Temporary Truce?

Before we get into our topic for today, we would like to just let readers know we are well aware of the latest news from Lawrence regarding St. Mary of the Assumption School–we are in the process of doing some fact-checking before we determine in what manner BCI might weigh in.

As for our topic today, after reading a comment left on the blog yesterday, BCI had an idea this morning we are proposing to Cardinal O’Malley.  This can be thought of as a temporary truce in our criticism of Jack Connors and the Cardinal over a) Jack’s support for pro-abortion political candidates and b)  the inaction by the Cardinal in this grave matter. Here is an excerpt from the comment:

To the point raised by BCI, can Jack Connors, who certainly endorses abortion by making it available and failing to offer a real alternative, as well as by unfailingly supporting those who continue to legislate it as “safe and legal,” wrap himself in the mantle of promotion and protection by the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston?  Is Sean O’Malley morally bound, both by his Baptism and by his vows, to have the guiding councils of the Archdiocese free of those who actively support abortion as the answer for women and their children?

The answer is, the cardinal cannot morally or within the prescripts of his vows, foster and promote Jack Connors.  But he does it anyway.

The answer is, quite seriously, for Sean to witness an abortion, and accompany the remains (or “specimen” as the clinics call what’s left of the child) to the pathology lab bench where all tissue removed from a human during surgery must go for scrutiny.  Let the cardinal ask the pathologist about the tiny feet, and tiny skull, and the heart so large it takes up most of the body.  Then send him straight to some dinner where he will present Jack Connors, who presides over any dealings of RCAB to do with financial or managerial weight, with an award for being a wonderful person, nevermind Catholic.

Jack Connors got the real estate he needed for BC by sitting on the finance council while heading the BC board of trustees.  He got the Caritas hospitals a bit lower hanging on the branch (via Cerberus) for Partners to cherry pick in the not-to-distant future by returning to the finance council.  And he has thereby, in my opinion, compromised the ordinary to the point of risking his salvation.  This has not to do only with abortion, and the failure to provide a real alternative.  This has to do with scores of matters large and small, civil and ecclesial, where Sean has cooperated in the fraud crafted by Connors and his henchmen, to avoid the messier work of doing the right thing.

To bring the thought full circle, those six newly ordained men deserve an ordinary who can lead by example.  It’s the least they are owed in exchange for giving their lives over to the salvation of souls.

Pray for Sean Patrick Cardinal O’Malley, Jack Connors, Bryan Hehir and their many minions.  They are in desperate need of our prayers.

Though we cannot solve all of the problems described above with this proposal, we would like to try and at least tackle one problem by offering the following proposal to Cardinal O’Malley, Jack Connors, and Fr. Bryan Hehir:

For the next 30 days, BCI will hold back from publicly criticizing the Cardinal, Jack Connors, and Fr. Hehir over the issue of Jack’s support for pro-abortion candidates–provided that the Cardinal, Jack, and Fr. Hehir all agree to witness an abortion as described above (preferably a late-term abortion) within the next 30 days, visit the pathology lab as described, and write a reflection that is published in The Pilot on the experience.  Optionally, Chancellor Jim McDonough and Finance Council Vice Chair, Jack McCarthy, could also be invited to observe this.

  • Scheduling: we assume that scheduling should be relatively easy, in that Jack is the Chair of Partners Healthcare, whose Brigham and Women’s Hospital performs 4,300 abortions every year (3,600 first-trimester and 570 second-trimester).  This averages 14 first-trimester abortions per business day and 2 second-trimester abortions per business day.
  • Finding a Doctor to Observe: Dr. Michael Greene, director of obstetrics at Mass General, might be a good starting point.  An alert reader recently passed us a link to this article from the Boston Globe that describes how Greene and other doctors at Mass General, Brigham and Women’s and Beth Israel Deaconess “perform” abortions at 20 weeks gestation or later and “avoid any chance of a live birth and prosecution” by making “lethal injections in the womb a standard operating procedure.” In case Greene is difficult to reach, we suggest that Fr. Bryan Hehir contact him using what we are told is his Boston College connection to Greene from this April 2010 BC panel discussion where they both spoke.

The archdiocese is annoyed by BCI and mistakenly thinks BCI is out to hurt the archdiocese.  In reality, BCI is just trying to find ways to encourage Cardinal O’Malley and his advisors to operate consistent with Catholic Church teachings and the archdiocesan Code of Conduct–and to do the right thing ethically and morally in governing the archdiocese.

BCI believes our proposal is simple and should be compelling for everyone involved.  If the Cardinal, Jack, and Fr. Hehir commit to witnessing an abortion (preferably at 20-weeks gestation or later) and writing about it publicly in The Pilot within the next 30 days (by June 24, 2011), BCI will commit to a temporary truce on criticism of those individuals regarding the issue of Jack’s support for pro-abortion politicians and the Cardinal’s inaction.  Depending on what they experience and write about, BCI might commit to a permanent truce on criticizing the aforementioned people regarding this specific issue.

Seems like a Win/Win proposal for all involved.  We will email it to the Cardinal, Fr. Hehir, and others who we believe should be able to forward this to Jack Connors.  BCI hopes to get a quick “yes” and will keep you updated on what we hear back by the end of this week.

What do you think of the truce proposal?

39 Responses to Temporary Truce?

  1. Liam says:

    Um, this would be forbidden by privacy regulations. None of the three are personnel who would be covered by exceptions.

    • Catholic nurse says:

      Permission of the patient would be required for non-medical personnel to observe the procedure, but Jack Connors, as chair of Partners, could probably work with any number of doctors to obtain that permission from a patient especially in view of the number of abortions performed by Partners-affiliated hospitals. Permission would also be required for either of the priests, who presumably would be praying for the souls of all involved. It’s an interesting and admirable proposal which I think is worth at least advancing.

      • Liam says:

        And on what planet do you think patient is going to give that consent? A patient going through a late-term abortion is going to let opponents of her going through the procedure to witness it?

  2. Sheila says:

    Good idea but will never happen.

    It’s time we all realize O’Malley is numb/gutless and will never take a meaningful stance against abortion and or its proponents.

  3. Gabriel Austin says:


  4. Jasper says:

    Sheila is right, Omalley is a lost cause. He is a liberal himself, and he is surrounded by liberals. Sadly.

    • Michael says:

      As I have commented before on this blog … O’Malley is either a liberal … a wolf in sheep’s clothing … or he is being extorted.

  5. bill h. says:

    This sickening lack of leadership threatens to capsize one’s faith in the Church. How much lower can things go? These so-called leaders, do, indeed, need to watch an abortion and especially the killing of the fetus right before birth.
    They are so consumed with their political correctness and accommodation that they totally miss the point.
    We pray for them and for our fortitude to persist in our belief in the magisterium of the Church. God truly have mercy on them and all of us- St. Faustina, intercede with God for all of us. Man, we need it.

  6. Michael says:

    This is a beautiful gesture … BCI agrees to not keep telling the truth about Connors and O’Malley if they’ll simply commit to learn the truth themselves. But I have several concerns.

    First, shouldn’t each of these grown-ups already know the truth about abortion? Seriously.

    Second, if Cardinal O’Malley, somehow miraculously learns about the true evil of abortion by witnessing one then he will be under a moral duty (which he already is under) to do something about it. Isn’t this why Cardinal O’Malley avoids learning about things he does not want to know about? It’s kind of like a sort of “Catholic Plausable Deniability.” You know … it can’t be considered a sin in God’s eyes if you just didn’t “know.”

    Third, if O’Malley is under a duty to do something about it, he will have to:
    a. allow “Forty Days for Life” into the Archdiocese of Boston
    b. support personhood amendments across the nation (instead of opposing them)
    c. tell Jack Connors that he is wrong in supporting pro-abortion politicians
    d. tell Jack Connors that he cannot permit abortions to happen at his hospitals and facilities anymore,
    e. financially risk all of the benefits that 501(c)(3) status protects – because he will have a duty to God to protect the innocent babies dying during his “watch” – whatever happened to the good old Bishops who used to the ones who would put Christ above tax money and risk their very lives to fight evil? When did it become morally permissible to sell the right to free speech away for the protection of tax-free property? What will God do with the lukewarm catholic culture O’Malley and others have cultivated?

    Money is the root of the evil here in Boston. It is unquestionable.

    • Mack says:

      Sadly I must agree. The RCAB would be better off spiritually if it went bankrupt financially.
      All of this corruption goes on in the Church. No wonder Dante had no qualms about putting bishops in hell!

  7. bitsnbytes says:

    Would watching Bernard Nathanson’s films “The Silent Scream” or “Eclipse of Reason” suffice? Both are video documentaries of abortions.

  8. Chris says:

    I vote the movie. Let us remember the dignity of the office, if not of the man who holds it.

    • Objective Observer says:

      Sean Cardinal O’Malley needs to clean house or seek a transfer. Jack Connors is free to pursue whatever he wishes, but Sean is not free to keep him even soto voce in the conversation.

      Given that cleaning house would mean using the office of ordinary for something besides travel and tourism, Sean should beg Battista Re to intercede for him with Ouellet to transfer him to Rome, preferably Propagation of the Faith, where he will divide his time between Latin America and a curia office with a decent view of The Square.

      • bitsnbytes says:

        If the Cardinal is ever going to assume a curial post in Rome, it will have to be one suited to his particular gifts, which are not in the field of administration.

      • enoughisenough says:

        Maybe he can be deposited in the Archives…

  9. Catholic nurse says:

    “Eclipse of Reason” is just 27 minutes long and readily accessible on YouTube:

    I still think it would be more powerful for the Cardinal, Jack Connors and Bryan Hehir to witness an abortion live, but if for whatever reason that’s not possible, watching the movie is a good alternative.

  10. Former Employee says:

    Honestly, this post actually turned my stomach. I would also like to correct your language:

    An abortion is committed not performed, when was they last time you heard someone charged with performing the murder procedure.

    • Thanks for the input and feedback on the wording. We were actually quoting the words from the Globe when we wrote these doctors “performed” abortions, not that their wording is necessarily correct. We have put it in quotes above rather than change it, so people can see exactly what you were referring to with your comment.

  11. Jack O'Malley says:

    I should think it would be in O’Malley’s interest to propose a truce if he is feeling any pressure. I doubt whether he is. As for his éminence grise Cardinal Connors, he’s probably enjoying a hearty laugh.

    O’Malley pusillanimously withdrew from Catholic adoptions and caved into the sodomite demands for access to “Catholic” schools. He is not the man to stand dauntless against the secular agenda. If O’Malley really cared about abortion, he would have excommunicated Kennedy, not have presided at his funeral.

    The plain fact is that the Catholic Church in the USA considers the abortion fight lost. Catholic pols will not be disciplined because that would mean no Catholic could be elected.

    A charitable gesture, BCI, but a futile one. O’Malley does not lead the Church Militant. He cowers in the Church Milquetoast.

    • Michael says:

      It is sad but you are correct on each of the examples.

      There is one you missed.

      O’Malley’s words were publicly tough against same-sex “marriage” but his moral courage was absent. He not only had a duty to reveal the fraud that Mitt Romney perpetrated on Massachusetts (and, as Judge Bork forewarned, on the rest of the World), but he stood next to Romney at a podium faking as if they were both figting against the destruction of marriage, while Romney was implementing it. His legal team’s response to learning the truth was “Well what can “O’Malley do about it? What does it matter?”

      The obvious answer to that ridiculous question is that O’Malley still has a duty to expose the fraud of the illegal status of same-sex “marriage” in Massachusetts because IT IS STILL impacting America. Most recently, in the Navy’s attempt to bring same-sex “marriage” to Catholic/Christian chapels on Federal facilities in Massachusetts and other states.

      Cardinal O’Malley has a duty to fight and protect our religious freedoms in Massachusetts/America. He has no right to run away from Catholic adoptions or revealing the fraud of same-sex “marriage.”

  12. Gabriel Austin says:

    “An abortion is committed, not performed”.

    Excellent clarification.

  13. TheLastCatholicinBoston says:

    I think the idea is a bit silly at best. The Diocese has repeatedly described graphic images of the reality of abortion as ‘controversial’ this in spite of the FACT that they are an effective tool in reaching hearts and actually saving babies. Since BCI hold the high orthodox and moral ground, why would you seek a truce?

    This is the diocese where a Priest can take a bus load of parishioners to Foxwoods but is not allowed to take a bus load to Planned Parenthood.

    Fr. Pavone from Priests For Life is speaking at St. Paul’s in Hingham on Friday June 4th at 7:30 pm. I understand he will also be at the Masses offered on Sunday morning.

    To be quite blunt. If the Cardinal does not at the very least send a bold clear and brief letter of support of Fr. Pavone’s visit he will unequivocally and forever separate himself from the Pro-life movement. It should be very obvious he should attend the actual event. He will be receiving a formal invitation this week, if he has not already.

    A few years back when Terri Schiavo’s Sister and Mother came to Boston the Cardinal was nowhere to be found. Most gave him a pass. He needs to realize the faithful are done with the shenanigans, politics, and the church ‘professionals’. The mystique of the beard and the brown felt cloak has been played.

    Fellas, 50,000,000 abortions later and these clowns need a special invitation to truly ‘experience it’ first hand? Wake up.

    It is an offensive suggestion to those tireless pro-lifers who have been in the trenches for decades.

    Perhaps they should ask Fr. Pavone in person about the many babies that have been found in dumpsters or the reality of partial birth abortion.


    No way.

    • TheLastCatholicinBoston says:

      A bit of an update. That be would Saturday June 4th 7:30 pm. and after all Sunday Masses at St. Paul’s Hingham. The Cardinal has been formally invited to the weekends events with Fr. Pavone, he has declined.

      A field trip to see a real baby killing?
      Good luck.

    • LastCatholic,
      Thanks for your comments. BCI is sorry to hear you do not like the idea of a 30-day truce on BCI criticism of Jack Connors and the Cardinal on this one topic, predicated on 3 key officials observing the graphic nature of an abortion. You said that is an effective tool in reaching hearts and saving babies, and we would agree.

      We agree that these individuals should not need a special invitation to “experience it” first-hand. BCI cannot explain or justify why they would need a special invitation to witness the graphic nature of an abortion, or why the Cardinal was not around with Terri Schiavo’s family came to Boston, or why he is not available to hear Fr. Pavone from Priests for Life speak in Hingham. All BCI has control over are the words we write on this blog, and we hope and pray those words are guided by the Holy Spirit. The rest is in the hands of the Lord.

      BCI does not in any way claim or wish to suggest that this blog is in the same league as the tireless pro-lifers in the trenches for decades. So we hope our offer of a 30-day truce in blog criticism on one topic does not offend anyone.

      It still seems to BCI that there is merit for these 3 people to witness an abortion–whether it is watching a movie such as “Eclipse of Reason” or seeing it in-person. On how BCI goes about proposing and encouraging that, we may just need to agree to disagree.

  14. Boston Bob says:

    Just a thought. Since it appears the Cardinal is not going to take stand up to Jack Connors on abortion and Jack is too arrogant and powerful to care, the answer may be to engage pro-life Catholic philanthropists such as John McNiece, Peter Lynch and Jack Shaugnessey, among others, to stand up and challenge Connors in terms of the scandal he brings to the Church. The diminished financial support of these men, if only temporarily, would garner attention.

    • Anonymous Catholic says:

      Boston Bob, it might be feasible to engage perhaps one of the 3 people you named–Jack Shaughnessey, who is very pro-life and a very generous supporter of Catholic causes. If I knew him personally, I’d ask him, but I don’t.

      As for the other two, one is a pro-life Catholic philanthropist but is in failing health. The other is a Catholic philanthropist who has focused primarily on Catholic schools, and I’ve not seen his name associated with any pro-life causes. Unfortunately, I don’t think you will be able to get very far with either of these two gentlemen.

      The late Tom Flatley would have been on-board, and I believe several of his sons are pro-life and carrying on their father’s legacy. I’m no longer giving to the Catholic Appeal but am of modest means. If big donors withheld their contributions, I’m sure it would make a difference.

      • Michael says:

        I don’t know whether the Flatleys have the courage to put their money where their mouth is. It is one thing to say you are pro-life. It is another to admit that the Cardinal is in need of a push. Pushing the Cardinal is sometimes a difficult thing for people of means. It just doesn’t feel proper.

  15. williamh says:

    Cardinal O’Malley: Rome – yes Boston – no
    leadership and taking a stand – no using rule of St. Francis to heal others in need – yes

    Bernard Law is running St. John Lateran Basilica – unfortunately, too fine a position for his caliber; O’Malley – Perhaps, he could rescue the monastery the Pope has had to close.
    What next? Leadership and Guts are utterly lacking in this caliber of men.

    • TheLastCatholicinBoston says:

      forgive me for being off point, but Law in Rome still angers people and I wanted to shed some light on it.
      I had the chance to travel to Rome a few years back. I did stop into Cardinal Laws Basilica. It was by far the dirties, darkest and most poorly kept church that I visited in Italy (40+). The immediate area also was clearly a homosexual hangout with obvious cruising and prostitution going on even during the day; not being my cup of tea, we did not stay long. Most if not all cities have these types areas and always have, so in Rome it was really no surprise. What was a bit of a surprise was that Cardinal Law’s Roman duty was far from a promotion as the press had claimed. I came away with a comforting hope in the wisdom of The Church in placing him there and a sense of the appropriate mortification that Law must face on a daily basis.

      • Liam says:

        Santa Maria Maggiore, of which Law is archpriest, is not particularly dark as great Italian basilicas go, nor is it dirty or poorly kept. It’s rather glorious; the best preserved great church interior of late Antiquity in the West. I’ve been there and many of the churches of Rome and in northern Italy. I wonder if you are referring to his prior titular church, Santa Susanna, which is host to the American community in Rome?

    • williamh,
      Small correction: Cardinal Law is Archpriest of the Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore, not St. John Lateran Basilica.

  16. enoughisenough says:

    On a practical level…suggesting the movie would be better, but you should also ask…is posting this challenge risking an irreversable adversarial stance with whomever will be running the archdiocese next year?

    • enoughisenough,
      BCI is not sure we understand your concern about an “irreversible adversarial stance” well enough to respond. Could you elaborate more about your concern?

  17. williamh says:

    Correction to my earlier comments: Yes, C. Law is at St. Mary Major in Rome, drawing his big check for living. I suggest that: C. O’Malley and C. Law both be assigned to help Ireland clean up its clergy mess and the loss of faith in Ireland and also work on restoring the Cistercian monastery in Italy that succumbed to too much “partying.” Boston desperately needs staunch, truthful, and real leaders to reestablish, hopefully, that Archdiocese. Members of the American hierarcy are in great need of prayer, fasting, and repentance.

  18. TheLastCatholicinBoston says:

    A very timely article…

    Blogs: Hilary White, Rome Correspondent
    Print Article | Email Friend | Reprint Permissions
    Sometimes the horror is too much: ‘Feticide’ and stopping the baby’s heart

    by Hilary White, Rome Correspondent

    Thu May 26, 2011 13:16 EST
    Comments (1)

    I was just reading the report on abortion statistics from England and Wales and was caught off guard by one paragraph:

    For abortions at 22 weeks or beyond, feticide is recommended prior to the evacuation of the uterus to stop the fetal heart. In 2010, of the 1,173 abortions performed at 22 weeks and over, 70% were reported as preceded by a feticide and a further 25% were performed by a method whereby the fetal heart is stopped as part of the procedure. 2% of abortions at 22 weeks or beyond were confirmed as having no feticide. For the remaining 3%, at the time of publication, we had not been able to confirm whether feticide had been performed.

    When we write about these things, it is an absolute necessity to put to one side one’s emotional reactions. In a sense, we have to deliberately become calloused, just as a matter of mental self-defence. I’ve noticed that the very effective pro-life activists who have been around a few years, often develop a very black, sardonic sense of humour as a defence mechanism.

    But every now and then, something particularly cold from the abortionist world will get in through the security fence.

    The cool, clinical description in this Department of Health statistics report of stopping the “fetal heart” as a necessary preliminary to vacuuming out the child, was one of those for me today. I realise it’s becoming a tired analogy, but does this language not in fact rival for clarity that used by the Death Camp officials? The Nazis used euphemistic terms like “special treatment”.

    The UK health department has dropped all pretense that they don’t know precisely what they are talking about.

    These little moments of transfixed horror are necessary, I think. The calloused protective layer can’t be allowed to grow so thick as to preclude all outrage. To allow that might be a way to keep mentally safe, in a sense. But the cost to our souls would be too high.

  19. TheLastCatholicinBoston says:

    …and on we go to other issues and controversies etc.

    Fr. Pavone was excellent. His homily explained the sanctity of Human life and the direct connection to the Incarnation.

    In speaking with him it was clear he sees the Holy spirit moving in his ministry and that it brings him some joy in the face of the great evil of Abortion.

%d bloggers like this: