Cardinal O’Malley Promotes Boston Globe Agenda to Boston Priests and Supporters

In yet another disgrace for the Boston Archdiocese, the keynote speaker at last weeks’ Celebration of the Priesthood dinner/fundraiser was John Allen, associate editor of the Boston Globe.  Allen was previously a reporter for the National Catholic Reporter.  The fundraiser dinner raised $1.6M and was reported on here in the mainstream press and also on Cardinal Sean’s blog.

BCI and a number of our readers were disgusted to learn that Allen was picked to speak for this fundraiser.  The Globe, of course, is opposed to every single one of the moral teachings of the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church.  One reader asked, “Why do we have an editor from a pro-gay marriage, pro-choice newspaper speaking publicly to an event that honors and supports Catholic clergy?”  The Catholic Church is diametrically opposed in philosophy to the secular humanism of the Globe.  The choice of Allen is simply further evidence that Cardinal O’Malley is a modernist who does not care about promoting the authentic teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

Also, it should be noted that there have been no communications about the state of the Clergy Fund.  Paying the day in and day out operational costs for retired and ill clergy is one thing and it is good that they have stability there. But what about the future for our clergy? Why has the declared deficit of over $175M not been reduced over time?  What is going to be done to fully fund the Clergy Fund for future priests? Is the additional $100M+ that used to be in the Clergy Fund deficit now being forgotten about?

BCI thinks it was a disgrace for Cardinal O’Malley to have a figure like Allen from a heretical pub like the Globe and Crux speak at any Catholic venue–let along an event that to honor and support Catholic priests.  What do you think?

33 Responses to Cardinal O’Malley Promotes Boston Globe Agenda to Boston Priests and Supporters

  1. Sheila Flanagan says:

    This is all very frightening to me as I am typing up my daughter’s Research Report on anti-Catholic bias in today’s media! No wonder the faith is lost in this culture – and millions of souls lost. Perhaps we all need to pray the Rosary more devoutly in the upcoming month of October, like Our Lady of Fatima told us so many years ago.

    • no ‘perhaps’.


      ★ O Blessed Virgin, Mother of the Savior, Scatter the forces of evil so they are not engrossed in darkness but can come to Light! amen, amen. †

  2. Bob says:

    John Allen is often at the LA Religious Education Conference every Spring, too. That fact alone should tell what most of the U.S. (arch-)dioceses are like. If it isn’t enough, do a quick YouTube search and take a look at the very weird masses they put on and some of the heretical speakers that also speak every year. All this due to the LA archdiocese and the Diocese of Orange, who obviously don’t care what heresy they spread.

  3. Anthony Mangini says:

    You are overly critical of the Globe’s Crux. The recent bulletins
    Have NOT been as critical as you suggest. There have more
    Positive than negative articles. Your criticism of John Allen was
    Too severe. He has written mostly favorable articles on the
    Church. His recent book on persecuted Christians is an excellent
    Expose of a world wide problem. You should take time to
    Seriously comtemplate your thoughts before you rant.
    Rash judgements is not a Christian virtue.

    • Anthony,
      We thought we responded to your comment yesterday, but it never went through. Please show us one article or editorial in the Boston Globe that talks about Catholic Church moral teachings in a positive light. Just one.

      Look at what Margery Eagan has written. Show us one thing she has written that presents the Catholic Church and her moral teachings in a positive light or in a tone that is not derogatory of Catholic moral teachings. Lisa Miller, the Crux advice columnist writing OMG! is Jewish. Look at the responses she writes. See our last post on this.

      Objectively, there is no question that Crux is spreading viewpoints that flagrantly belittle and oppose Catholic moral teachings. Why in the world would you want someone who contributes to this or is in any way responsible for this heresy speaking to a Catholic audience with the encouragement and support of the Archbishop?

      We stand by our criticism.

    • Sonnys Mom says:

      “Rash judgment is not a Christian virtue.”

      Neither is tolerance.

  4. Paul Girouard says:

    At least we know Jhn Allen’s name while you still hide behind the cloak of silence. Man up, come out whoever you are!!!!!!

    • Paul,
      We are not hiding behind a cloak of silence at all. If we were, then you would not have seen this blog post. Perhaps you mean instead that we maintain anonymity. The reason is that the Boston Archdiocese has an unfortunate history of retaliating against people who criticize the way they operate. In the early days of BCI more than 4 years ago, the archdiocese consulted with their lawyers to try and determine different avenues for silencing BCI. Because of the ongoing threat of retaliation, BCI does not disclose the names of people who contribute. We are hardly the first blog or publication in history to be written without disclosing the identity of the writer(s). And our regular readers do not feel our anonymity diminishes the merits of the objective information, arguments and ideas we put forward. If you do not wish to read BCI because the contributors maintain anonymity, that is your prerogative.

  5. O’Malley is entranced by power and fearful of the world, concomitantly he is disdainful of the supernatural.

  6. HRH So says:

    LOL! What planet are you clueless people existing on? Allen is, and has always been, nothing more than a Vatikkkan shill. Do your research!

  7. Mary says:

    To Messr’s Mangini & Girouard, no, they’re not being ‘overly critical of the Globe’s Crux’, and they’re ‘not being too severe’. Neither John Allen, the Globe and their anti-Christian writers, nor you define Christianity or Christian virtues. Jesus Christ does. As to Allen’s recent book on persecution of Christians, the intent in the book isn’t in so much in standing up to those who persecute Christians in other countries as in using said persecutions to denigrate Christians in the west who are subjected to persecution by secularist/Marxist governments, by inferring that they are whiners, because they’re not being beheaded, raped, incarcerated. Allen approves the trampling of our religious liberties, just as he approves of the Marxists in Francis’ Argentinian former diocese being comfortable threatening, openly putting their hands around the throats of Catholics who pray the rosary in Catholic churches they were invited to invade by Bergoglio.

    • tony mangini says:

      your opinion only–
      if you have the courage confront john and have a dialogue with him otherwise denigrating remarks only generate bad blood

      • Boston priest says:

        Several of my parishioners have written to John Allen in the past and not a one received a reply. More importantly this concept of “dialogue” you suggest has proven totally ineffective in the past 50 years–whether it is “dialogue” with pro-abortion Catholic politicians, “dialogue” with those who disagree with our moral teachings, or “dialogue” with Islam and other religions. We have absolutely zero to show for it, so I for one wouldn’t waste my time trying to have a “dialogue” with the Boston Globe or John Allen, or suggest my parishioners waste their time either.

    • Thanks Mary, an erudite and civil response.

  8. james walsh says:

    Personally I don’t like it either, but a very Holy and Influenenial man named Pope Francis (you might have heard of him) says the way to peace and understanding is “Dialogue, Dialogue, Dialogue”. It’s good enough for me. God Bless us all.

    • James,
      Seems like you are new here. We ask readers to keep their comments relevant to the topic of the blog post. This post is not about finding the way to peace and understanding. This post is about whether it is appropriate for a reporter who works for a publication that consistently opposes Catholic Church moral teachings to speak to a Catholic audience at a Catholic event sponsored by the Catholic Archdiocese of Boston.We already are lectured by the Boston Globe on an ongoing basis about what they think is wrong with Catholic Church moral teachings. BCI finds it indefensible that the Boston Archdiocese would invite them to come talk to an event like this. There are plenty of far more appropriate speakers. And if the organizers could find no Catholic speaker they felt was better, then they should start to look inward at what is wrong with their own values such that they are filtering out solid Catholic speakers in favor of a journalist from the Boston Globe.

  9. Joris Heise says:

    I just note, as a Midwestener that there seems a broad tarring going on here. Allen, like Pope Francis, like Barack Obama, and like every saint who ever lived (I call your attention to St. Peter)–we have flaws and virtues, mistkes and achievements. The Pope thinks highly of O’Malley. I consider the words of love and understanding more important than words of judgment and condemnation. It may appear to some readers that this is a “bleeding heart” liberal/secularist/marxist demon speaking–or someone who tries to take the “mind which was in Christ Jesus” to heart. It depends on you, not me. I know nothing of the Globe, and little about Allen–but I see a disposition of hate here that seems foreign to the Spirit of Jesus.

    • This post is not about Pope Francis. Nor is it about bishops who the pope happens to like or trust. We can name a number of bishops who were trusted by previous popes and whose judgment regarding priests who sexually abused children was proven terribly wrong. Do you seriously expect anyone to accept an argument like, “The Pope likes him, so we should just assume he is great and listen to whatever he says”? Or because President Obama liked Eric Holder, we should respect Holder too? That is just foolish.

      This blog post is about the choice of a reporter/editor from the Boston Globe to speak to an audience of Catholic priests and Catholic lay people. Read our response to the previous person who commented. Show us an article from the Boston Globe that talks about Catholic moral teachings in a way that is supportive of them, not critical of them or opposing them. We repeat our previous question. Why in the world would we want someone from a pub that consistently opposes our moral teachings speaking to a Catholic audience?

      • Joris Heise says:

        You–whoever you are–ask a question and like Rush Limbaugh phrase it so that you expect and demand only one answer. Were you to choose genuine Christian dialogue, the question would be very different. Nor do you–whoever you are–dialogue with me, but merely seem to be affirming a stance that does not include dialogue, discussion nor respect. To answer your last question as best I can: If the devil speaks the truth (Cf. the Temptations of Jesus), I will answer. Maybe Allen does not agree with all the stances of the Globe. Maybe the moral teachings that he and the Globe DO support are Christian ones other than the focus of your concern (which I assume are abortion and gay marriage)–such as poverty, inequality, prejudice, and compassion… I dislike hostile and rhetorical questions that reflect disdain, and i find those qualities in your paragraphs. I enjoy disagreements from which I can learn. “our moral teachings” (Catholic) is a huge sphere.

      • Boston priest says:

        I don’t understand what you hope to gain by “genuine Christian dialogue. History would show “dialogue” to have been an unequivocal failure. I don’t see any disdain in the BCI post or in the subsequent comments. Having followed BCI for a while, I see pragmatism and a desire to see the truths of the Catholic faith proclaimed in season and out of season. By suggesting “dialogue,” you appear to be skirting the key issue of dissent from the Catholic faith and from Catholic moral teachings. I know many people call themselves “Catholic” yet dissent from non-negotiable moral teachings, but that’s not something to be proud of. Rejecting non-negotiable moral teachings and perhaps knowingly committing mortal sin in the process is not putting ones soul on the path to heaven. I agree with BCI and urge them to keep up the good fight they are waging.

    • That’s quite a fevered response from a cheerleader for “dialogue”. You see a “disposition of hate”, a “foreign” orientation(xenophobia?) and “Rush Limbaugh” like bogeys that must be slain. This is not dialogue, it is a self indulgent monologue.

  10. What can be said of the Bishops from Boston in modern times? All liberal. All follow their own doctrine not the Church’s. This way of doing things led to homosexuals directing the debate on theology for the past several decades and the priest scandal of late. As long as the homosexual priests and Bishops here direct the issues this kind of thing with the Globe will continue.

  11. tgbtg14 says:

    What do I think? I agree with you, BCI!…. Even IF Mr. Allen has written some positive articles, do we not have MANY more Bostonians who would have been a better choice?!?
    Perhaps Cardinal O’Malley would not have wanted the audience to hear their points of view – that may well have been, shall we say, orthodox on all counts, which runs counter to several of his.

    • Another Boston priest says:

      Dialogue is fine and sometimes that helps, but John Allen was giving a keynote speech and not engaged in a dialogue. This wasn’t a conversation with the audience or some kind of give and take. It was completely inappropriate for him to be chosen as speaker. He represents the Boston Globe. Because the Globe rejects Catholic moral teaching and the priests honored at the event are called to uphold it, this was simply a bad mix. Not a good call and we can do much better.

  12. In light of Mass. gubernatorial candidate,Charlie Baker’s words at the recent Mass. Gubernatorial Candidate Debate in Springfield ,where he tried to silence anyone who finds fault with the same-sex sexual behavior such as he stated that his brother engages in, it will be enlightening to the Catholics in the Boston Archdiocese to hear what Cardinal O’Malley will have to say when Pope Francis convenes the Synod of Bishops in the Vatican, from Sept. 26 through October,2014, to address the pastoral program for the family in light of the new challenges to the sacrament of Marriage of one man and one woman as the foundation of family life. Among the challenges will be same-sex sex sex and same-sex marriage promotion currently prevailing, as can be noted in the public schools in Mass. where many Catholic children are educated. Certainly the need to educate our children regarding the plan of God for human sexuality will be an urgent need that must be addressed in light of what is presently being taught to our children in Mass. public schools.An example of what our children are being taught has been explained by such PFLAG leaders and same-sex sexual activity promoters as PFLAG leader Pam Garramone who ‘s work is to “conduct educational programs annually in middle and high schools statewide”, in the behavior recommended by PFLAG which includes the behavior of those who choose to engage in the sexual activities of “lesbian, gay,bisexual and transgendered youth” as was advertised in the St. Cecilia’s Rainbow Ministry announcement that “Pam Garramone will be with us at the six o’clock liturgy on Sunday,November 24(2013).Pam is the executive director of Greater Boston PFLAG.” The bulletins at St. Cecilia’s parish at that time verified that she was invited to tell the parishioners all about her work at the 6 o’clock Mass on Nov. 24,2013.
    The question to ask is: Will Cardinal O’Malley require that all of the parishes in the Boston Archdiocese pray for the success of the Synod and require diocesan priests and Catholic educators to excel in the teaching of our youth about the true meaning of the foundation of marriage and family life according to the beliefs of the Catholic Church? Or will any effort to do this be condemned by those powerful public persons,such as gubernatorial candidate Charlie Baker, who believe we have no right to speak about these beliefs?

  13. S W says:

    The medium is the message.
    Mr. Allen has his picture shaking JPII’s hand on a plane.
    He represents the political /agitation and propaganda wing of this – dare I say – New Franciscan church. Since the moment Sean touched the turf in Boston it has been about image, popularity and a place at the secular table. He has it in aces. It is an empty vessel. He is sadly mistaken if he thinks the suffering he has is due to those on the left or right of the political spectrum. The suffering is from refusing the cross of carrying the true tradition of The Church Christ founded 2,000 years ago.
    There is a profound fog of war in today’s church. The spiritual battle has become confusing, in reality it is not. The Eucharist is the source and summit of our Faith, when you push it through a fence for political reasons as done at the Mexican border a few weeks back, one clearly does not understand the fire one is playing with. A Catholic (reported as a rosary praying) man has his head lopped off by Mohammedans and the video is spread globally. The Cardinal comes out with a bold statement; about the evil of casino gambling?
    I enjoy games of chance, I’d prefer my brethren not be murdered by Satan worshipers of a dirt religion. It is a fascinating time we are living in for sure. There is a remnant ground swell that recognizes that the answer to every Catholic/ human question is found in the Latin Mass. Yes the gates of Hell will not prevail, but we shouldn’t be surprised when the monstrance rises out of a very high pile of ash. Ash from a church nearly destroy by enemies and heretics within.

  14. Jim Regan says:

    Please lest we forget the ” heretical pub” , THE GLOBE brought to the forefront the scandalous behavior hidden by many of you …. The Sexual Abuse by Clergy. The reporting not only exposed the scandals in the Boston church clergy but nation wide as well.

    And John Allen is not afraid to report on the church and offer legitimate concern and criticism. Unlike the many of BCI bloggers who hide behind the cloak of anomitity fearing their being found out my be damaging to them. Please…. If you believe the babble you spout then sign off on it.

    • Jim, BCI had nothing to do with the sexual abuse of children. We have not criticized the Globe for exposing the terrible acts committed against children by some priests. Please re-read our post and follow-on comments.


  15. Jim Regan should do a little research and look into the interview and remarks made by Rep. Elaine Noble, who professed to be a lesbian, and became aware that Fr. Paul Shanley was frequenting gay bars with young men. She noted that there were many reporters who were also aware of this fact. I believe that some of these reporters were from the Globe staff. However, at that time the Globe was hailing Fr. Shanley as a hero helping and counseling youths who were acting out in same-sex sex behavior.
    Elaine reported that she confronted Fr. Shanley on an elevator one day and asked him about his interaction with these youth ,asking him how he was getting away with it, and he responded arrogantly that he could do what he wanted. I believe that this was reported in a documentary that was shown on TV in which Elaine Noble was interviewed.
    If the reporters worked for the Globe,did they cover up Fr. Shanley’s behavior because he was so popular at the time? Was Cardinal Law informed of this behavior? If not,why not?

    • Jim Regan says:

      Alice, Rep. Noble did in 70 s report her suspicions to city officials and police with no action taken. But did she approach Church officials and if so , did they do anything? Obviously not , as Shanley continued his perversion for a longer time. And that is the cover- up.

  16. Mat says:

    Our Ordinary in giving credence to Allen’s journalistic and repertorial skills, chooses to pander to Allen’s ego by ignoring his bias toward long standing dissidence of moral Church teaching in the hope of more favorable commentary from his new Globe plaything.
    Good luck with that!

  17. Regarding the responsibility of the Globe reporters which Jim Regan failed to address, if reporters from the Globe were among those whom Rep. Elaine Noble said were very much aware that Fr. Shanley was taking young men into gay bars in Boston, were these reporters under any obligation to inform civil and Church authorities about what Fr. Shanley was doing in corrupting these youth? Jim Regan acknowledges that Elaine Noble told city officials and the police about what Fr. Shanley was doing, but he does not say if Globe reporters would have been responsible for reporting the same behavior too. Or does he mean that these Globe reporters,too, were engaged in the cover-up?

%d bloggers like this: