Just a few quick updates for readers. First, here’s the well-done video ad from KeepMASafe that supposedly sparked the transgender parish administrator at St. Ignatius to publish his letter in the parish bulletin saying people should vote “yes” on Question 3. Please share the video with friends and family members so they know they should vote “No” on Question 3.
In view of there being zero activity by the MA Catholic bishops on this, those fighting this battle need any donation they can get, regardless of how small. Here’s how to donate:
votenoto3.com No-holds-barred group (MassResistance) that knows how to get in the trenches and fight hard.
keepmasafe.com: This is the pro-family group that did all of the work to get this measure on the ballot.
These links bring you directly to pages where you can donate online. They need every dollar you can spare.
Regarding the Bishop Mark O’Connell Town Hall meeting last night in Wakefield, due to an emergency, BCI was unable to attend, but people who attended have started giving us reports. If you were there or know someone who attended, please post your feedback and/or notes in Comments belowon this post or email them to us at bostoncatholicinsider@gmail.com or submit via the anonymous Contact Us link.
We are told that Bishop O’Connell said Cardinal O’Malley and regional bishop Reed are aware of the situation at St. Ignatius reported in our most recent post and “something will be done.” That is usually code for “absolutely nothing will be done,” but we shall see. And Bishop O’Connell tried to reframe the root cause of the clergy sexual abuse crisis as not being about homosexuality more than once. He got a lot of push-back from people in the audience. We will share more details as soon as we’ve heard from more people who were there.
Boston Catholic Insider 
I was there last night and found Bishop O’Connell to be friendly and down-to-earth, but also very deceptive. For example, when someone from the audience asked about the lack of response from Pope Francis to Archbishop Vigano’s accusations that Pope Francis knew about the McCarrick wrongdoing, Bishop O’Connell stated with great conviction that Cardinal Ouelette had responded on behalf of the Vatican and said Pope Francis didn’t know about the McCarrick history.
Either the good bishop was uninformed/misinformed or he was intentionally lying. Ouelette’s letter beat around the bush on this point and it confirmed Ouelette and the Vatican knew. And he never actually responded to Vigano’s central claim that Francis knew and that Vigano had personally told him in a private audience.
There were many other deceptions. I came away feeling Bishop O’Connell was a nice guy but has no Cahoonas.
Actually, how can you expect Bishop O’Connell to respond any differently. Allegedly, the Third Secret of Fatima states that “corruption will start at the top” and one reader of the Third Secret (Ciappi) used the term “the very top”.
I was infuriated at some of the bishop’s responses. One guy said that what’s most needed is more preaching and teaching of how to live a life of virtue, and shortly after that, near the end, someone segued from
They to ask about what the bishops were doing about Ballot question 3. They spoke out and spread flyers and bulletin inserts when legalized marijuana was on the ballot and no real courage was needed, but when public safety and salvation of souls are at risk, we hear nothing. Just crickets the guy said. The bishop’s response was pathetic and weak. First he said sometimes if we’re winning on a measure already, the church’s support for a bill can have the opposite of the desired effect and help the other side. The guy who asked the question shot that argument shot down because he said polls show we’re losing this one. Then the bishop said sometimes we only have a little political capital so we need to use it carefully, and he cited physician assisted suicide as one case where the church did expend her capital. Fair argument. Then he said you’d need to talk to the Mass Catholic Conference, as they make these decisions. He said he’s just s soldier and does only what he’s told, and he hasn’t been told anything yet.
On his final judgment day, if asked what he did to protect the safety of women and young girls, save souls, and lead people from sin around this issue, I wonder what he will say. “Lord, I know I was a bishop and shepherd responsible for leading souls away from sin and all, and I knew men going into womens’ bathrooms was wrong and unsafe, but I was just a soldier. I didn’t do anything because no one told me to.”
Does anything think that will go over well with Our Lord?!?
This morning I read a New Boston Post article stating that the U.Mass system (including the Medical School and hospital) will continue to allow men in their ladies rooms regardless of the results of Q3. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Archdiocese actually follows suit, just like Target…how pathetic.
I was there. A guy brought up the problem of homosexuality in the priesthood being a key part of the problem. The bishop said to speak that way is alienating to people, and he thinks of it more as a problem of unchastity. He was challenged fairly directly on that, with the John Jay study cited; I challenged him one on one on this homosexuality question afterward. He said “Can we disagree?”
At least three times he was challenged in one way or another on the lack of any emphasis anymore on basic Catholic morality; one guy particularly commented that that kind of emphasis has been abandoned for the secular, “social justice” type issues such as global warming.
Re the debacle over the bathroom bill advocacy at St. Ignatius, he surprisingly admitted to having some knowledge about it. One guy specifically asked him “What are you going to do about it?” His answer was vague, something about referring it to the vicar of priests(?), but it was more in the form of a theoretical “ONE WOULD do this or that,” not a firm “I’M GOING TO do this or that.” When he was finished, the guy to whom he was speaking said “I don’t believe it.”
Overall, the bishop has a disarming comportment. He gave no solid, satisfying answers. Unfortunately, I was left with the impression that he was there only as a lightning rod for people’s venting, a cheap way to give the unwashed masses the impression that the archdiocesan higher ups care.
On one hand, I sympathize with him as someone who probably has no guilt as far as the actual abuse problems go; on the other hand, he and his ilk are part of another aspect of the problem, the watering down of the faith out of a fear of the homosexual and other secular lobbies.
Irish Spectre,
I was there too. I asked Bishop O’Connell a question from the floor, and might have been one of the guys you mentioned. I specifically asked him about pastors who keep promoting the homosexual agenda publicly, saying it’s OK to be homosexual, and leading the souls of their parishioners into mortal sin. He seemed indifferent to that and like you said, he tried to reframe the issue: he said he personally believes the issue is people not being chaste. He said this doesn’t mean celibacy–it means being unfaithful to vows of chastity. He said, “I worry, if we simply call it a homosexual issue, it’s going to turn off a lot of our Catholics, their children, neighbors.” A lot of them have one foot in the Church and one foot out “because we’re already so bigoted.” My jaw nearly dropped. I responded that it sounded like he was more concerned about making everyone feel welcome than about the reality that pastors were leading people into a state of mortal sin, and I asked him if he thinks that should be acted on? He said if someone should preach a position contrary to the position of the church, yes, that needs to be addressed, and he said it is addressed. I don’t know where he gets the idea that it’s addressed when it’s really not for people like the pastors at St. Cecilias in Boston (Unni), Austin Fleming in Concord, Walter Cuenin, and others).
When I brought up the situation at St. Ignatius, like you said, it was surprising that he seemed to know about it. He said it would be the job of the Vicar General and regional bishop, Bishop Reed, to handle the Chestnut Hill situation. He made it sound like they knew about it.
It was maddening to hear him say he felt this wasn’t just a problem of abuse of boys but was also a problem with abuse of girls, even though all of the studies show it was at least 80% homosexual abuse of boys. It was absurd. Does he think we all just fell off the turnip truck?
He gave out his email address: bpmarkoc (at) rcab.org. I hope people write to him.
I know someone else who was there taking notes. I’ll ask him to send along. BCI: it would be great if you can post all these comments.
Will, were you the guy seated to the left of the bishop (while facing him), taking notes?? He spoke two or three times, and was very eloquent and very composed. He mentioned “mortal sin” a time or two, which, based on much of what the bishop was saying, made we wonder whether or not the bishop is familiar with the term.
Mark in the spotlight!
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018, 11:41 Boston Catholic Insider wrote:
> bostoncatholicinsider posted: “Just a few quick updates for readers. > First, here’s the well-done video ad from KeepMASafe that supposedly > sparked the transgender parish administrator at St. Ignatius to publish his > letter in the parish bulletin saying people should vote “yes” on Questi” >
OFF TOPIC– The Boston Globe and Philadelphia Inquirer published their investigative report today (Sunday). It looks like they talked briefly with Cardinal O’Malley. Did you all ever send a copy of the story about Walter Cuenin and Bryan Parrish? And Carol’s first-person account of her treatment? All the reporter’s names are listed…