Diocesan Deception in Catholic Schools Admission Policy?

We are getting mixed requests from our readers in the past few days—some want us to keep digging in on the fracas over the new direction for fund-raising and development, while some want us to address what they view as time-critical situations.

After prayerful consideration, today we take a big chance by dipping our toe in the water in an area we have stayed away from up to now.  That is the Catholic Schools Admission Policy whose draft is undergoing final review.  We are focusing not on the policy itself but rather on whether the general pattern of diocesan deception we have been reporting on previously might, coincidentally, happen to apply in the setting of this policy as well. If so, perhaps a better policy will emerge if any content in the policy that is even perceived as misleading is modified.

Some readers who appreciate that we have stayed away from such topics might have issues with today’s post.  We provide you with the facts and two points where it appears that people reading this draft policy might be misled or deceived.  You will need to decide.

Background and Facts

As many readers may recall, almost six months ago to the day, St. Paul School in Hingham made national news for deciding to deny admission at their Catholic elementary school to the son of a lesbian couple.  Choose your media venue if you need a recap—here is the story from the Boston Globe, USA Today, AOL News, and The Boston Pilot. While Cardinal O’Malley was away in Portugal with the real Holy Father, Jack Connors (dubbed the “pope of Boston’s Catholic power-brokers” by the Globe) jumped into the fracas declaring this was a bad move, as can be seen by Connors’ photo and quotes that highlight these pieces in the Globe and Herald (coincidentally entitled, “Church’s balance of power shifting”). After Cardinal O’Malley returned to the U.S, he said on his May 19 blog post that the matter would be studied further and a policy developed.  That policy is close to being finalized and seeing the light of day via public promulgation, and is the subject of today’s post.

The Draft Policy

As anonymous bloggers who promise confidentiality to our readers, it should not surprise anyone that we often get anonymous emails, and several readers sent along this Draft Catholic Schools Admission Policy as of September 16, 2010.  You will note that it is marked “confidential,” which we assume means “for Catholics only.”  And, since the archdiocese has shared this fairly broadly with clergy, schools staff and lay advisory boards already and has promised transparency as being important towards rebuilding trust with the people of this Archdiocese, we assume it is OK to share, in confidence, with just the limited group of Catholics who read this blog.  Just do not share it broadly.  If anyone from the archdiocese objects to this draft being posted in the interest of helping make a better policy for Catholics in this generation and generations to come, please let us know.

The crux of the policy is the following:

Our schools welcome as qualified students whose parent(s)/guardian(s) accept and understand that the teachings of the Catholic Church are an essential and required part of the curriculum. We count on our parents to partner with our principals and faculty in the student’s educational experience. We do not discriminate against or exclude any categories of students.

The purpose of this post (and hopefully any comments you offer) is not to discuss the pros and cons of that draft policy position, but rather to highlight two things in the draft that are potentially misleading or deceptive.

Two Misleading or Deceptive Aspects of the Policy Draft

1) Holy Father’s quote. The document opens by saying, “In creating this policy we are guided by the words of the Holy Father, by Canon Law and by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops”

“No child should be denied his or her right to an education in faith, which in turn nurtures the soul of a nation.”  Address of His Holiness Benedict XVI to Catholic Educators in Washington DC. April 17, 2008.

There is one concern with that quote–it is missing the context of the entire paragraph or two immediately preceding it. Here is a link to Holy Father’s actual address to Catholic University of America, and the quote in-context:

The Catholic community here has in fact made education one of its highest priorities. This undertaking has not come without great sacrifice. Towering figures, like Saint Elizabeth Ann Seton and other founders and foundresses, with great tenacity and foresight, laid the foundations of what is today a remarkable network of parochial schools contributing to the spiritual well-being of the Church and the nation….Countless dedicated Religious Sisters, Brothers, and Priests together with selfless parents have, through Catholic schools, helped generations of immigrants to rise from poverty and take their place in mainstream society.

This sacrifice continues today. It is an outstanding apostolate of hope, seeking to address the material, intellectual and spiritual needs of over three million children and students. It also provides a highly commendable opportunity for the entire Catholic community to contribute generously to the financial needs of our institutions. Their long-term sustainability must be assured. Indeed, everything possible must be done, in cooperation with the wider community, to ensure that they are accessible to people of all social and economic strata. No child should be denied his or her right to an education in faith, which in turn nurtures the soul of a nation.

It seems to this writer that the context in which the Holy Father spoke was very different from the context in which that one selective phrase has been used, absent all context, in this draft document.  We are giving you the factual information.  You should decide for yourself how you feel.

Without debating the underlying position or principles of the policy, are we the only ones who find the absence of context for the Holy Father’s words a tad misleading?

2. Principle of subsidiarity. Is it maintained by this draft policy, or is it negated?

In Catholic teaching, this means the Church usually assumes that problems are best defined and resolved by those most closely affected by them. Here are excerpts from an interesting piece from the Phoenix Diocesan Newspaper on the topic of subsidiarity.

The principle of subsidiarity is a basic tenet of Church law. Under this principle, authorities at higher levels of the organization discern what responsibilities and tasks lower level authorities are capable of fulfilling, based on Church law and the particular definition of the given role of those lower level authorities.

This allocation of responsibilities can be seen at every level of the Church. The pope appoints a bishop to lead a particular diocese, just as a bishop appoints a certain priest to lead a particular parish, just as pastors appoint parishioners to lead particular ministries, according to each individual’s gifts and ability to fulfill their defined role.

By entrusting a pastor to care for the people of his parish, and by empowering a pastor to make certain decisions on behalf of his parish, the bishop is exercising the principle of subsidiarity.

“A parish has the freedom to meet the local needs of their area according to the gifts of the parish,” said Fr. Chris Fraser, judicial vicar and canon law expert.

“The diocesan bishop isn’t going to determine that one parish will have an outreach for the poor while another has a ministry for immigrants,” he said. “Each parish must evaluate its gifts and resources and reach out to the local community in ways it feels called.”

If you look at the draft policy for the Archdiocese of Boston, it says the following:

Pastors, principals, advisory and/or governing boards may develop specific admission policies for their school provided they are in conformity with the Archdiocesan Admission Policy.

In other words, the archdiocese wrote in the words that they still endorse the concept of subsidiarity–but only as long as you, the pastors and parishes, do what the Archdiocese  directs you to do from the top-down.  We asked a canon lawyer friend about this one, and were told the archdiocese is treading on canonical “thin ice” with this provision as worded.

We know some people will pounce on us for this post.  The archdiocese will claim a confidential draft document has been “leaked” and will claim it is still undergoing revisions. Some people will inaccurately believe we are opining on the policy.  In reality, we had enough emails from parents and clergy asking us to cover this that we decided to put this out in the open.

A friend of the blog commented this morning that regardless of the end good which may be intended by a particular effort or initiative, it is always best to ensure that honesty and integrity are maintained through all of the means of attaining that end. That is the reason behind our posts about possible deception, and indeed, it is a motivator behind this blog.

Once again, readers, this post is not about the position articulated in the policy draft. There are no doubt better venues for that to be discussed.  If you want to tell the Archdiocese what you think of the policy, we suggest you contact the Vicar General (Vicar_General@rcab.org), his assistant Fr. Bryan Parrish, and superintendent of schools, Mary Grassa O’Neill.  (We can give emails for them separately if you want them).

We are simply raising questions about how the policy is being “sold” to key constituencies and whether there are aspects of this draft document that are seen as misleading.  We have just been deceived about an open search for the head of development.  Is this a pattern of behavior?  Do the means justify the ends?  Please keep comments focused in those areas so we do not need to moderate.

27 Responses to Diocesan Deception in Catholic Schools Admission Policy?

  1. concerned parent says:

    I am biting my tongue as I respond to this post. In respect to the request by the bloggers, I will try to hold my comments about the policy for the archdiocese. my interpretation of the Holy Father’s quote is that he was referring to the personal sacrifice and ongoing financial support needed to make Catholic education available to all students, regardless of their means. if the Holy Father were to read that brief passage of his words as being the source of guidance for this policy, I would be surprised if he agreed that he was refering to the admission of children of gay and lesbian parents to schools when he discused sacrifice and contributing to the financial needs of schools.

    I think this is more and more deception and whomever those are who are working on this policy should be ashamed to even draft and discuss it using that quote as the lead reference point for their guidance. it appears like they decided on the policy and then went off trying to find quotes that would give the appearance of backing the decision. if that is really how they operated, I hope and pray they change this.

  2. Disgusted Boston Priest says:

    It’s ALL about deception and deceit – all of it.

    Who cares whether the underlying cause for the deception and deceit is radical elitism (“I/we know so much more than they do about this…”), or subversion from without (“If I/we can only get the camel’s nose under the tent flap…”) or subversion from within (“The church needs change, and I/we have to do it by any means possible!”), or if it’s the age-old problem of prelates and churchmen – lack of backbone (“People will HATE us if we do that, so let’s mortgage our core values on this one thing.”)

    The defining principle is always the same: if the People of God knew what I/we really intended they’d never let us get away with it; therefore, I/we have to lie about it to get it into policy/practice.

    It sounds like ObamaCare, doesn’t it? And without any desire to make this a political screed, one has to wonder about the incestuously-close ties between the Boston Archdiocese and the Democratic Party.

    What makes it much, much worse than ObamaCare, however, is that it is being practiced by men who style themselves disciples of Christ and yet have embraced the practices of their true spiritual “father”: The Father of Lies. See John 8:42-44:

    Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”

    One of my “friends” in seminary days used to tell me, “DBP, you’ve got to go along to get along.” And it appears that, at least in the Archdiocese of Boston, that seminarian was right. That’s why I chose the moniker I did.

    It’s ALL deception and deceit – sadly.

  3. Disgusted Teacher says:

    It truly is ALL about “deception and deceit!” Cardinal O’Malley’s statement on Fr. Rafferty’s action was that the Archdiocese would work with the Catholic School’s Office to develop a “policy” on this issue. It was my foolish interpretation that led me to believe that Catholic schools within the Archdiocese would not enroll a child of parents who live in a way that is in complete discord with the teachings of the church until such time as a policy was constructed and agreed upon. I couldn’t have been more wrong!

    Before this current school year even began, the child was enrolled at another “Catholic” school on the South Shore with the assistance of our Cardinal, the local Bishop, and the Pastor! All parties kept the boy’s enrollment secret, including secret from the parents of the other children in the 3rd grade class, as well as from the parents of the entire student body. The “policy” has already (and deceitfully) been written! Precedent has already been set for Catholic schools across the Archdiocese.

  4. Anna says:

    Since the Holy Father has written policies that exclude women and homosexual persons from the seminary, we can put an end to any theory that these decptive out of context citations are carrying out a Roman Catholic mandate from the Holy Father to admit homosexual culture into our school community.

    It is clear where this mandate came from. It came from Jack Connors School Foundation, who has just taken over all fundraising and control of the money and decisions about how that money is spent and the creation of adherence to theirmandates if they want money, jobs and paychecks. They are even being moved right into the Chancery where they have stacked it with employees who are their cronies.

    The most deceptive thing of all is that they have removed the Archbishop from the role of authority over this new structure.

    Is it me or is what is going on at 66 Brooks Drive no longer Catholic?

  5. helen says:

    I am very shaken up by all of this.

    This is very, very disturbing.

    We need to get all of this information into the parishes! Should we organize meetings at our parishes to distribute this information? How about starting a meeting at each vicariate? I am a parish secretary and responsible for the bulletins in my parish. We have a great working relationship in my vicariate and I know they will put it in their bulletins.

    My brother in law works for the Herald and could arrange a story.

    What about starting there?

    We have to organize and let everyone know what is happening!

    I will email the bloggers.

  6. For those who want to discuss the underlying policy position, we just want to remind you of what we said earlier–that was not the topic of this post. We are simply raising questions about how the policy is being “sold” to key constituencies and whether there are aspects of this document and/or the process that are seen as deceptive. Please try to keep your comments focused in those areas so we do not need to moderate your comment.

    • Anna Lynskey says:

      I’m sorry if I violated the policy. I wasn’t really taking a position on it, I was just trying to point out that the Church does actually decline enrollment to certain persons because of their sex or sexual preferences. I thought this was an important point in the discussion of the deception.

  7. anonymous wife of deacon says:

    I am so disappointed that the Cardinal has let things get so out of control. He is such a good priest, I don’t understand what happened.

    This is the straw that broke the camels back for me.

    Helen, I love your idea.

    Earlier today, I brought this disturbing post to the attention of our pastor who is in agreement that something must be done. He told me the “presbyteral council” is a group of priests without any backbone who will go along with anything whoever is in charge tells them to. He agrees that Cardinal O’Malley has given up his role of authority.

    I know he will let some of us in the parish (who are concerned) have a meeting. My husband and I would also be willing to hold a meeting for deacons and their wives.

    Our dear Lord’s Church is in trouble, have to do something.

  8. PriestsForTransparency.com says:

    I think those in pastoral center leadership roles thinks priests are basically stupid and/or weak.

    They don’t think pastors can make the right decisions and want to centralize admissions for Catholic Schools, lumping the parish and pastor with all the responsibilities/burdens and without the authority to conform the school and all those involved to the Gospel.

    This policy flies in the face of the principle of subsidiarity. Thanks for the post.

  9. A Catholic Mother says:

    Gee, I wonder where Canon law stands on the goings-on within an archdiocese that has been taken over by schismatics. Is anyone out there familiar enough with Canon law to know the answer? I’m not joking…

  10. Grateful Priest says:

    “I think those in pastoral center leadership roles thinks priests are basically stupid and/or weak.”

    Yes. But there is a mutiny cooking between Willie Kieth,De Vriess, Maryk, Keefer and Old Yellowstain, thanks to Boston Catholic Insider and other Catholic blogs letting all the sunshine in.

  11. Jack O'Malley says:

    Eis nummos ne commiseris, eis liberos ne commiseris, eis animam ne commiseris.

    Translated from the (former) language of the (once) Catholic Church:

    Don’t trust them with your money, don’t trust them with your children, don’t trust them with your soul.

  12. Hoodwinked Priest says:

    Priests for Transparency and the bloggers are correct that policy as written tramples the principle of subsidiarity. People have no idea of the extent to which the wool is being pulled over their eyes on this one. If you look at what was discussed at one of the recent presbyteral council meetings, the Cardinal’s judicial vicar is on the record as saying there is nothing in the policy that the Cardinal can’t mandate in his role as chief educator in the archdiocese. So even though most of the schools are parish-based today and subsidiarity would call for pastors and principals to make decisions at the local level, that freedom would effectively be taken away from them under this policy. I will be voicing my complaints about this and hope my colleagues are as well.

  13. Michael says:

    Disgusted Teacher said:
    The “policy” has already (and deceitfully) been written! Precedent has already been set for Catholic schools across the Archdiocese.

    Anna said:
    Is it me or is what is going on at 66 Brooks Drive no longer Catholic?

    Helen said:
    How about starting a meeting at each vicariate? I am a parish secretary and responsible for the bulletins in my parish.

    HONESTLY, these are all good points, but the truth is they are at this moment simply only complaints.

    We need to stop complaining and start taking swift and decisive action. Immediately. We need the courage of the Holy Spirit. (See Fr. Corapi’s DVD on the Holy Spirit is not a spirit of cowardess).

    Anyone who cares, put down your keyboard and this morning begin taking immediate and aggressive action to stop this policy from being permitted to exist in the Archdiocese of Boston. Right now.

    Good, decent Catholics need to stand up and fight. Now.

    No one else is going to do it. Each one of us has an obligation to protect the Church from this evil. Forget reading the blog for the moment. This is way more important than updating oneself on the Archdiocese of Boston’s corruption du jour.

    We need a real fight. One where people are willing to lose their friends, reputations, and careers.

    School teachers need to quit.

    Administrative personnel need to quit.

    Pastors need to REFUSE to follow such an un-Catholic policy.

    Parishioners need to withold money for this specific reason. Letters need to be sent explaining that no money will be given to the Church until this policy is corrected.

    Indeed, each of us has a duty to act in accord with our baptismal vows.

    Everyone … each one of us … need to act immediately. Stop complaining and start acting. Write letters. Tell your friends. Lose your friends.

    Now is the time for wicked men to insult and hate you. Now is the time to decide whether or not you are truly a member of Christ’s Church.

    Catholics need to get vocal. Catholics need to demand the policy be corrected or the people who drafted it be FIRED … and then the policy needs to be corrected.


    BCI said:
    For those who want to discuss the underlying policy position, we just want to remind you of what we said earlier–that was not the topic of this post.

    With all due respect to the Boston Catholic Insider’s desire to avoid the substance of the underlying issue … you are wrong.

    All I have witnessed since this blog began is an honest and valiant attempt to bring light to the truth of the devastation of the Archdiocese of Boston. You have done a great service to the Archdiocese. Your work is commendable and your efforts are outstanding.

    The BCI is all about the truth. You have been called. You are leading many people. But, you need to get off of the fence post and lead us on this issue.

    The problem … the reason why we are in the current mess… is simply because everyone, for a good while now, has been far too afraid to discuss the truth of the underlying substantive issues.

    Hiding from the truth is THE PROBLEM.
    Standing on the sidelines is the problem.
    Watching the world crumble without a diligent and vigorous attempt to prevent the fall, is the problem.

    Simply commenting on it, is no solution.

    What is the reason … the underlying reason … for the child abuse scandal? Why are we afraid to speak the truth about that issue?

    What is the reason … the underlying reason … for the the institution of gay marriage in the civil jurisdiction of the Archdiocese of Boston? Why are we afraid to speak the truth about that issue?

    What is the reason … the underlying reason … for the indoctrination of homosexuality, bi-sexuality and transgender behavior in the Catholic Schools of Boston? Why are we afraid to speak the truth about that issue?

    Are we so afraid of being called “transgenderaphobic” that we must acquiesce in promoting in Catholic Schools the concept of young children reversing their (God-given) sexual organs and convince ourselves that that is somehow loving? Is it loving?

    See at some point we need to stop trying to gain a coalition of the “somewhat truthful” and simply leave the consequences of our decision to speak the truth up to GOD. Letting God handle the consequences of our pronouncement of the truth is an act of true faith.

    To act as if everything depends on us and to pray as if everything depends on God is what we are called to do. We no longer have the luxury of simply complaining, raising an eyebrow, and staying on the sidelines.

    Please, I beg the BCI to choose the side of truth. Let’s stop hiding the elephant in the room. It is a large one and it is ugly. Our desire to not discuss the substance of this issue so as to keep a “coalition” together shows our lack of faith in God’s truth.

    Does the BCI know of any solid information on the proper Catholic analysis (the truthful way) of how to discern a correct Catholic policy in this area?

    • Thanks very much for the positive feedback and comments about our efforts to bring light to the truth. It is a lot of work and it is gratifying to hear that what we are doing makes a difference for you and others!

      We wish we knew of solid documented information on the proper Catholic analysis, and how the teaching authority of the Church would advise discerning a correct Catholic policy in this area. We do not. We assume there are other blogs and sites better prepared than this one to engage in debate and discussion of doctrinal issues. Those are among the reasons why we are not prepared to engage in a discussion of the underlying policy here and will be moderating comments that directly go there.

      Sorry if this response is not what you were looking for, but we hope you will keep coming back.

  14. A Catholic Mother says:

    Michael, everything you say is absolutely true. Still, I refer to my (brief) post of yesterday evening. I think we’ve got to go over the heads of Connors, Hehir, et al.; that’s why I refer to Canon law. Those who wanted to protest parish closings apparently knew what legal steps they would be permitted to take. There has got to be some recourse for us as well.

  15. Quality Guy says:

    The objective purpose for sending a child to a Catholic school is to educate the child in an environment of Catholic philosophy and tradition.
    If a ‘not-normal’ family/parent [ i. e. a single parent, or a same gender ‘family’ ] chooses to send a child, ergo sum, the child will be ‘inculcated’ with Catholic tradition.
    If that child therefore becomes attuned to the Cathoic tradition/teachings, there may arise an antipathy to the parent[s].
    This might casue a serious rift in the expected child/parent relationship which might lead to serious psychological consequences.
    If someone[s] {sorry, I seem to have ‘bent’ a word construction here ] wishes to do that, then he/she/they must bear the consequences.
    Remember, the implications of the IDEA laws and their interpretation by the civil courts on the school/Church !

    The transparency issues , etc. of the creation of and dissemination of the DRAFT Confidential policy seem to be ignored here.
    Nevertheless, the consequences of developing a policy by a group including several canon lawyers as well as civil lawyers along with pastors seems to me to be akin to the famous description of ” a camel is a horse created by a COMMITTEE ” [ poor paraphrase, I apologize ]

    Quality Guy

  16. […] not yet read our pieces on diocesan deception in the hiring of the new development chief and in Catholic school admission policies, please do check those out.  Now for even more very urgent and time-sensitive […]

  17. We are posting part of a comment left this morning by “Concerned Deacon….” As mentioned above in the post, we are moderating this time around so comments or the portions that directly go to the underlying policy position have been edited out. As such, if you want us to delete the entire comment, please drop us an email and let us know.

    Concerned Deason wrote:

    To comment on the Admission Policy, rather than “deception”, the policy is not well defined and, in my opinion, needs to be more specific

    Reading between the lines of many of the posts, I am assuming, readers want the RCAB to clearly define a policy regarding the admittance of children of openly homosexual parents.

    [section edited out by Boston Catholic Insider]

    Now back to the posting of BCI; are there any other specific issues, on Admission Policy, each of you feels need to be addressed? Why not post your ideas rather than the multiple conspiracy theories and the finger pointing.

    The potential of this blog is infinite! Lately, however, it has lost it focus. There is no issue with the expectation of accountability, but the constant attacks on individuals are destroying that potential.

    • To “Concerned Deacon,”
      Thank you for your comments and service to the Church. We appreciate hearing your encouraging words about the potential of this blog! We think we have been pretty consistent with discussing governance-related problems and issues including deception, sham searches, conflicts of interest, ethical breaches, cronyism, abdication of responsibility, and more. Even in this post, we are talking about the deception.

      What people consistently tell us they like about the blog is that we give you facts and objectively verifiable information, and from there we give you the space to reach your own conclusions.

      Are you saying you want to hear more of the writers’ ideas and opinions on the governance-related issues we have been covering? It feels like this may be better suited to an off-line email exchange than public comments, so feel free to drop us an email at

  18. Disgusted Boston Priest says:

    Dear “Concerned Deacon” –

    Thank you for your post, even though I am only privy to that part of it that the blogger(s) posted. And thank you for your service as a deacon.

    That said, I think you miss the point completely. First, the blogger(s) asked us to comment specifically on the STYLE of the development / promulgation of the policy, not on the substance of the policy. I think that’s what most of the responses have been about.

    What you term “attacks on individuals,” “multiple conspiracy theories” and “finger pointing” – whether correct in their assumptions or not – are just the gut reaction of the faithful to two things:

    (a) finding out that people in the administrative hierarchy of the diocese are deaf to their concerns (do you not believe they’ve already – many times – attempted to convey their opinions and ideas up the chain of command?)

    (b) watching these same people, who loudly proclaim “transparency” as their goal (after getting into hot water with the exposure of internal memorandae and financial skullduggery), so easily and unapologetically reverting to non-transparency (i.e. sham searches, bait-and-switch policies) which remind people more of party politics’ smoke-filled rooms and Tammany Hall power-brokering.

    They hypocrisy of diocesan officials – McDonough in particular – boggles the imagination. He has no qualms about using the Cardinal’s “transparency initiative” as a cudgel to silence opposition to any of his new fiscal imperatives, but he doesn’t practice it in his own office. Instead he threatens to spend big money to hire computer forensics experts to “out” those who espouse transparency!

    BCI, I think, hit it on the head: you can debate the pro’s and con’s of the actual policy when it is announced, and men and women of good will can make convincing arguments on both sides. But it’s the MANNER in which the policy was drawn up that sticks in everyone’s craw.

  19. Disgusted Boston Priest, thank you for articulating where we stand on this, perhaps better than we did!

  20. Jenny says:

    I wanted to say thank you to, Disgusted Catholic Priest for saying what I believe so many of us feel.

    Christ admonished us to protect the innocent, He also told his followers, that we should not be afraid to ask questions, and hold members of clergy accountable. That we were to listen to them preach the Gospel, but not to emulate their actions, because like any human, they are prone to sin. We are instead to strive to be like Christ.

    What example does it set for children, innocent lives, to see flagrant hypocrisy being promoted by the archdiocese, the moral relativism. It sends one message to those children, that Christ’s teachings don’t mean anything to the cardinal, and those priests, bishops and others in the employ of the church don’t believe. It leads to children to be discouraged in their faith, and divorced from it.

    I have friends who were raised in the Episcopal church, and they’ve watched their faith be run rough shod over, by those who sought to destroy it from within. They’ve left their church, to join breakaway Anglican churches that hold fast to the Gospel. We only have to look to the Episcopal church, to see what will happen to the Catholic church if we do not stand firm in our defense of our faith and it’s church. We must stand up against these wolves in sheep’s clothing, and expose them, and do so to protect the innocent, again, as Christ admonished us to do. While it’s true He spoke of turning the other cheek when attacked, He called on us to protect the innocent. It’s not a sin, or wrong to proactively take a stand against this fraud and deception.

  21. Mary says:

    Most of the problems in the archdiocese today would be non-existent if more transparency had been evident. The basic teachings of the church are what i live by. I try to follow the example of jesus and it has never let me down. Jesus would encourage the leaders of the church to debate issues out in the open and he would encourage the debate to be devoid of casting stones. Over the years the church has become more consumed with power than with service.

    [portion edited by Boston Catholic Insider as it comments on the underlying policy, where we said we would moderate if readers go there]

    So bless the creators of this blog for their efforts to encourage open debate like Jesus did in the marketplace.

    [portion edited by Boston Catholic Insider]

    One day because of blog’s like this the leaders of the church will be less concerned with their money power and image and more concerned with carrying on the mission of Jesus.

  22. […] Jack Connors, the Catholic Schools Foundation, and schools superintendent Mary Grassa O’Neill. An admissions policy is drafted and advanced in approval processes amongst school principals and clergy which deceptively […]

  23. […] the deception propagated in the Catholic Schools Admission Policy to all Catholics by the Catholic Schools office also qualify for “highest Christian ethical […]

%d bloggers like this: