Here it is, one day before election day, and Cardinal O’Malley, Boston Aux. Bishops Robert Reed and Mark O’Connell, and all of the MA bishops have completely caved and copped-out on voicing even a word of opposition to the transgender bathroom bill. Not a peep! A good friend of BCI said yesterday that’s exactly what they would have expected, but BCI and other faithful Catholics are still mad.
It’s simple–there’s a ballot question people worked hard to get on the ballot that would reverse a law that says men can use women’s restrooms and locker rooms whenever they want. The arguments against it are simple:
- It’s bad for women. Even prominent homosexuals are coming out against it. The first lesbian reinstated to the U.S. Army, Miriam Ben-Shalom, has come out against transgender bathrooms saying, “the current law regarding bathrooms in Massachusetts, which allows transgender people to use opposite-sex facilities, is not a matter of civil rights.” Instead, “it’s a matter of unspeakable oppression against females.” “Women and children should not be forced to deal with males in their spaces, whether it be locker rooms or bathrooms.”
- It’s an issue of privacy and public safety.. Here is a link to a list of 26 bathroom incidents that have been in the news. The concern is not that transgendered individuals are more likely to be sexual predators, but rather that sexual predators could exploit such laws –and are already doing so today — by posing as transgendered in order to gain access to women and girls. The list of bathroom incidents includes 15 in the news since 2016 alone.
- A 5-year-old girl was assaulted in a girls’ bathroom by a “gender fluid” boy last November as a result of a school’s transgender bathroom policy.
- Under the law, any attempt to block a man from entering the women’s locker room, dressing room, or bathroom could result in individual penalties of up to $50,000 and a year in prison.
- An analysis of 220 media-reported sexual offenses in Target stores found a 2.3X increase in the amount of “upskirt” incidents after they announced their transgender bathroom policy, and a 2.9X increase in peeping tom incidents after the policy. See “Sexual Violence Reports in Target Spike After Transgender Bathroom Policy: Study“
- Businesses are also affected, like a female spa owner who faces a discrimination claim for declining to wax the genitals of a man identifying as a woman.
- As described at VoteNoTo3.com, the pro-transgender movement is positioning a mental disorder as a civil right. And the cost to us is the loss of our rights. Transgenderism is not a civil right, but an uncivil wrong!
- Transgenderism is not a unique form of self-expression, but a mental disorder that needs psychological treatment and our prayers.
- Opponents of transgenderism are not crazy bigots, but sane and loving people who care about their families, faith, and freedom
Bishop O’Connell in a town hall meeting in Wakefield two weeks ago gave several different excuses for why the bishops weren’t speaking out–one excuse after another when the person questioning him on the matter explained why the bishop’s initial response was bogus. As described by several people at the event, including the person who asked the question, first Bishop O’Connell said that sometimes if we’re winning on an issue, the bishops don’t speak out because it could backfire and cause opinions to change in an unfavorable way. The person who asked the question pointed out that we’re way behind, so that explanation was silly. Then he said the bishops don’t want to offend people. The questioner said it sounded like he wasn’t concerned about people being led to mortal sin. Then he said he personally wasn’t doing anything because he’s just a “soldier” and hasn’t been told to do anything. Based on his responses, BCI thinks he’s nothing but a wimp. So is Cardinal O’Malley and so are all of the MA Catholic bishops.
Then there’s the matter of practically nothing done about the scandal at St. Ignatius in Chestnut Hill, where a letter was published in the parish bulletin encouraging parishioners to vote Yes on Question 3.
Was the pastor fired? No. Was there a correction published in the parish bulletin to undo the damage done? No. The pastor is still there, and merely published a minor clarification buried several pages back where he still complimented the person who wrote the “beautiful” letter and merely clarified that the “Vote Yes on 3” message and logo was not necessarily expressing the opinion of the Catholic Church or Archdiocese of Boston. Bishop Reed and Cardinal O’Malley should both resign — along with that pastor — for their complete abdication of episcopal responsibility, tacit allowing of souls to be led to sin, and likely mortal sin, and lack of courage to preach the gospel in-season and out of season.
Please pass this on to friends and family members in MA and urge them to vote No on Question 3.