Does Boston Archdiocese have a “gay network” of clergy too?

Today, we learned that the Cardinal O’Brien of Scotland resigned in the wake of charges he made “inappropriate” sexual advances to four men.  In the past week, most people have probably read media reports about a secret dossier claiming there is a ‘gay network’ inside the Vatican. There is speculation–denied by the Vatican–that this news contributed to the resignation of the Pope.

The drumbeat of these troubling reports from across the Atlantic has prompted BCI to tackle two topics that we have avoided for nearly the past 3 years. They are:

i) Does the Boston Archdiocese have a “gay network” of clergy
ii) Why and how is the gay agenda being advanced within the Boston Archdiocese in parishes and Catholic schools  with tacit approval by Cardinal O’Malley?

We start our coverage on this topic by publishing in its entirety a document titled,”Crisis and Reform in Boston.” What you are about to read was apparently written between the time when Cardinal Bernard Law resigned (December 2002) and when Bishop Sean O’Malley was appointed Archbishop of Boston (July 2003).  We do not know who wrote it or who has seen it.  We posted excerpts in January 2011 (“Musings on the Future of the Boston Archdiocese: Episcopal Leadership“) and in August 2011 (“Episcopal Leadership“).

Much of what was described in the document written about ten years ago still seems to apply today.  It describes the clerical “black wall”, behind which some priests have surrendered completely to the pagan culture of “gay” identity and behavior. It also describes the author’s view of a “perfect Archbishop of Boston” which also could be criteria for the “perfect next Pope.” We were especially struck by the passage about the archbishop needing to “be the pastor of the pastors”  and by the very last sentence: “he must be a passionately effective evangelist because he is first a thoroughly converted disciple of Jesus Christ.”

Crisis and Reform in Boston
(written late December 2002 or winter/spring 2003)

The next Archbishop of Boston will find his particular Church in the midst of a grave crisis of faith and discipline. The public scandals which led to the resignation of Bernard Cardinal Law point to deep and longstanding problems among the priests and people of the Archdiocese, and the nature and magnitude of these problems should be considered in selecting the new pastor of a profoundly troubled Church.

The sketch of life in the Archdiocese of Boston which follows is based largely on anecdotal evidence and the trustworthy testimony of faithful priests and laymen. While this description is necessarily unscientific, it is offered in good faith in the service of understanding the nature and range of the problems the next Archbishop of Boston must confront.

The Present Situation

Clerical Unchastity

The sexual crimes of the priests accused of molesting minors are but a small token of widespread unchastity among the presbyterate. A significant number of priests, both secular and religious, are engaged in regular sexual behavior (most of it homosexual), either with stable sexual partners or in anonymous encounters with strangers met in bars, parks, or through the Internet. Acceptance of such behavior, excused either with a wink and a nudge on the grounds of human weakness or because of rejection of the Church’s teaching on chastity, encourages further unchastity.

Clerical Homosexuality

Many priests in the Archdiocese, certainly a large minority of the presbyterate and perhaps a slight majority of those between 40 and 60, are homosexual men, and many of those have come to understand themselves by reference to their sexual identity as the gay subculture defines it. The open secret of their homosexuality is closely guarded by the silence of a solid clerical “black wall”, behind which some priests have surrendered completely to the pagan culture of “gay” identity and behavior. Many priests socialize only with other active homosexuals, and in this way loose networks of sexually active priests are formed to protect each other from scrutiny.

Clerical Heterodoxy

Widespread rejection by priests of the Church’s teachings on human sexuality, marriage, chastity, birth control, abortion, and homosexuality has not been effectively challenged in Boston, and a culture of “faithful dissent” has taken deep root in the presbyterate. Priests who are no longer in full communion with the Church by reason of their refusal to believe doctrines that must be held (either de fide credenda or de fide tenenda) are nonetheless still holding ecclesiastical offices in which they are charged to teach, sanctify, and govern some portion of the flock. The fact that heterodox priests are not publicly corrected or disciplined encourages more priests to embrace false teaching.

Irish Tribal Clericalism

One under-reported dimension of the scandals of 2002 is the ersatz clericalism found among priests of Irish ancestry. With very few exceptions, both the priests accused of sexual crimes and the bishops who protected them from legal action were all of Irish descent. The instinct to protect members of one’s own “tribe”, no matter what the offense, is a common feature of embattled ethnic minorities, and the effects of this culture in the Archdiocese of Boston cannot be underestimated.

Clerical Mendacity

To protect themselves from accountability for all of the above and other forms of misconduct, many priests habitually lie about almost every part of their lives. The mendacity is then excused with vague incantations about “mental reservation” and “internal forum”, and a vicious cycle is established: unchastity leads to mendacity, and mendacity leads to more unchastity. It should surprise no one that in this poisoned environment prayer ceases, faith collapses, and every form of sinful self-indulgence finds a home. The result is men in the pastoral office who no longer seek to follow the Lord Jesus in the Way of the Cross.

Intellectual Dishonesty

The aberrant behaviors and beliefs described above are not secret. The movement called “Voice of the Faithful” has given a public face to what has existed for at least 35 years: stubborn and organized refusal to believe what the Church teaches about human sexuality. This heterodoxy, however, is described by its proponents in one way or another as “faithful dissent” i.e., something a Catholic can embrace without in any way damaging his communion with the Church. There are many engines of this dissent, but the Jesuits and theology faculty of Boston College must be ranked among the chief architects of this intellectual dishonesty. They must be challenged directly.

Ecclesial Crisis

The nature and authority of the episcopate is being seriously contested by various parties in the Archdiocese, and the next Archbishop will inherit a presbyterate and a flock in which leading voices implicitly or explicitly reject his authority to teach, sanctify, and govern the Church in Boston. The refusal of the Board of Directors of Catholic Charities to obey the explicit instructions of Bishop Richard Lennon about accepting funds from “Voice of the Faithful” is a small but significant indicator of the sort of rebellion now taking hold in the Archdiocese. The priests and lay people who lead “Voice of the Faithful” are consciously dedicated to a vision of the Church which is not Catholic, and the next Archbishop must be prepared to remove from ecclesiastical office all persons who cannot (in truth and without evasion) make the Profession of Faith and the Oath of Fidelity.

Bait and Switch

To reform the Church in Boston, the next Archbishop must fully understand what this crisis is and is not about. The crisis confronting the Church was most emphatically not caused by pedophilia; it was caused by massive infidelity of priests and bishops to the promises of their Baptism and their Ordination. Psychological counseling is not the remedy for sin and infidelity to the Gospel, and the Church, therefore, cannot be reformed by sending more priests to St. Luke’s Institute and other centers of psychotherapy. Radical conversion to Christ is the only way forward.

The Next Archbishop

To Teach, To Sanctify, To Govern

To respond to these problems in Boston, the next Archbishop must be a man

+who grasps that this crisis is about faith in and fidelity to the Lord Jesus Christ. True reform is impossible without a direct challenge to the various false religions now in competition with revealed Truth. The next Archbishop must take nothing for granted and be prepared to engage in the New Evangelization almost as a First Evangelization, beginning with his presbyterate. To do this will require both clear and persuasive preaching of the truth and effective and direct refutation of error.

+whose life is blameless. If there are any scandals or habitual sins in his life, the dissident priests whom he must discipline will find them and use them in the media to destroy him.

+who is not afraid to be hated. Responding to the crisis in Boston will require the effective use of sanctions and discipline, and this will make the next Archbishop a man reviled by some.

+who is not afraid of controversy. There is no way to reform the Church in Boston without public controversy, some of which will be bitter and vitriolic. A man who runs from conflict cannot reform this Church. The Boston Globe will doubtless continue its campaign against Catholicism in various ways, and the next Archbishop must be prepared to be a stumbling block, not a media darling. And the internal opposition from Boston College will be even more crippling to any effort for reform.

+who is a radically obedient disciple of Jesus Christ. An Archbishop who is more conscious of the power and prerogatives of his office than of the dignity of his Baptism will make himself an object of public ridicule. He must be prepared to live a simple, evangelical life and to speak always in clear, evangelical language. The legalistic evasiveness and psychological jargon so common in the public utterances of many bishops can have no further place in Boston.

+who is a priest in every part of his being. An Archbishop who prays and celebrates the Holy Eucharist in a way that draws others into the heart of the Paschal Mystery will lead lasting reform by priestly example. A man without great integrity of life and faith, of personality and action, will not be able to sustain the sacrifices that must be made for genuine reform.

+who is an evangelist. Boston does not need a manager, a financier, or a consultant for an Archbishop; Boston needs a prophetic preacher of the Gospel who can convince other people of the truth of God’s Word because he both knows and believes it himself.

+who is not captive to Irish clericalism. Any priest who is bound to the “tribe” of Boston’s Irish clergy will be absolutely incapable of reforming the presbyterate.

+who is willing to make the Church smaller in order to make it larger. The cancer of dissent has created an (until now) invisible schism which has already made the Church in Boston much smaller than it appears to be. The next Archbishop must be prepared to acknowledge this fact (with canonical sanctions when necessary) and then preach the Catholic faith in its fullness and integrity. For this to happen some institutions may have to be abandoned, and some persons will have to be shown the consequences of their ideas, but absent such honesty, there will be no reform in Boston.

+who understands the essential and intrinsic connections among doctrinal clarity, moral probity, and ecclesial order. The disintegration of ecclesial life now unfolding in Boston is the result of the effective sundering of these three legs of one stool by the guild of dissent among priests, lay catechists, and theologians. Restoring the integrity of ecclesial life, therefore, will require the next Archbishop to restore in public and effective ways the connections among faith, life, and order, and such restoration will be impossible without directly dismantling the guild of dissent.

+who can be the pastor of the pastors. The Archbishop cannot be the pastor of every parish in Boston; he must be the pastor of the pastors, and he must make his highest priority the pastoral care of his priests and the recruiting and training of future priests. To reform the presbyterate, he must be personally involved on a daily basis in teaching his priests…in exhorting them, encouraging them, correcting them, and when necessary reproving them. He must also be directly and personally involved in selecting and forming seminarians for priestly ordination. While he will, of course, need help in such work, these tasks simply cannot be delegated to anyone else.

+who has a clear and authentically Catholic vision of the sacramental economy as a coherent whole and as the essential means for unveiling the eternal Plan of Salvation for God’s people. The liturgical, doctrinal, and disciplinary fragmentation and incoherence of the past thirty years have obscured from sight the intrinsic order and beauty of the sacramental economy and made much more difficult the task of teaching revealed truth. The next Archbishop should be a priest capable of elucidating for his priests and people the internal logic, immeasurable beauty, and divine wisdom of the Logos tou Theou.

Reasons to Hope

The Faithful

The lay faithful of Christ in Boston continue by the hundreds of thousands to “believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God”. These people deserve a shepherd willing to make personal sacrifices for the Gospel, and they will respond with heroic generosity and courage to his stewardship if he proves himself to be a fearless preacher and a genuine priest.

Young Priests

Despite the chaos in the Church and in large measure because of the witness of Pope John Paul II, many of the men ordained in the past 5 years are obedient disciples of the Lord Jesus and faithful priests of the Church. These young men will have to assume the burdens of leadership at an early age, and if they perceive in their next Archbishop a true father in God and witness to Christ, they will move heaven and earth to help him reform the Archdiocese of Boston.

Wavering Priests

Notwithstanding the decades of dissent, unchastity, and mendacity, many priests of Boston still hear the voice of God in their conscience and are yearning (even if unconsciously) for a prophet to come and lead them out of slavery to sin. A bold man of  God in the Chair of the Archbishop could ignite a divine spark in the hearts of those priests and bring them through conversion back to the grace of their ordination. The witness of such men would be a powerful force for reform.


A providential opportunity is at hand in Boston—a rare moment of grace when dissent, confusion, degeneracy, and chaos can be challenged and overcome by the Word of God. For this opportunity to be seized, though, the Church in Boston needs a bishop who is not bound by clerical custom, tribal instinct, or personal fear. Given the causes of the crisis in Boston, business as usual will lead to disastrous consequences. The next Archbishop of Boston can and should be a bold disciple of the Lord Jesus who can bear powerful witness to the Resurrection of Christ and the truth of the Catholic faith; he must be a confident and persuasive teacher of the Gospel and a skillful shepherd of souls. Such a man in Boston, precisely because of the acute crisis and the public attention focused there, could help lead a true and lasting reform of the entire Church in the United States.

The next Archbishop of Boston should not be a “safe” candidate selected by the usual means from among the conventional candidates. Such men are largely responsible for the sorry state of the Church today; one more of that sort will not lead us out of crisis into reform. Boston needs an Archbishop who will teach, sanctify, and govern his people and priests with the courage, conviction, and confidence that come from personal conversion to Jesus Christ and a life-changing decision to follow Him in the Way of the Cross. For true reform to take place, the next Archbishop of Boston cannot be a chancery bureaucrat, an office manager, or a dialogue facilitator who understands his task as the mediation of internal disputes between “liberal” and “conservative” Catholics; he must be a passionately effective evangelist because he is first a thoroughly converted disciple of Jesus Christ.

#   #   #   #

We have heard reports for years about priests speaking in support of “gay marriage,” violating their vows of celibacy by living with men commonly known to be their “boyfriend,” or blessing “gay marriages”–and the complaints are largely ignored by Cardinal O’Malley and the Boston Archdiocese. We know the Cardinal and Schools Superintendent pushed through a policy rooted in deception to admit children of gay parents to Catholic Schools. Furthermore, the Schools Superintendent, paid $341K/year, claims to be unaware of any “gay agenda” and has ignored concerns about the gay agenda in Catholic Schools she has oversight for.

We need to pray fervently for our priests and for the Archbishop of Boston. If you have evidence or specific examples of the existence of a “gay network” of clergy in Boston and/or evidence of how the gay agenda is being advanced within the Boston Archdiocese, please email bostoncatholicinsider(at) or contact us here.

68 Responses to Does Boston Archdiocese have a “gay network” of clergy too?

  1. Faithful Catholic Joe says:

    BCI, excellent post! This should be shared with Cardinal O’Malley. I think the criteria for the “next archbishop” is what we need TODAY in Boston and basically in the next pope.

    Have you seen this video?

    You asked for examples. Have you looked at the history of the pastors currently serving at St. M. in [edited by BCI] or St. S in [edited by BCI]

    Keep up the great work and God bless!

  2. JUSTSAYIN' says:

    Wow! Then couple all this with Vatican Bank issue and wonder if blackmail leads there. Money, money, money . . .

    Agree here with Vortex that it took a very frail and aged Pope, with exceptional insight, perspective and selflessness, to step down to allow a real cleaning of house. Without Pope Benedict’s resignation, none of this would have been possible.

    Wonder what precipitated the Boston “study.” This had to have been perceived as a huge problem here going back years.

  3. Boston Pastor says:

    Thanks for tackling the “elephant in the room”, or at least trying to. Clergy faithful to their vows of celibacy have complained about this situation for years to no avail. Were I to be found having a girlfriend, I would be removed from ministry, but if found to have a “boyfriend” I would be protected. (I have neither). Openly gay Boston clergy enjoy summer homes and vacations at the same time in Provincetown, while priests faithful to their vows toil away saying Masses at multiple parishes, administering the sacraments, visiting the sick in hospitals and exercising our ministry as Jesus would have us do.

    I don’t know why Cardinal Sean has allowed this. Is it just so that certain outspoken priests would stop their public criticism of the Catholic Church and Catholic teachings (and just keep their criticism private, within their parish)?

    I pray the Holy Spirit will grace us with a new pope who will do something about this.

    • Michael says:

      With all due respect to all of the honorable Catholic faithful priests of the Archdiocese. If you know something and have not come out publicly to correct it, risking your own future as a priest, then you are partly culpable. I know this sounds harsh, but the problem is the failure to stand up and end the problem.

      I once had a priest (before the homosexual scandal in the Boston Archdiocese happened) say to me: “You would not believe what happens at ST. John’s Seminary.” I, being naive, had n idea what he was talking about. But I sai, well do something about it. He said: “I can’t.” I said “Of course you can.”

      With all due respect to him, he had a duty to do something about it. Same with you … if you are a priest and you know of a moral problem in the church, it is much more scandalous to allow it to go on, than to expose it.

    • JUSTSAYIN' says:

      Boston Pastor, I guess no one said it but thank you for your candor, and thank you for your devotion to your flock and faithfulness to your vows. It does not go unnoticed. Further, had you complained, I really doubt anything good would have come of that. it is not as if “the situation” is a secret. Just sayin’ . . .

    • Just Another Priest says:

      Boston Pastor hit the nail on the head. In the Seminary, the faculty would destroy anyone that made a single comment about the gay subculture that was present.
      After ordination, it becomes clear that you must be in one of their “cliques” if you are to be considered for any decent assignment, or at the very least you’d better find yourself an “advocate” to help you.
      I also agree with the report that the “younger” priests are more faithful to Church teachings, but have to say that in my dealings with some of them (not many) they have been woefully lacking in some important Pastoral skills.
      Personally, the issue has led to isolation, where I try to stay to myself, do the best work I can, given my own faults and sins, and try to avoid even talking about the subject. I avoid priest gatherings as much as I can.
      I don’t know with any certainty who is gay and who isn’t, and haven’t tried to find out. I am afraid of other priests, though I love being a priest, but can only imagine what would happen to me if I spoke up.
      I know it sounds cowardly on my part, but unless you live in the middle of it, it’s difficult to express how oppressive the culture can be. Please pray for all of us.

      • JUSTSAYIN' says:

        Just Another Priest, thank you also for your candor. You are a realist and wise one at that. Your post makes me so sad though.

      • Stephen says:

        It sounds cowardly because it is cowardly.
        Be extraordinary, learn and offer the Latin Mass.

  4. Lazarus' Table says:

    Do bears poop in the forest??

  5. Eva Arnott says:

    As there are more than a billion Catholics and a million priests and religious, we can be sure that at any given time, some will be doing something that, when they examine their conscience, they come to regret. Surely, a person’s fantasies and temptations are not what is important. What matters is whether he or she behaves responsibly. I’m not an ‘insider’ in the Church, but am aware that if every middle-aged married academic in the Boston area who had an ‘inappropriate relationship’ with an undergraduate of the same or opposite sex, were fired, there would no longer be a surplus of college faculty members.

    • Michael says:

      A pointless statement. Common prudence is not reasonable prudence. There is objective right and wrong. And there are consequences for both actions.

    • Michael Brennick says:

      Ms. Arnott:

      This is the conclusion I glean from your posting:

      -If university faculty banded together to form a “Seduction Society” to promote faculty/undergrad sexual encounters the proper response of administration, parents, alumni, responsible faculty should be: ah well boys will be boys and girls will be girls. let’s not rock the boat!!

      • Eva Arnott says:

        I’m in no way condoning exploitative behavior by anyone. My point is simply that there’s a lot of it around and we hear about it much more when Catholics, especially clergy, are the offenders than we do in other contexts in which it is unfortunately just as common.

    • Stephen says:

      Are you the spokeswoman for the culture of death?
      Your wink, wink, ‘inappropriate relationship’ is gross.

  6. Gail says:

    And Voice of the Faithful still meets on church property. Here’s an excerpt from the Feb. 24 bulletin of St. Albert the Great Parish in Weymouth: “VOICE OF THE FAITHFUL: Meets 2nd Tuesday of each month (except August) at 7:00pm in Fr. Bryson Church Hall.”

  7. BettyDraper says:

    Dear BCI,

    You may be correct. But, please consider another approach to achieve this desired outcome. Do you
    really want to have a hand in publicly humiliating
    another human being if this can be avoided?
    With specific regards to the “Irish” commentary,
    give some credit where credit is due: Could it be
    that any sexual practice would be preferable to
    these persons other than one conducive to a potential
    unwanted pregnancy or abortion? Perhaps it is
    their deep faith that prohibits any behavior that
    could lead to the ultimate sin?

    Perhaps moving forward seminaries will offer a dual
    track during formation, requiring young men to
    acquire an additional vocation (electrician, doctor,
    teacher, etc). In other words, if and when a pastor
    discovers he wants out, he is not an indentured servant–financially speaking. In this way the pastor can still be part of the Catholic family
    without the stress and anxiety of ambiguity.

    What do you think BCI?

    • “BettyDraper”,

      The purpose of seminaries is to train men how to be priests. If they don’t wish to become priests, then the seminary is not the place for them. It’s just like going to medical school and NOT wanting to become a doctor.

      • BettyDraper says:

        Dear Mr. Whittle,

        The essence was not an issue of “want.” The issue is of one
        sincerely believing they “wanted” a vocation, but reality and/or unforseen circumstances proved otherwise. I am not disagreeing with the validity of the basic premise of this
        entree, however, to bait the public to report real or imagined
        activity on the part of a pastor seems like a cheap shot
        with the potential for irreversible damage to the reputaion,
        and livlihood of the individual.

        If someone did this to one of my current or former pastors,
        I would find a lawyer and file a lawsuit against the person.
        If I could not find a lawyer (unlikely); I will go to law school and
        do it myself.

    • Anni says:

      BettyDraper – your suggestion that priests engaging in homosexual activity is “better” than in heterosexual activity that could lead to abortion is beyond ridiculous!

      First, priests take a vow and are called to CHASTITY. There is a difference between celibacy and chastity. Celibacy means to remain unmarried. Chastity means to direct sexual activity and expression toward its proper purpose based on state of life. We are all called to chastity, but only some of us are called to celibacy.

      For a celibate person, chastity means abstinence from sexual activity that belongs by right to married persons. It doesn’t mean that a celibate person is a “neutered” person; celibate people must express their sexuality in ways that are appropriate to their state of life.

      For a priest to engage in homosexual activity is a violation of chastity, even if he remains technically “celibate”. We cannot accept one type of genital sexual activity as a “lesser of two evils” compared to another.

      To even suggest that priests engaging in homosexual activity because of their “deep faith” and their wanting to avoid a potential pregnancy or abortion is an insult to all the priests, religious men and women, and celibate lay people, including those with homosexual tendencies, who manage to live chaste lives and who struggle daily to follow the teachings of the Church and their belief in the Gospel.

      Second, what makes you think that a priest who would think nothing of having a sexual relationship with a woman in violation of his sacred vows would not also not think twice about suggested that one of both of them should use “protection” to avoid the “scandal” of a possible outcome of that activity?

      Your straw man easily burns – and not just from passion.


      • BettyDraper says:


        As mentioned above, I am not stating that
        you are innacurate. This approach of
        baiting the public (with a supposed readership
        of 250,000) to report individuals is cruel.
        What if some malicious person came on this site and started accusations before you had the opportunity to remove them? What if the
        person accused you? Did you ever think of
        that possible outcome?

      • BettyDraper,

        We asked people to write to us privately. When people write about these concerns to the Boston Archdicoese, they are generally ignored. We know about a number of situations already that are documented and where the archdiocese has not taken action.

        If you or others have a problem with how BCI is approaching this, you should go to Cardinal O’Malley and Vicar General Bishop Deeley and ask them to implement a process whereby people can both report these situations and be assured the archdiocese will take appropriate action. Let us know how they respond.

      • Michael says:

        Cruel … or charitable. There was no request for anyone to be named publicly in comments. Betty, enough with the propaganda.

      • anonymous says:


        It is one step short of requesting
        names. If you cannot see this, please
        consider an eye exam.

      • Michael says:

        You appear to have zero interest in whether there are individuals/groups actively working to undermine the Catholic Church. Are you one of them?

    • BettyDraper,

      BCI thinks your suggestions are both without merit. Frankly, your comments are becoming so far off-base that BCI is starting to speculate that your commentary is intended to distract from the main topics of our posts. You are on the borderline of being blocked from further commenting here.

      No, it would not be permissible for priests to engage in “any sexual practice” as preferable to male/female sexual activity that could potentially lead to an unwanted pregnancy or abortion? It is beyond insulting to priests and a whole host of people for you to even suggest that.

      A Catholic seminary is not a trade-school–the purpose of a seminary is to educate and form students in theology to prepare them for ordination to the priesthood. Period. Students go to medical school to train for becoming a doctor, or a vocational/technical school for training to be an electrician. Your suggestion here is silly.

      If your purpose is to distract from the topics of our blog posts, kindly stop. Any more posts like this and you will be blocked from commenting.

      • JUSTSAYIN' says:

        BCI, please don’t block BettyDraper. It should be ok to disagree with you or a post once in a while. That is healthy and leads to a more enlightened dialogue. Question: Why are you collecting “data”? Like BettyDraper, I read your post as an invitation to publicly out “gay” clerics. While it does not explicitely ask people to do that, it certainly invites that kind of slip. Like BettyDraper, I really would not like to see any cleric publicly humiliated here and hopefully that won’t happen. .

      • JUSTSAYIN’

        BCI does not make decisions to block people from commenting without good cause. A disagreement in viewpoint has never been a reason for us to block people. But consistently taking the discussion way off-topic even after multiple warnings is reasonable grounds in our opinion. That is what BettyDraper is doing.

      • BettyDraper says:

        BCI & Readers,

        I sort of owe an apology. It was only a few weeks ago that
        I hit the space button on my computer & the screen rolled up and I realized there was a theme, and the theme was
        Contempt. I believed you were seriously looking for solutions to problems. However, yesterday’s energy was in some bizarre
        and inadvertantly fruitful. The exchange beautifully illustrates
        a creative, energetic “outside the box” thinker
        would fail to thrive in this environment. This is the same with
        many businesses, which is why they would hire an advertising
        agency–to avoid battles. Just becaue I put forth a potential hypothesis of motivation for behavior doesn’t mean anything:
        None of my ideas came from any “bad” teaching at any church.

        And, with the church in such need of vocations, one would think
        potential solutions would be welcomed. Priests and religious
        sisters were the chief executives of appx 796
        Catholic Hospitals in 1968.

        Does the suggestion seem less silly?

      • “BettyDraper,”

        If you are asking our opinion on both of your suggestions, even with your explanation, yes, they honestly seem silly, outrageous, and in one of the two cases, highly offensive.

        Yes, priests and religious used to be presidents of hospitals. They were formed in a seminary or religious community and took on a job running a hospital (or college) that was a part of their ministry or vocation to the priesthood or religious life. That’s wildly different than somehow trying to turn a seminary into a place that could train electricians or doctors.

        The concept you suggested of why priests would engage in homosexual activity has already been characterized as highly offensive, and we need not repeat the reasons why again.

    • Kate says:

      Consider whether the various responses of “Betty” incriminate:

      1. An unbelievably bizarre rationalization for unchaste behavior. 2. Concern about public humiliation but no concern expressed for the deviant behavior of the clerics.
      3. A view of the purpose of a seminary as being for the enrichment of the seminarian.
      4. A similar view of the priesthood as being for the enrichment of the priest insofar as the Church needs to prepare them for financially feasible jobs when they break their vows due to sexual relationships.
      5. The threat of “I would find a lawyer…”

      The “lady” doth protest too much, methinks.

    • Michael Brennick says:

      Ms. Betty:

      I suspect you are a troll. Please confirm by answering the following questions:

      -do you believe homosexual “marriage” is equal to both civil and canonical marriage between a man and a woman?

      -would you like the Magisterium of the Catholic Church to approve the pagan sexual practices of the secularized and nihilist Western world/

  8. Generally, it seems like recent ordinands under Benedict and near the end of John Paul II’s reign actually take their vows of celibacy very seriously (including the priest whom I’m childhood friends with the family). They wear cassocks and birettas, recite the Breviary, answer sick calls, often times pray the Rosary and Chaplet of Divine Mercy at 3PM. Many of them have been trained in the Traditional Latin rites and use them.

    On the other hand, many priests over 55 just wear a clerical suit with a collar to identify themselves as priests. (Recently, I’ve also seen a promo with “Father” dressed in a regular suit and tie!) They have fancy cars and are allowed to take vacations like a regular layman can, just as “Boston Pastor” mentioned above. Some are even retiring younger and younger just to go golfing hoping they can beat Tiger Woods for a spot on the Olympic Golf Team.

    Why are these older priests thinking that priesthood is a job and not a vocation (the others being consecrated life or marriage)?

    The cassock is the clerics uniform. The band on the outside of the cassock, called a fascia, is wrapped around the belt externally. This shows that the person dressed in a cassock is bound the the vow of celibacy. The fascia is black for subdeacons, deacons, & priests, purple for bishops, scarlet red for cardinals, and white for the Pope (with a white cassock).

    When vesting for Mass, the priest puts on the cincture after the alb, which symbolizes chastity. The most outer Mass vestment, the chasuble (“little house”), symbolizes charity in God’s house.

    So when a cleric abandons his cassock and fascia, doesn’t this mean he has abandoned his vow of celibacy? This is also ironic because after Vatican II, many dioceses established a permanent diaconate for married men, and have never saw a permanent deacon in a cassock in my lifetime (married or celibate).

    • Michael says:

      The cincture – symbolizes chastity and it is a lie to place it on knowing you are not chaste and have no intention of remaining chaste in the future. Good luck to you once you awaken to that reality.

  9. church mouse says:

    Betty Draper – I’ve often wondered after reading your comments what your objective was. I can’t help thinking that your misrepresentation of the BCI authors request at the end of their post does not emanate from confusion or a misreading but is deliberate. BCI’s request in today’s post was – “If you have evidence or specific examples of the existence of a “gay network” of clergy in Boston and/or evidence of how the gay agenda is being advanced within the Boston Archdiocese, please email bostoncatholicinsider(at) or contact us here.” There is no mention in today’s post of naming individuals as you state.

  10. jbq2 says:

    Being from the Midwest, I have to comment on Cardinal Law who was sent in as a “firefighter” from Splringfield to undo the damage done by Archbishop Medeiros. Medeiros had sent Geoghan and Shanley into the gay community to act as “chaplains”. It was Law’s decision to use the prevaling attiutude of forgiveness and rehabilitation of wayward priests. Unfortunately, there was an agenda foisted by the likes of “Voice of the Faithful” with the support of the radical wing of the Jesuits to accept the gay lifestyle as an alternative lifestyle which needed to be accepted by the “priesthood of the laity”. Their idea is to join church and state in that world socialist government talked about by Malachi Martin in his writings.

    • Michael says:

      Why do we not get the truth from our Bishops, especially Cardinal O’Malley?


      • anonymous says:


        That was a beautiful article.
        Thank you.

      • hrh says:

        Total BS and so very damaging to any young person searching for him/herself. Shame, shame, shame on you.

      • hrh,
        As Kate noted, this is not the first time you have made spurious comment here worded as though it is fact, when it is merely your opinion and has no factual basis at all. For this post:

        you used the strong language “truth be told” that the bishop takes millions in cash to the Pope at the “ad limina” visit and “that’s the most important aspect” of the visit, when your comment was lacking any substantiation and was flagrantly incorrect.

        With this comment, you continue your pattern of throwing out an “firebomb” via comments as though it is fact, when it is merely your opinion–which is unsubstantiated by any facts. Kindly take your unsubstantiated claims and opinions elsewhere.

      • Kate says:

        Googling reveals that hrh has two other posts on BCI. One implies home-schoolers are deficient and the other impugns the integrity of the Pope & the ad limina visits. Precisely the kind of attitudes one would expect from the folks being discussed. I would like to know where his & Betty’s IPs resolve to–not to imply that the Archdiocese of Boston rectories/chanceries in the immediate vicinity of the IPs would necessarily be associated with the postings.

      • Michael says:

        Watch out, you might get Betty mad. Trying to figure out who the soomites (not “gay”) juveniles (not men) are, is not Christian in her (or more likely his) world. Does Betty DRaper stand for something? Why would someone use a name Bet He’d Rape Her? Clearly a sick individual. Oh I know, Betty is going to scan through the Yellow pages now identifying some poor old lady named Elizabeth Draper … right.

      • Michael,
        BCI thinks the explanation for the name, “Betty Draper” is much more straightforward. Betty Draper is a fictional character on the television series, “Mad Men
        She is known for being blonde and beautiful but also selfish, cold and emotionally immature (Wikipedia description).

        In comments on this recent BCI post, Fleecing the Flock, we criticized “Betty Draper” and gave her this feedback:

        “BCI is sorely tempted to moderate your message because you are not only extremely far from the topic of this post, but you are spewing opinions and beliefs with no factual basis…

        This post is about “fleecing the flock” financially. Any future comments that are not about that topic will be removed.”

        The person posting as “Betty Draper” is continuing to do that which we asked him or her to stop doing several weeks ago. One more time, and “Betty Draper” will be blocked.

      • BettyDraper says:

        “Michael”–BCI was correct about the sraight forward implication of the name. Do you want to know exactly why I picked the name?
        Because I was hoping “SOMEONE” in the archdiocese would do more to repair the damage done to our pastors reputations.
        So I just make up the name Holy Day Hill
        Advertising Agency. Where did I get the idea
        to call it Holy Day Hill? I was watching Fox News one day and Bishop Dolan was talking to
        someone and they said “Happy Holidays”, and,
        he kind of looked down and softly said,
        “Holy Day.” Then one day I was reading this
        BCI, and/or something else and saw Hill Holiday Advertising, and just flipped the words around as a creative gift for the church.
        If it so upsetting, I will D/C the name.

  11. Lost in Boston says:

    I have always wondered how many men do not enter seminary because they have heard what goes (went) on in there. I was accepted there in the late 70’s and had a verry interesting interview. Coming from an extremely sheltered childhood and believing what I was taught by the good sisters I was completely shocked by some of the questions I was required to answer to more than one priest. I answered truthfully and received some very different reactions. I decided to decline admission because of a few uncomfortable questions and I wonder how many good and faithful men have done the same?

  12. Bricks and Mortar says:

    No, BCI. You monkeys got it wrong again! O’Malley IS the man to bring reform here. You fatuous BCI nincompoops obviously have no knowledge of recent RCAB history. Let me help you (although, in your arrogance I bet you won’t accept my help).

    The seminary needed serious reform. The one who brought that reform was the Dominican rector. He demanded excellence of the faculty and seminarians. Corrected errors in the seminary. He intensified Eucharistic Adoration, love for the Holy Father and the Rosary. He took a vested interest in preaching and candidate evaluation. Many credit Bishop Lennon for putting the Dominican there. BUT – and this is where you BCI dim wits shine forth in all your splendor – it was O’Malley who kept the Dominican there when many forces in RCAB wanted him removed!

    Members of the seminary board of trustees wanted to “use their power to remove [the Dominican] as rector.” The presbyteral council, in 2005 dominated by dissidents, constantly complained about the terrible things happening at the seminary. What were these terrible things? Adoration, reverence, Magisterial Fidelity, demand for excellence. In meetings throughout the archdiocese, these dissidents ran a whispering campaign against the rector. Then, these fatuous nincompoops demanded the rector be brought before them and interrogated (it was their version of BCI, you know… )

    Your hero Bishop D’Arcy removed his seminarians from the seminary because he did not like the leadership ways of the rector. This is odd, because both D’Arcy and the Dominican shared the same ecclesial vision. So why did D’Arcy remove his seminarians? I’m sure you BCI reptiles know that. You do, don’t you?

    The dissidents in Boston demanded that O’Malley remove the Dominican. And guess what. O’Malley kept him there. Yes, they disagreed over the sale of the property, but the Dominican was able to accomplish what the Franciscan kept him there to do. Reform the seminary.

    And you empty heads from BCI want to attack the Archbishop? You rainy day women are so blind. All you think about is money money money. And because it’s not handled in the diocese the way you want it handled (that is, put in the pockets of you and your fellow clowns), you want to criticize the great bishop who has accomplished the impossible task of reforming the seminary – something that will have good results in generations to come. Well, this reform won’t line your monkey pockets with any cash, so you probably won’t like it anyway.

    Moderate. This.

    • Bricks and Mortar,
      In the back and forth of 2 weeks ago on the Bishop D’Arcy post, you continually refused to respond to our logically-presented questions or identify any specific objection to the post. As such, we decided to moderate any future comments from you. In your comment this evening, we thought that we might find ourselves in agreement and able to have a rational and logical interchange, but you continue to spin in circles. Still, since you had some facts correct, we decided to let it go through.

      We here are BCI who you spurilously call “monkeys” “rainy day women,” and “fatuous Nincompoops” have a very deep knowledge of recent RCAB history–in fact, we think and will prove it is much better than yours. We know the whole history of St. John’s Seminary and have written about much of it extensively here. We at BCI are great fans of the Dominican rector, and we agree with almost everything you said about him and his success reforming the seminary!

      His appointment as rector was announced June 1, 2003 (a few weeks before Sean O’Malley was named Archbishop of Boston). The Dominican was appointed by Bishop Richard Lennon, and started in July of 2003. He remained in the job 4 years. You are correct that the seminary needed serious reform, and the Dominican rector delivered. We agree with you 100% that “He demanded excellence of the faculty and seminarians. Corrected errors in the seminary. He intensified Eucharistic Adoration, love for the Holy Father and the Rosary. He took a vested interest in preaching and candidate evaluation.” We even agree that O’Malley kept the Dominican there when many forces in RCAB wanted him removed–but O’Malley kept him there only for a while, until his contract ran out.

      Yes, the Presbyteral Council, in 2005 was “dominated by dissidents, constantly complained about the terrible things happening at the seminary. What were these terrible things? Adoration, reverence, Magisterial Fidelity, demand for excellence.” (You missed two things–the dissidents also complained about the Dominican moving out some faculty members who needed to be moved out, and they complained that the Dominican was making piety important to the seminarians). (Among these dissidents on the Presbyteral Council complaining about the Dominican was “Msgr. S” of the Priest Council and former pastor of “St. P” parish in a city very close to Boston, but we digress). Yes, then, these “fatuous nincompoops” demanded the rector be brought before them and interrogated. If you know the history as well as you claim to, then you would know that O’Malley did not defend the Dominican in that 2005 meeting when the “fatuous nincompoops” complained about what was happening in the seminary–all Cardinal O’Malley said was that the rector should come present to the Presbyteral Council. When the Dominican presented, he was so rock solid that he left a number of the dissidents speechless.

      So, we agree O’Malley kept the Dominican through the end of his contract, in June 2007, and the Dominican quit early as a result of the dispute over the Cardinal and SJS Board’s decision to sell the seminary property and buildings. And we agree that the Dominican was able to accomplish the serious reform of the seminary. In 2008, the Boston Globe reported on the “Stunning Turnaround for St. Johns Seminary.”

      But what you fail to mention is that O’Malley decided to not renew the contract of the Dominican in 2007. You fail to mention what happened starting around 2006, when former Chancellor, Jim McDonough, arrived (and was put on the SJS Board), Fr. Bryan Hehir began to exercise a great deal more power than even before, and Jack Connors pushed and used his influence to have the SJS property sold to Boston College–and used his influence in other aspects of the Boston Archdiocesan policy-making. Why are you conveniently skipping the last 6-7 years of history, when we have–objectively–seen a massive abdication of leadership by Cardinal O’Malley? Why do you think he did not renew the contract of teh Dominican? He did not renew the contract of the Dominican because he was not willing to back the Dominican against the dissidents. And his selling the SJS property was in direct violation of the Vatican’s apostolic visitation committee recommendation that no more property from SJS be sold.

      Re: Bishop D’Arcy and your comparison between him and the Dominican, your comments continue to not make sense. When you make one major factual error underlying your claim, everything else you say loses credibility. You said, “Bishop D’Arcy removed his seminarians from the seminary because he did not like the leadership ways of the rector.” Where in the world do you get that from? And with which rector did he have leadership concerns? D’Arcy became Bishop of Ft. Wayne in 1985 and they do not even have their own diocesan seminary–they send their seminarians to Mount St. Mary’s Seminary in MD, or the Pontifical North American College in Rome. Our blog post and every article and interview says Bishop D’Arcy pushed out seminarians who should not have been in the seminary, while helping the good men who had an authentic vocation become holy priests. We can find nothing that suggests Bishop D’Arcy had issues with the leadership of the rectors of the seminaries where Ft. Wayne sent their seminarians. Your comment simply makes no logical sense and has no factual basis we can find anywhere.

      Yes, the “impossible task” of reforming St. Johns Seminary will have positive results in generations to come. But, it was driven by the Dominican, whose contract the person you call “the great bishop” failed to renew, so as to keep that momentum going.

      Lastly, you are 100% wrong with your belief about what motivates BCI. We do not care about more cash in our pockets. We want to see the fiscal and moral corruption that has characterized the Boston Archdiocese for the past 6+ years gone, and we hope the main priority would be the salvation of souls–which virtually everyone agrees is clearly not the top priority for the Boston Archdiocese today.

      • Boston Pastor says:

        This detailed overview by BCI is correct. The errant claims by Bricks and Mortar further unravel when you look at the Cardinal’s decision to renew the contract for the Chancellor, James McDonough, despite the documented paper trail of deception, cronyism and corruption around him, while the Cardinal failed to renew the contract for Dominican Fr John Farren, who heroically reformed and transformed St Johns post-scandal. Our Cardinal has demonstrated rather poor judgment in picking people time and again. Then, even in the face of strong evidence, he sticks by the bad ones and abandons the few good ones.

    • JerryB says:

      One more thing that might be worth bringing up: Has our manly cardinal cleaned out St. Cecilia’s, or has he encouraged the infestation?

  13. JerryB says:

    Thank you, BCI, for bringing up the subject. If we want to see the American Church restored, this subject must be shouted from the house tops until the lavender mafia is shamed into removing themselves. Unfortunately, our bishops have done nothing but cover up the homo problem, and there is no end in sight.

    We need more courageous persons to take up the fight. For example, Fr. Enrique Rueda, of happy memory, and Steve Brady of who retired. Steve put his life in danger fighting the homo mafia in Illinois.

    If anyone imagines that Rome has improved the seminaries, they are mistaken: The pope’s document allows for ordination of homos under the guise of the chimerical “celibate” homo. This is nonsense, and until this changes, we will have effeminate and homo priests and will continue to see a decline in vocations.

  14. Anna says:

    Outstanding post.

    And the comments are simply captivating. The post certainly has upset the status quo.

    I want to be sure I understand them properly: What is it they would have you do with the list of prelates teaching homoheresy to Catholic children over the objections of their parents?

    We have followed Church protocol since the day they began taking advantage of his weakness and misplaced compassion eight years ago. Thousands of us have approached the vicar forane. Then the local bishop. Then the Cardinal. Then the Nuncio. Then the Holy See. Then the Pope.

    They all protected the gay cabal of terrorists. Many of have known for a long time the reason why, reasons the press is now reporting. There is a group of gay Cardinals at the Holy See who are protecting the queering of our children.

    The Cardinal, the Nuncio, the Holy See already has the list of priests in Boston and they are aware that this is the group with whom the Cardinal finds favor.

    What would you propose to do with a list now? Frame it and put it with the museum of communications we all have in our basements?

    The list must be published. It is the only thing we have left to do in following the advice of St. Paul. We must warn the unsuspecting by making such a list available on the Internet.

  15. Justyn Tyme says:

    Yes, there has been and continues to be a “gay network” of clergy in the Archdiocse of Boston. The history of St. John’s Seminary College in the mid to late 1970’s and its Rector at that time is particularly interesting. The Rector (RB) and the Head Spiritual Director (J.”Take a Year Off “D’A) and another Spiritual Director (A.H.) used their relationship with the College Mental Health Center in Boston, as their clearing house to weed out suspected and guilt by association homosexuals. Therapists at CMHC met periodically with the above named persons and were able to inform them of the number of the individuals seeking counseling at CMHC and what the major issues were being addressed. It appears that “sexuality” was a major one for several students. Perhaps for some : homosexuality. The seminary needed “stats” to determine if CMHC was worth utilizing for their own purposes and that of BC/BS Insurance Rates for students. Names of the students could be obtained from Internal Seminary Insurance Records matched to the Insurance Numbers found in the office of the Bursar (J.L).Once identified these students were then targeted by them and ways were found via (real/rumor/gossip) to either convenince them to leave on their own or were eventually not allowed to continue studies after faculty evaluations. Several fine men left who might have made excellent priests.

    Ironically, most of the ones targeted left on their own for other reasons and may/may not have been Active/Chaste homosexuals. Others targeted, some ironiously, were later accepted by other bishops and today remain good, faithful and holy priests. Others and one in particular at that time not targeted ended up being ordained and made President of the College (CS) and ended up having an affair with a resident college student at SJSC resulting in the removal of that priest from ministry and his entire life splashed all over the front page of the Boston Globe/Herald.

    In closing, there was a Gay Network there during that time period but it did not involve the targeted but untargeted students: involving 2 deceased resident faculty priests and some students later ordained but removed from ministry as part of the Sex Abuse Scandal and other untargeted college students later ordained who today are priests in Boston and elsewhere. How they have lived out their priesthood is unknown to this writer. Especially now: Come Holy Spirit!!!!

  16. Veritas says:

    This is rubbish. Plenty of Italian, French-Canadian, etc. Look at the demographics and find correlation is not causation. Child sexual abuse is connected to the fall and effects all races, colors, and creeds. Not just Catholics. Not just Irish. Not just Hari Kishnas, not just boy scout troups, nor English boarding schools, nor protestant ministers.

    “IRISH Tribal Clericalism…One under-reported dimension of the scandals of 2002 is the ersatz clericalism found among priests of Irish ancestry. ****With very few exceptions, both the priests accused of sexual crimes and the bishops who protected them ***from legal action were all of Irish descent. The instinct to protect members of one’s own “tribe”, no matter what the offense, is a common feature of embattled ethnic minorities, and the effects of this culture in the Archdiocese of Boston cannot be underestimated.

    • Veritas,
      Your comment does not make sense, and it appears you did not read the context for this post.

      The report cited in this post is about the situation in the Catholic Archdiocese of Boston as of late 2002-early 2003. It says nothing about causation, and also says nothing about child sexual abuse elsewhere. It is just describing the situation in the Boston Archdiocese that a new archbishop being appointed in 2003 would encounter coming into the role, and thus outlines the attributes that should be sought in that new archbishop coming into the role of Archbishop of Boston in 2003. BCI shared the report because of the parallels with the latest news reports out of the Vatican, and a similar one from a Polish priest.

      Your comment and complaint say nothing about what specifically causes you to believe the situation described for Boston is not an accurate depiction of the situation in Boston. In view of your totally off the mark comment, we would suggest that you be much careful about what you are calling “rubbish.”

  17. Objective Observer says:

    If a priest lives a chaste life, and lives the vowed life the way it was meant to be lived, it does not matter to me which gender he is NOT having sex with.

    When the scandal broke, there was a remarkable op-ed piece in the Pilot (remarkable because it was well written, timely and incisive). The writer posited that if one had no temptation nor proclivity for a particular weakness or immorality, one could not claim abstinence from that vice as a virtue. E.g., if one has no desire to smoke, not smoking is not a virtue. But for the one whose proclivity it is to smoke, abstinence is truly a virtue.

    Do I believe or know there to be a gay priests’ network in the Archdiocese of Boston? Certainly there is. And there are priests within that group who have wrought singular destruction upon this particular church. But are there gay priests living chaste lives, who work from morning until night for the salvation of souls, and who seek never to undermine the church? Just as certainly, yes.

    Take care not to paint with too broad a brush. So long as a priest lives the vowed life the way it was meant to be lived, it is not our job to ask the source of his virtue.

    • Michael says:

      Objective Observer,
      Your posting is a lie. It is propaganda to say:

      “… And there are priests within that group who have wrought singular destruction upon this particular church. But are there gay priests living chaste lives, who work from morning until night for the salvation of souls, and who seek never to undermine the church? Just as certainly, yes. …”

      NO! Gay means something. It actually means merry/happy. Now the sodomite movement have taken that word (as well as the symbol of childhood – a rainbow) and turned the English language upside down. This is precisely what the devil likes to do. Rabbi Samuel Dresner, a distinguished author, congregational rabbi, and professor of philosophy explains it this way: “The Homosexual Activist Movement launched the most successful public relations campaign in the history of the nation and in little more than a decade homosexuals have moved from
      pariahs to cultural heroes. During this period Americans have not only come to accept homosexuality as an inevitable phenomenon in our society, but also as a legitimate ‘lifestyle’ deserving of affirmation as well as tolerance.” (See Light in the Closet: Torah, Homosexuality, and the Power to Change
      by Arthur Goldberg Los Angeles: Red Heifer Press, 2008. 575 pp.).

      Any man who identifies himself as a “gay” priest is not first and foremost seeking the salvation of souls, no matter how sweet, no matter how prayerful, and no matter how much you like the particular person.

      You (Objective Observer) are engaged, either intentionally or unwittingly in a propaganda campaign. And you do it with such equality. It is almost like you are trying to be fair and balanced. But your words are not fair, nor balanced. Around 1989, “…gay strategists anticipated that the legitimization of the homosexual lifestyle would ultimately be made ‘without society ever realizing that it had been purposely conditioned to arrive at a conclusion that it thinks is its own'” (50-51) (ibid.). Is your complicity in this campaign, intentional or inadvertent?

      Words matter. Gay priests don’t exist. Your posting is a lie. Gay priests are a lie. Using gay to identify a sexual deviant behavior is a lie specifically intended to legitimize sodomy. See

      • Betty says:

        Exactly Michael!!! That is what I was trying
        to express as an analogy to the Playboy Bunny Ears on the parish bulletins: to provide and INCLUSIVE environment for beautiful women.
        I was not trying to be sarcastic, however,
        isn’t it true that if one bulltin has a
        “Rainbow” another Pastor could put the
        Bunny Ears–given the precise new meaning
        of the rainbow?

      • A Boston Priest says:

        I think your judgment of “Objective Observer” is unduly harsh. “Gay” has already been redefined for all of society some time ago–I don’t like that that’s happened, but it’s happened already.

        I suggested a few hours ago that we should differentiate between someone having a same-sex attraction vs them identifying as “gay” and engaging in homosexual activity. Did you read my comment? If worded that way, I think that solves the problem you raised–and in a way that is not nearly as harshly worded and judgmental as to intention.

      • Michael says:

        Harshly worded … but accurate.

      • A Boston Priest says:

        Harshly worded AND judgmental, without knowing the intent of the person. Only God knows what’s in the heart and soul of any human. I’ve read the comments by Objective Observer here before and can’t recall any reason to infer the motives that you’ve decided they have. I’ll ask again, did you read my comment? If you’re on a mission to redefine how almost everyone in society has now come to define “gay” over the past several decades (wrong as it may be), good luck with that–you’re going to be mighty busy.

    • Objective Observer says:

      No, Michael. While I am grateful for the suggestion from Boston Priest that “gay” label only sexually active persons with same sex attraction, we can all agree that sexually active priests (no matter the object of their attraction) have no place in a life with a vow of celibacy.

      Think about this:
      A straight man, ergo one attracted to women, who is not married should not have sex with anyone. His chastity is a virtue. If he is married, he should not have sex with anyone but his wife. His married chastity is also a virtue (though one could argue less so, as he has both the moral obligation to chastity and the conscious choice of the marriage vow of fidelity). The straight man who is not married, or who is married and has sex with anyone but his wife, is neither chaste nor virtuous.

      The man who is attracted to men, like the married man attracted to women, can only claim chastity as a virtue if he has sex with no one. He cannot experience married chastity. If he becomes a priest, he does not become less chaste for having sex with no one.

      BCI has asked an important question: Are priests who are sexually active with other men found in a network in the Archdiocese of Boston? Answer, yes, and I would argue, to the detriment of themselves and the whole of this particular church. Ditto sexually active priests in relationships with women (got those, too).

      The one (priests who are chaste) has nothing to do with the damage wrought by the other (sexually active priests no matter the attraction).

      And a postscript to Betty Draper, when a priest’s “personal life” includes living his vows as they were meant to be lived, you bet it’s the business of the laity. Just as the laity living their vows is the business of the priest. We have much expected of us, and should expect much in return. Accountability is not least of the expectations in the spiritual contract that is found in our Church.

      • JerryB says:

        “The man who is attracted to men, like the married man attracted to women, can only claim chastity as a virtue if he has sex with no one.”

        No, this is a lie. It is not virtue to give up something which salvation demands must be abandoned. The virtue of chastity is found in foregoing that which is allowable and good. One cannot offer up sodomy to God.

        Michael has given good replies above. Once a man identifies himself as “gay,” he has already slipped away from a natural state. A man who reforms himself from this doesn’t wish to be identified as gay, because he is freed from that vice, just as a reformed wife-beater doesn’t want to keep that title.

        The Traditional Church had zero tolerance for this vice, and until we return to zero tolerance we will have manifold problems.

      • BCI has been away from the blog most of the day. We perhaps should have known better than to leave a topic like this without moderation. We would ask readers to please refrain from calling a comment by someone else a “lie” unless you can provide objective documentation or references that show what they said is objectively false and what you are saying is objectively true. If you differ on your opinions, then simply say you differ on your opinions.

        March 2: 3:30pm UPDATE TO THIS COMMENT:
        It should be remembered that the main point of the original blog post was whether there is a “gay network” of clergy in Boston. If so, that would be a problem. Furthermore, do we have the right episcopal leadership to address that problem? Then things went off in a tangential direction.

        BCI exchanged private messages with JerryB and we have adjusted our earlier comment.

        Beyond the tone of the message from JerryB, the wording seems to have an inherent error: “The virtue of chastity is found in foregoing that which is allowable and good.”

        That is objectively wrong as worded: the virtue of chastity is found in foregoing things which are sinful–like pornography, sex outside of marriage, homosexual acts. What Jerry meant was specifically the virtue of chastity for a priest or religious, as distinguished from the virtue of chastity for a lay-person.

        We all should agree that chastity is a virtue. If there is a difference on that, you will need to go elsewhere to reconcile that difference. Jerry is arguing that we need to view chastity as a virtue in two different contexts–one for lay people and one for priests/religious.

        As regards lay people, we will reference the Catechism of the Catholic Church for several points, and later Fr. John Harvey, founder of Courage, for several more points.

        From the Catechism of the Catholic Church


        2337 Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being

        2339 Chastity includes an apprenticeship in self-mastery which is a training in human freedom. The alternative is clear: either man governs his passions and finds peace, or he lets himself be dominated by them and becomes unhappy

        2341 The virtue of chastity comes under the cardinal virtue of temperance, which seeks to permeate the passions and appetites of the senses with reason.

        2345 Chastity is a moral virtue. It is also a gift from God, a grace, a fruit of spiritual effort

        2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.

        2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.

        2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity.

        2396 Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices.

        The above says that people who experience a sexual attraction toward people of the same sex are called to chastity, a virtue. From our interpretation, nothing in the above suggests that the “chastity” practiced by someone with an attraction to another person of the same sex (albeit, a disordered attraction) is not a virtue. It says homosexual practices are gravely contrary to chastity, but it does not say an attraction which is not acted upon is contrary to chastity.

        Now we cite commentary from the late Fr. John Harvey, founder of Courage:

        Click to access Use_12_Steps.pdf

        “…the use of the Twelve Steps and Five Goals Courage provides a positive method, following the teaching of the Catholic Church, for same-sex attracted
        individuals seeking moral growth in the virtue of chastity or continence as well as other virtues.”

        Now we cite a comment from Cardinal Burke, Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, reflecting on the life of Fr. Harvey:

        Click to access KEYNOTEADDRESS.Conference.2011.pdf

        “All of us know the serious challenges of carrying out an apostolate dedicated to promoting the practice of the virtue of chastity among persons who suffer from same – sex attraction.

        In that same talk, Cardinal Burke shared something Fr. Harvey had written:

        “Thirty years ago when I was not aware of the value of group spiritual support, I became one homosexual’s best friend as well as counselor, and I have had the joy of witnessing his life of virtue…”

        This is an excerpt from Fr. Harvey’s book: ”
        Homosexuality and the Church” :Clear answers to difficult questions on same-sex attraction and gay ‘marriage’

        “To sum up, the inclination to same-sex desires is not a sin, but it makes the practice of chastity more difficult.”

        Chastity is a virtue. And there are a multitude of solid sources that say directly or suggest it is still a “virtue” when practiced by people who have same-sex desires or attraction but do not act on them. Indeed, the mission and focus of Courage Ministries is to support people suffering from same-sex attraction to practice chastity.

        This all said, then we get to the debate over whether it is or is not a “virtue” for a priest with some same-sex attraction to be chaste. When a man forgoes marrying a woman for the sake of the Kingdom of God, he is giving up to God something very good and wonderful. A man could legitimately take a wife and be doing something pleasing to the Lord. A man who chooses to give up women and forego marriage is totally giving himself to God. In his 1981 apostolic exhortation Familiaris Consortio, Pope John Paul II described celibacy as “the supreme form of that self-giving that constitutes the very meaning of human sexuality.” In Summa Theologiae, St. Thomas Aquinas writes that chastity “takes its name from the fact that reason chastises concupiscence, which like a child, needs curbing…” (II-II, Q151, a.1). Chastity is thus a virtue that moderates the sexual appetite according to the judgment of reason. The vow of chastity involves more than perfect continence; it also involves a disposition of interior integrity in which a person gives himself totally to God. An “undivided heart” is the essential element of the vow of chastity (cf. Catechism, #2349; can. 599). Clearly, chastity for a priest in this case is a virtue.

        Is chastity a “virtue” for a priest with a same-sex attraction? Because a person with homosexual attractions is already bound by natural and divine law to renounce sexual relations with other males, there is a strong argument that his renouncing sexual activity with other males is not a free gift to the Lord for the sake of the Kingdom, as is the case of the man foregoing marriage. Whether this is or is not a “virtue” is not defined clearly by the Magisterium anywhere we can find it. But furthermore, the answer to that question is not germane to the main point of the blog post–namely, the matter of a “gay network” and the associated harm and problems created by it.

        BCI is asking that we leave the further debate over definition of a virtue in this situation aside. In addition, we ask readers to stop accusing other readers of posting a “lie” if the reality is that you simply disagree with them or believe they they may be wrong with their viewpoint. If your opinion is in disagreement with the opinion of another reader, kindly state your opinion as your “opinion.” Or if you believe someone else is in error, then respectfully state that, and present your documentation or references as to why that is. BCI has just spent an hour writing this response–an hour that could have been much better spent on other things.

  18. another Stephen says:

    Objectiv Observer
    Thank you for finally an intelligent observation not based on prejudice but on rational thinking and love.

    • A Boston priest says:

      Objective Observer, you’ve expressed in a few words a powerful summary of this issue missed by everuone else, including the unnamed author of the report BCI cited.

      If I may, I’d like to suggest people differentiate between someone having a same-sex attraction vs them identifying as “gay” and engaging in homosexual activity. If someone has a same-sex attraction but is celibate, that’s virtuous and they usually wouldn’t ever self-identify as “gay”. Those who engage in homosexual activity and support a lifestyle defined by that would usually identify themselves as “gay.” It’s the latter which is the problem as I see it and I’m in agreement that there’s still such a “gay network” in the Boston presbyterate.

      • Betty says:

        Here is my question: What gives people (i.e. certain media) or
        non-media members of the public the right to target a group (i.e. pastors) and publicly speculate about something so personal, private and sensitive?

        In terms of (ahem) fairness, how would they like it if a large group of catholic people were on top a roof
        having a live chat/video session and pondering what
        “their ” preferences are…..what they like or do not like…..
        whether or not anyone in the crowd would or would not be attracted to them.

        Could our standards as a nation, and common courtesy decline
        any further?

      • Stephen says:

        For want of fraternal or paternal correction – the lost boys – wonder a lonely secretive world. Jesus certainly can instantly remove the lustful desires and the sins are healed and forgotten with a simple confession.

        Your differentiation is a myth.

        “If someone has a same-sex attraction but is celibate, that’s virtuous” Wrong answer.

        If somebody suffers from the disorder called same-sex attraction they need assistance to over come it, not pity.

        The truth you suggest they ascend to ( a false virtue) is to nurture the sin rather than cast it out. – Modernist theology at its finest.

      • A Boston Priest says:

        Stephen, you misunderstand and misconstrue what I said, and you also misdefine what the “sin” is in this case. If someone has the disorder called “same-sex attraction” they certainly do need assistance to overcome it. The same-sex attraction is the disorder, not the sin – it is homosexual activity that is the sin. The person may never be totally free or healed of the same-sex attraction, even if they live a totally chaste life.

        Morality is objective, and it needs to be distinguished from the responsibility of the person giving consent to lustful or sinful desires and acts. Homosexual acts are inherently immoral and sinful. Someone who has a same-sex attraction has personal responsibility for his acts. With the help of God’s grace, many people who have a same-sex attraction and may have engaged in past homosexual activity in the past have now come to live chastely.

        Chastity is the virtue and good habit through which sexual inclinations and urges– either disordered same-sex attractions or opposite-sex – are brought under the control of reason. What I suggest someone with a same-sex attraction ascend to is living a life of chastity – not at all nurturing the sin, but rather casting it out. You put words in my mouth that aren’t what I said at all.

  19. 67 comments on one post is “basta”, and the comments are straying from main topic of the post–is there a “gay network” in Boston. We believe the answer is yes. Is that a problem? Yes. BCI is closing comments on this post.

%d bloggers like this: