This piece was published in The Wanderer on October 25, 2012. If you want to know why the Boston Archdiocese still has a lot of problems, here is one of several big contributing factors.
The Eminence Grise of The Boston Archdiocese
By C. JOSEPH DOYLE & PAUL LIKOUDIS
Thirty-four years ago, on March 16,1978, The Wanderer published an editorial by its editor, A.J. Matt Jr., calling on the United States Catholic Conference/ National Conference of Catholic Bishops to fire Fr. Bryan Hehir, associate secretary for international justice and peace, for his relentless advocacy of left-wing politics, especially his role in steering the U.S. bishops away from a principled and forthright opposition to abortion, contraception, and national and international “family planning” programs.
During his 20-year tenure at the USCC/NCCB, from 1972 to 1992, Fr. Hehir was a coordinator and facilitator for the 1976 Call to Action conference in Detroit; he advised the U.S. bishops, and the Holy See, to “regard contraceptive practice as an issue of private morality” — the poisonous fruit of which was episcopal and clerical silence when the purity of children and the rights of parents were assaulted by condom distribution programs in public schools; he advised the bishops, as the presumed originator of the late Joseph Cardinal Bernardin’s “seamless garment” theory, that pushing the abortion issue would cause the Church to lose allies on other social justice issues; and he was instrumental in formulating New York Gov. Mario Cuomo’s infamous 1984 address at Notre Dame, where he articulated the “personally opposed, but” con game on abortion that Catholic politicians could subscribe to Church teaching, but ignore it and oppose it in public policy.
After leaving the USCC/NCCB, Hehir’s influence continued. He was, for example, cited by the Playboy-funded Catholics for a Free Choice for his position that Catholic hospitals should not be exempt from providing contraceptive services to their clients and employees.
Fast-forward: Fr. Bryan Hehir, after leaving the USCC/NCCB, went to Harvard University to teach, and then, after Sean Cardinal O’Malley, OFM Cap., was appointed archbishop of Boston, was brought into the inner circle of archdiocesan leadership, as the head of Catholic Charities and as Cardinal O’Malley’s informal but influential adviser on a host of public policy questions.
Hehir would subsequently join the archdiocesan cabinet as secretary for Health and Social Services. But his portfolio is much broader than that. He was the decisive influence in selecting a new executive director for the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, the lobbying arm for the state’s four Catholic bishops, and has become, effectively, the episcopal moderator for the conference.
Many people believe that most public expressions of Catholic teaching in the archdiocese bear the influence of Fr. Bryan Hehir
Prior to Cardinal O’Malley’s arrival in Boston, the former archbishop, Bernard Cardinal Law, kept Hehir at arm’s length from the central administration of the archdiocese, and even objected to his hiring by Harvard Divinity School. As The Boston Globe reported, September 27, 2003, after O’Malley announced he had hired Hehir as president of Catholic Charities, “Cardinal Bernard F. Law, then archbishop of Boston, made it clear he was unhappy with Hehir being stationed at Harvard, a historically Unitarian school with a reputation for progressive theology.”
During his tenure as president of Catholic Charities in Boston, and then as secretary for Health and Social Services, Hehir has presided over a number of fiascos, including the notorious 2005 “Man of the Year” award to Boston’s fanatically pro-homosexual, pro-abortion, pro-contraception Mayor Thomas M. Menino. After a memorandum by the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts to Cardinal O’Malley detailing and documenting Menino’s decades-long opposition to Catholic teaching was leaked to the press, O’Malley withdrew from the dinner. Hehir persisted in presenting the award to Menino, which resulted in the annual banquet of Catholic Charities being picketed by the Catholic Action League, Operation Rescue Boston, and numerous pro-life groups.
The archdiocese and Catholic Charities were further embarrassed when an aggravated Menino decided to unburden himself to the media on Catholic teaching. Menino explained that abortion, after all, was just “choice,” that pro-lifers were filled with “hate,” and most memorably, “Jesus, you know, didn’t go around all the time talking up God.”
In April 2005, Hehir also criticized the U.S. bishops for threatening to withhold Communion from pro-abortion Catholic politicians, such as Massachusetts’ Sen. John Kerry. At the same time, according to The Boston Globe (April 30, 2005), he expressed his fears of the “conservative” papacy of newly elected Pope Benedict XVI. Other fiascos include Catholic Charities advertising in the viciously anti-Catholic, homosexual newspaper Bay Windows, the decision of the Holy See to order Catholic Charities to cease placing children in homosexual households, the subsequent end to adoption services by the Archdiocese of Boston — viewed by some as Hehir putting a thumb in the eye of the Vatican, and, finally, the infamous Commonwealth Care contract of 2009 in which Caritas Christi Healthcare (the chain of six Catholic hospitals affiliated with the Archdiocese of Boston) was to implement health-care programs for low income residents which included abortion, sterilization, and contraception.
The Boston Globe gleefully broke the story of Catholic complicity in abortion in February 2009, igniting a firestorm in the pro-life community. Instead of immediately pulling the plug on the contract, which was scheduled to go into effect in July 2009, the archdiocese, under Hehir’s influence, needlessly protracted the controversy, resorting to every trick to preserve Caritas Christi involvement in the program. Using Clintonian language, the archdiocese claimed Caritas Christi would not be involved in abortion referrals despite the testimony of officials of the Caritas subsidiary. Because of Hehir’s decision to go through with the contract, it was the end of June 2009 before Cardinal O’Malley ordered Caritas to withdraw, vindicating the very pro-life critics whom the cardinal had castigated a few months earlier as doing “a grave disservice to the Church” with their charges.
There is no question in Boston that Fr. Hehir is the eminence grise of the archdiocese; his fingerprints are on everything.
Under Cardinal Law, all those involved in the Massachusetts Catholic Conference and in the archdiocesan communications office — that is, anyone involved in articulating positions on Catholic issues — were known as conservative, orthodox, and pro-life. Now, under an O’Malley episcopate influenced by Bryan Hehir, Boston Catholics have Terry Donilon — a former aide to Rhode Island’s pro-abortion Gov. Bruce Sundlun and the brother of President Obama’s national security adviser — as the spokesman for the archdiocese; a major Obama-Biden fund raiser, Jack Connors, who serves on the archdiocesan Council of Finance, leads the Catholic schools foundation; and, under Hehir’s leadership at the health secretariat, there was Barney Frank fund-raiser James Karam as chairman of Caritas Christi.
Bottom line: The Archdiocese of Boston has taken a sharp left turn since Cardinal Law’s departure, and there is no indication that will change as long as Fr. Hehir, the ultimate liberal apparatchik, remains in power.
At a moment when the Church is striving to launch a “new evangelization” in this Year of Faith, the Archdiocese of Boston under Fr. Hehir’s leadership is more concerned with conforming to the secular culture, appeasing a hostile liberal media, and protecting renegade pro-abortion Catholic politicians and their apologists in the Catholic community. Hehir calls this “rebuilding trust” with civil society, but that is a ruse for enabling dissent, as Fr. Hehir’s record over 40 years illustrates. + + +
(C. Joseph Doyle is the executive director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts; Paul Likoudis is news editor for The Wanderer.)
# # # #
Does this key advisor to Cardinal O’Malley–who influences everything from public policy to parish configurations–embrace all of the truths of the Catholic faith? His record indicates not. From the perspective of BCI, this is a cause for grave concern.
As Willie C once stated, “it all depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is”. Cardinal Law was part of the “law and order” campaign with O’Connor of New York. He came from Springfield, Mo, and was brought in as a “firefighter” to glue Humpty Dumpty back together after the antics of Cardinal Medeiros with Goeghan and Shanley. There is something very deep going on with Hehir. If you evaluate based on Malachi Martin, you would come up with movement toward a world government and a world religion. The Democrats are moving toward National Socialism and the Republicans are moving toward oblivion. There is every reason in the world for Hehir to be in the inner sanctum as a harbinger of the unfication of church and state and the overthrow of the Vatican.
As goes the Church, so goes the culture. There is a reason Massachusetts votes as it does.
It is extremely important NOT to consider this Hehir issue as a Left VS Right, or a Liberal VS Conservative issue it IS NOT.
Hehir represents the slickest of the slick. These Modernist heretics seek to destroy tradition. And I don’t mean the Latin Mass, I mean The Church as the Pillar of Truth through time.
BCI you are grabbing the Devil by the tail on this one, keep focused on truth. Think Dogma and the heretics will emerge from the dark.
Stephen, thank you for your comment. This is not just a “liberal” vs “conservative” issue, as you observed, since a host of doctrinal issues are involved as well. There are major issues at play here about failure to embrace, support and propagate the truths of our Catholic faith, and instead acting in the name of the Catholic Church in ways that are contrary to the faith.
By polarizing issues into ‘right vs left’ or ‘conservative vs. liberal’ it sanctifies the heterodox as merely expressing a variant but acceptable position. This understanding needs to be emphasized more. We are not talking about opinions but the very Truth of God as it is given to us in the Church.
I don’t think Stephen’s point is good at all. In fact, I re-read the article twice trying to find something to give his concerns credence. He appears to be straigning the gnat
The article cites specific examples of Hehir’s doctrinal and spiritual misfeasance and malfeasance.
If you do not ‘see the point’ of Stephen’s article, it stands to reason that you are unaware of the essence of orthodoxy as opposed to heterodoxy as regards Church teaching. Your dismissal is typical of those who embrace the false in the Church
BCI would ask that readers focus their comments on the main topic of the blog post, rather than cross-talk between readers about how each reader interprets a comment by another reader.
Barbara, CJ Doyle wrote the article, not Stephen. The article is very well done and makes reference to historical facts about Fr. Hehir’s doctrinal dissent and the malfeasance of his superiors who summoned him here to dismantle the Boston Archdiocese from the Roman empire and institute a counterfeit church.
BCI – Stephen’s hysterical comments that you are ‘grabbing the devil by the tail’ by posting this magnificent article call for righteousness and truth. They needed to be addressed and debunked.
BCI agrees the piece by CJ Doyle is very well done. That is why we posted it! BCI interpreted Stephen’s comment about “grabbing the devil by the tail” as a positive one about our posting of this excellent article–namely, that “grabbing the devil by the tail” was a good thing for us to do so as to inflict damage to the evil one. If we misinterpreted it, then we will certainly correct ourselves.
BCI, CJ and Paul’s article has nothing to do with left and right and conservative and liberal so it is difficult to construe his remark as a positive one.
Maybe the disrespect for Blessed Theresa of Calcutta is jading my reception.
The sedevacanists are not adding value to your wonderful apostolate.
This is definitely the devil at work. WHY hasn’t that Hehir been defrocked? He definitely is one of the communists “working” in our church. Are the good shepherds asleep?
It’s the same thing in our congress. We hear of the most horrible actions and NO ONE does anything a bout it!!!
Need you ask if ‘the good shepherds are asleep? How much information do you need in order to see that they are asleep? Many are NOT asleep, but know very well what they are doing. They are wolves in sheep’s clothing.
The likes of this priest have done what they can to redefine Catholicism into something it is not. Although the devastation of their multi-generational effort is obvious throughout the Archdiocese, they have lost the long war. Globalization (primarily the Internet) has allowed unfiltered Catholicism to find its ways back into the homes of those Catholics who still care. That said, I agree with Kate. Why fund those who assault what we find most dear?
If you love our Church, stop giving any monies to the Archdiocese of Boston. There are so many faithful Catholic organizations to give to. Give to the Missionaries of Charity, EWTN, Opus Dei…
Already have stopped – several years ago. Money talks … too bad it has to come to this, but funding the enemy is not a legitimate option.
If you love the church “stop” giving? Why not go join a missionary? How about targeting donations to what it is
you”love”? If you stop donating completely, there will be
no church. Been to a third world country lately?
Not a penny to the Archdiocese of Boston to include local parishes but continue to tithe to the Church.
Actually, you should give “a penny”! Put a penny in your Archdiocesan Appeal envelope and mail it to them along with a note stating why you cannot continue to support RCAB. Because there is money in the envelope they have to count it! Tape the penny to your note. If enough people do this maybe they will get the message.
Kate……Your suggestions are great. However, are you aware that many, and soon all, parishes will be “taxed” 18% of their monthly income and taken out by the archdiose’s personnel and I believe right out of the parish account directly. I feel so bad for the parishes trying to raise funds to survive, but have to DIRECTLY help pay for those “high paying” salaries. I say this because I am “STILL WONDERING” how long we can survive!!!!
BCI– At some point, please list the parishes (if okay with Pastors), that are in the red. Also, list specific needs of the
parishes. Maybe various readers of BCI will step up to the plate and assist by either monetary donations, specific items,
and/or volunteering time.
Lets be honest, reading BCI is a lot more intellectually engaging and entertaining that the average weekly bulletin at any church.
Also, the 18% parish tax may not be applied toward the salaries.
If extremely wealthy donors donate hundreds of thousands of
dollars; maybe that is the money for salaries. Those donors
could probably care less, and may not even think the salaries are high. If a single person earns $40,00-$50,000 what is the tax rate? If a family of four pulls in (drumroll please) $250,000,
by the time they are taxed, what is the net disposable income?
HInt: Don’t bother emailing Professor Warren: She did not appear to grasp the concept of the libaility side of a ledger.
One enables the corruption of the Church by providing monies to those who seek to corrupt it.
Another point not to be lost is financial.
I have always held that the ridiculous salaries in Braintree were set up as a diversion for the ‘little’ people. The modernist would love to continue an asinine dialogue on “the difficultly in quantifying the price of good work” – Don’t buy it.
As Theresa of Calcutta said “God, has plenty of money”
Dogma is the only route with these heretics.
The sanctity of human life is where it begins.
Perhaps a quote from Fr. Hehir saying that abortion is an issue that won’t be solved in our lifetime could be juxtaposed to: http://www.orboston.org/
Sorry Fr. there are 63 infants so far that prove you wrong this year.
I would suggest to simply call Hehir a thief publicly and apologize only when he discloses his income and assets. I bet you’ll find his stuff right under Obama’s Occidental transcript.
Be prudent. Have high salaries ever really been the true issue at hand? or are they simply a strategy and manifestation of the disease of Modernism?
When you got him by the tail, the last thing he wants to do is look you in the eye,
Let them have their salaries. The higher the salary, the higher the taxes.
I was hoping the Boston Archdiocese’s own “ADMAN” would create a great visual campaign for this year. For example, an entire seating section at BC’s football games for religious brothers.
and sisters and seminarians (i.e. like the
Fenway photo). Also, some billboards with
young, fresh faced, charming catholic school students saluting the flag with a cross and/or crucifix on the wall.
Her name is Blessed. Blessed Theresa of Calcutta.
Sorry, I knew her before her promotion.
Gnats, Camels and hysterical comments aside.
I think we are in agreement.
I happen to also believe that 50 million+ abortions in the US are in part due to Hehir and “his role in steering the U.S. bishops away from a principled and forthright opposition to abortion”. My point is that he is not just another left leaning academic opportunist. He has helped to mold policy for the enemies of the faith both inside and outside for nearly a generation.
He is a modernist heretic who should be excommunicated.
Devil by the tail is a metaphor that I stand by.
Pope Leo XIII told of his locution in the 1880’s (search that if you haven’t read it!) and devised the St Michael’s prayer. It was said after each mass, until Vat. II when the devil entered his workers.
The Popes let us down again after Fatima when they did not do as the BVM asked.
We need to let all the Bishops know they are naive and some are not brave to bash over the head, the devil’s workers that he left on earth when his time was up in the 1980s! We faithful are the ones now to carry out God’s work.
PLEASE GOD ENLIGHTEN YOUR “SHEEP”
HAVE MERCY ON US!!!
Bryan Hehir is intelligent, insistent, and in regard to pastoral issues, highly uninformed. Ask any pastor in the Archdiocese of Boston who does the job right.
Bryan Hehir has lived at Saint Paul’s in Cambridge and Saint John’s in Wellesley since 1990 or so. Those are the trenches?
He is the reason Tom Donilon’s formerly colorful brother holds the title Director of Communications (talk about running a political debit account); he is the reason Rasky Baerlein has flourished well beyond its emergency hiring to help respond to the abuse scandal in 2002; and he is the reason Jack Connors has glided through obtaining the RCAB campus in Boston (including all but the walls of the very open seminary) for Boston College, and teeing up Caritas Christi’s hospitals to be dealt to Partners Healthcare eventually. Money flows to Hehir’s pet cause (think Democratic National Committee); the deep pockets get the assets for their entities to burnish their legacies; and Hehir gets to wield power from Harvard and Braintree that make him an asset in Washington.
He’s not the first diocesan priest to collect a large private income (Harvard Kennedy School endowed chair, among other activities) and constantly sate his thirst for power and access. He, like Greeley and McBrien, sees himself as a sort of savior of the faith, repositioning the public face of the Church to be perceived as more “conciliatory.”
To whom is it to be reconciled? In high school, we called them the “cool kids.” If it feels good, do it.
The right ordinary would ease Hehir out of any role or influence in the diocese, but honestly there’s not much left for Hehir to leverage through his ventriloquist role. The jewels are out of the crown, including Mass attendance. He must be about as bored with RCAB as John Kerry is with the Senate.
It seems BCI has deleted my a previous response, which of course is their right.
Again in a nut shell.
Hehir was called out in 1978! on –
“… his role in steering the U.S. bishops away from a principled and forthright opposition to abortion”
To reject church teaching on the sanctity of human life as a clergyman, to my discernment is demonic. A more mild position would label it heretical. To suggest it is due to being highly uninformed is in error, very strongly in error.
Stephen, BCI did not delete any prior response from you.
Our read of the comment by “Objective Observer” is that it was critical of Fr. Hehir, as was the original post, as are your comments. BCI thinks we are all on the same page!
“OO” observed that in regard to “pastoral issues” he is highly uninformed…ask any pastor. BCI did not interpret the comment as specifically relating to doctrinal issues, such church teaching on the sanctity of life. It is correct that he is uninformed with respect to pastoral issues (such as parish planning, which BCI referenced in our post, or other such issues). “OO” did not say Fr. Hehir was correct on doctrinal issues; the commenter merely did not comment on that area, which does not mean they were in error.
We are all in violent agreement that there is a problem with Fr. Bryan Hehir–whether it is his politics, watering-down or flat out rejection of Church teachings, role in selling off of key archdiocesan assets, bringing in key advisors who support abortion, failure to support a culture of life, advising to pay excessive six-figure salaries, modernism and a host of other things.
[…] A Big Factor Why Boston Archdiocese Has Problems: Fr. Bryan Hehir – Bstn Cthlc Insider […]
Excellent post! I think you have merely the tip of the iceberg on Fr. Bryan Hehir. While you are discussing him, you might want to mention his involvement in the Marxist-oriented Institute for Policy Studies. See this blog post:
“Fr. Hehir gave multiple talks there in the 1980s, including speaking in their Washington School series, “Matthew, Marx, Luke, and John” in October of 1983.
As you’ll see by this content on Religious Left Exposed, during the 1980s, the IPS served as a base of operations for those opposed to President Ronald Reagan’s anti-communist foreign policy. It was dedicated to the establishment of revolutionary Marxist and anti-American regimes in Central and Latin America and elsewhere and describes itself as the nation’s oldest progressive multi-issue think-tank. A New York Times Magazine article from April of 2001 exposes IPS as founded on radical, revolutionary and Marxist principles, talking about one contingent described by the IPS director as coming almost completely from a Marxist or liberation basis. One IPS journal has featured “articles celebrating Communist victories in Laos and Angola.”
Fr. Hehir also praised the Catholic Health Association and their President Sr. Carol Keehan at their annual conference for their role in passing Obamacare back in 2010.
I don’t understand why Cardinal O’Malley brought him in in the first place, or why he is still in place? Doesn’t Cardinal O’Malley or anyone in Rome realize the danger of him being in any role of influence in Catholic Church policy or leadership?
The Cardinal brought Fr. Hehir to Boston for the same reasons I introduced my invisible friend to my mother every time something broke.
He is here to take the blame for the execution of the Cardinal’s plans.
After all, what is the poor Cardinal to do? It’s not his fault! Fr. Hehir does all of the Cardinal’s diligence and makes all of the recommendations to him. He merely signs on the dotted lines based upon Fr. Hehir’s recommendations.
Do you know how many Catholic fall for this excuse scandal after scandal, year after year, decade after decade?
I think you are wrong.
Your analogy suggests the Cardinal is a deceiving liar.
I believe the Cardinal is well intentioned but buffaloed by the sophisticated Modernist Hehir.
I agree with you that the Cardinal operates like ” It’s not his fault! ” when things go wrong. But, don’t know that I agree with you Cardinal Sean brought Bryan Hehir to Boston “to take blame for execution of the Cardinal’s plans.” Can you point to what makes you conclude that? I think it’s that Cardinal Sean is a weak ordinary, and he has consciously allowed Hehir, Donilon, Connors, and others to run the show and lead the diocese into a continuing downfall.The two explanations are different.
When Bishop of Fall River, Sean was a much more orthodox bishop in his words, actions and policies. Here in Boston, he has surrounded himself by mostly people who are not orthodox. That’s his decision, and he realizes that because countless people have complained to him and he maintains the status quo.When brought to his attention, he usually says nothing and has a blank look on his face.
But, we don’t see Cardinal Sean “blaming” Bryan Hehir publicly or privately for anything. I’ve never seen or heard that happen in the past 8-9 years. Point of fact, Sean’s publicly defended Hehir. Moreover, this Cardinal floats above everything and doesn’t take responsibility for anything – that’s a problem. So, I I agree with you that with this Cardinal the problems are never his fault or responsibility. But neither does he pin responsibility on others like Hehir – at least from what I’ve seen.
Dear Boston Priest,
It is true that the Cardinal does not himself articulate whose fault it is. He makes clear it isn’t his fault and then lets everyone draw the logical conclusions. Do you find that an honest?
If the housekeeper doesn’t clean the bathroom, when your children complain do you keep telling them it isn’t your fault… for seven years?
It isn’t him. Heavens no.
He doesn’t have to say it. Everyone who knows who Cardinal hired and put in charge, who makes the decisions, who executes plans, draws the conclusions for him.
The Cardinal recruited, hired and retains Hehir and as you point out, defends and protects him. He likes Hehir’s ideas. He is of the same mind.
To be clear, I don’t see the Cardinal as insidious. He is a [edited by BCI]. God bless him.
BTW – I don’t necessarily believe he was orthodox in Fall River. The priests in Fall River were properly formed and nurtured for decades. They rose up the ranks and were in place when he arrived. They were running the ship.
I am writing to apologize to ‘C’. I was wrong; sorry for the confusion
Barbara – peace of Christ.
Thank you, C, I will read more carefully in the future. In God’s peace, Barbara
From your comment I am left wondering just how in touch with reality the Cardinal really is. If the fish smells look to the head, Father Bryan Hehir is able to operate and do all he is doing because he is given the power by the Cardinal. I have myself seen the ‘blank look’ the Cardinal gives when confronted, and it is frustrating and bewildering to behold, especially when one hears that he was orthodox in Fall River. What happened? The Bryan Hehirs of the world can operate when those in authority all of a sudden get stupid. Something is very wrong.
Here’s a suggestion: what if everyone here who is disturbed about Hehir prays at least once a day the prayer to St Michael? We’re dealing with some malevolent influences that go beyond this world.
BCI will again ask that readers focus their comments on the main topic of the blog post, which is the influence of Fr. Bryan Hehir in the Boston Archdiocese. Cross-talk between readers about how each reader interprets a comment by another reader, or jabs back and forth between readers will be moderated.
The closing line of a piece usually sums up the main point or points of the author:
“Bottom line: The Archdiocese of Boston has taken a sharp left turn since Cardinal Law’s departure, and there is no indication that will change as long as Fr. Hehir, the ultimate liberal apparatchik, remains in power.”
It appears that everyone commenting on this thread is in strong agreement that Fr. Hehir is a problem–in multiple ways. For purposes of the discussion here at BCI, we ask that readers stop splitting hairs amongst like-minded Catholics over defining exactly what kind of problem.
Several readers have voiced a view that Cardinal O’Malley has allowed Fr. Hehir to have this level of influence and power, and that is also a problem. BCI agrees. The former Chancellor was moved out (fact) which suggests he was no longer wanted or needed. But despite a well-documented record of malfeasance (fact), Fr. Bryan Hehir remains (fact), suggesting strongly that he still has the support of the Cardinal (opinion, but based on objective observation of the facts), and suggesting that the Cardinal agrees with Fr. Hehir or still wants or needs him.
Comments that are not germane to the main topic of this blog post will be moderated.
Actually, I would not agree. Hehirs influence is vastly overstated. It is a shadow of what it was several years ago. I am not at liberty to provide details but I just want to alert people that all is not what they might prefer it to seem.
You said you are not at liberty to provide details, so on what basis are you making this claim? Allow BCI to give an example:
In 2007, Cardinal O’Malley was quoted in the Boston Globe saying the following:
“I think the Democratic Party, which has been in many parts of the country traditionally the party which Catholics have supported, has been extremely insensitive to the church’s position, on the gospel of life in particular, and on other moral issues,” O’Malley said.
Acknowledging that Catholic voters in Massachusetts generally support Democratic candidates who are in favor of abortion rights, O’Malley said, “I think that, at times, it borders on scandal as far as I’m concerned.”
He has made no such comments in the past 5 years, including during the last election cycle. Do you think that is merely coincidental that Cardinal O’Malley has become silent on this topic?