fact, the archdiocese’s inability to participate in the Massachusetts program is precisely the reason why Caritas is unprofitable and is being sold. So the termination of Catholic standards is inevitable. Why the charade to mislead the public that Caritas will remain Catholic? 

Most of their post is spot-on, the first part of this passage is correct, and there is indeed a charade to mislead the public into believing that Caritas will remain Catholic ahead (as we have reported previously).  But Caritas IS actually profitable, so it’s not the case that the inability to participate in the Massachusetts program is the reason why Caritas is being sold.  

An email from Mass Citizens for Life also gets most of it right, but has a few things wrong or communicates them in a way where people will reach the wrong conclusion.   

The Board of Directors of Massachusetts Citizens for Life has expressed serious concern about a proviso in the sale of the Caritas Christi Health Care system by the Archdiocese of Boston.  The Board urges the Archdiocese to remove this proviso or to work with the buyers to appoint an independent committee consisting of experts in the fields of medical ethics and health care financing, who have proven adherence to the Caritas commitment to life, to fully vet any decision to end compliance with the Ethical and Religious Directives of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. 

 Aside from the fact that MCFL didn’t tell people what the concerning proviso is–namely, an exit clause should maintaining the Catholic identity prove “materially burdensome”–MCFL is basically saying to either remove the proviso, or appoint pro-life people to an independent committee who would review a decision to drop the Catholic identity but have no authority to over-ride it.  Removing the proviso should work  but it does not seem like a commitee with no authority to change anything will be able to change anything. 

MCFL further says the following: 

The Steward Health Care System, a subsidiary of Cerberus Capital Management, will be running the hospitals.  Steward has agreed to abide by the ERDs, thus continuing the pro-life commitment of the hospitals.  If, however, Steward decides that compliance with the ERDs would jeopardize the welfare of its patients, employees, or the community it serves, it can pay the Archdiocese twenty-five million dollars to end compliance. 

 This is partically correct.  The agreement says if Steward decides that compliance with the EDRs would become “materially burdensome” (very broadly defined as anything which would “jeopardize the welfare of its patients, employees, or the communities in which it operates,” the determination of which will be in “the sole discretion of Steward”), the system’s Catholic identity could be abandoned upon payment of a $25 million fee to a charity of the Archdiocese’s choosing.   The rest of what MCFL wrote is correct:

The MCFL Board reasons that this escape clause provides inadequate protection to pro-life physicians and patients and threatens the existence of pro-life hospitals in Massachusetts.  It could result in the Caritas hospitals providing abortion and rationing care, thus ending the systems commitment to pro-life principles.

According to Anne Fox, President of the organization, Massachusetts Citizens for Life has always been grateful for the hospitals in the Caritas Christi Health Care system. While MCFL is a non-sectarian organization, having hospitals where patients can go to receive ethical medical care has been very important whether it be a woman with a problem pregnancy or a person who needs food and hydration administered artificially.  Pro-life medical professionals have been able to practice in good conscience. We feel every effort must be made to ensure continuation of these ethical standards





July 12, 2010

We were just copied on a post from another blog that picks apart the essay in yesterday’s Boston Globe Magazine entitled, “What I Believe.”  We are not yet in the practice of endorsing other blogs, but the  Globe’s essay is a distortion of the Catholic faith and this particular blog post makes some valid points.  Any of a number of entities in the Archdiocese could respond to the Globe’s piece, starting with Cardinal O’Malley on his blog, and on down to Terry Donilon in PR, The Pilot, the website, or Catholic TV.  It cost $3.4 million to operate CatholicTV last year, around $1 million to publish The Pilot,  they spent a quarter of a million dollars to build a new website, and the salaries and PR fees across the Catholic Media group and PR teams (separate budget and funding sources) are easily another $1 million.  For $5.5 million a year, you’d think somone could crank out a response within 24 hours. If they cannot do something this basic, then maybe some of that money should be redirected to the Clergy Retirement Fund deficit.

%d bloggers like this: