When Will Archdiocese of Boston Reopen Churches?

After a long break, we decided to dust off the keyboard and say something about the great news that Gov. Baker and the State of Massachusetts are allowing houses of worship to reopen, albeit with some new conditions and precautions.  The big question is when the administrative bureaucracy at the Pastoral Center are going to make it happen.  Will they move quickly or drag their feet?

3pm ET UPDATE: There was some evidence they were going to drag their feet, but since going live with our post, we have seen very fast movement that had to have been in progress in the past few days.  Read on for more on that.

First, kudos and appreciation to all who participated in yesterday’s peaceful prayer rally around Holy Cross Cathedral asking Cardinal O’Malley to restore public Masses.

More importantly, now that we have the green light from Gov. Baker, here are the key guidelines:

• Houses of worship can only accept 40 percent of the total capacity of a given building. Building staff will be in charge of enforcing the occupancy limit.
• All attendees, except those under age 2, must wear a face covering
• Anyone who is not wearing a face covering should be turned away
• Worshipers can group together if they are from the same household, but must stand 6 feet apart otherwise.
• Fixed seating, like church pews, should be closed off to keep distance between worshipers.

These seem all readily doable.  The planning council also recommended “best practices” for houses of worship, like making hand sanitizer available, and not passing around collection baskets during a service. For Catholic churches, the guidelines recommend that priests hand out pre-packaged communion wafers. [BCI comment – we don’t know how this one could possibly work – pre-packaging the precious Body of Christ in shrink-wrap plastic?!]

Why did the State of MA allow this, you may be asking?  Well, besides it being the right thing to do, they also faced legal action.  A Worcester Baptist pastor sued Gov. Baker. and as described in this Federalist.com post, Catholic mother and grandmother, Carol Mckinley filed a legal complaint on April 30  with the MA State Department of Justice alleging Baker’s executive orders violate the First Amendment.

“Baker took it upon himself to change the definition of religion and the reception of Sacraments from a First Amendment right to a non-essential business or “social gathering,” making the salvation of our immortal souls constitutionally subordinate to the authority of the government.”

Lawsuits have been filed elsewhere in the country along the same lines, and the Department of Justice has sided with those in VA who said the state overstepped in their restrictions on religious gatherings.   If they didn’t open houses of worship on their own, they could have had courts force their hand.

Here in Boston, BCI has silently watched what’s going on with a lot of regret for what we feel are restrictions from the Boston Archdiocese that have gone beyond what has been necessary from a public health perspective.  For example, why are there no outdoor Masses permitted with appropriate social distancing?  Where have drive-through confessions or outdoor adoration of the Blessed Sacrament been allowed or encouraged?

Now with the State of MA allowing Masses to resume, where does the Archdiocese of Boston stand?  They’re holding a webinar on Tuesday for priests and diocesan staff at 1pm to talk about this more, but their language sounds pretty non-committal.  The invitation says,

The webinar follows the May 14th message from [Vicar General] Bishop Uglietto to parishes [which basically said you can’t do anything for a while] and will examine the specifics of the Governor’s report to discuss the implications for our own planning regarding the resumption of our ministries, schools and other pastoral activities when we are allowed to do so….I will be contacting the Diaconate Community Board once I receive a copy of the Archdiocesan Plan for Reopening so that we can begin to think about hot the diaconate community is affected by the plan and how we might be able to help our parishes implement it.”

Does this wording sound weak to you?  Why not say something like, “We’re beyond thrilled that Gov. Baker is now allowing public Masses again, and we can’t wait to get churches open as quickly as possible!  We’re excited to talk with you about everything we’re doing to help you re-open as early as this week or this weekend so you can start making the sacraments available again to the faithful as quickly as possible.”

UPDATE: An email from the Vicar General just went out giving specific details for parishes about how to get ready to re-open.  That’s excellent news!  Kudos to the RCAB for pivoting quickly from their previous position.

 

 

 

 

Boston Late 2018 Recap

Belated Happy New Year!  There were a few hot news items in late December, and with Advent and Christmas being a particularly busy time of year, we just didn’t get to write about them.  Still, since a number of readers sent these items our way, we wanted to catch-up on the backlog and give them a little bit of airtime and share BCI’s take on them.

Former St. Johns Seminary Rector, Msgr. Moroney is out

It comes as no surprise that he is the first “head to fall” in view of homosexual sexual harassment problems at the seminary.  The range of headlines is interesting:

• Boston Globe: Brighton rector in misconduct allegations at St. John’s Seminary to go to Worcester
• ChurchMilitant: Boston Seminary Rector Forced Out Amid Homosexual Abuse Probe
• Boston Pilot: Msgr. Moroney steps down as St. John’s rector

In this post from September, (Is Cardinal O’Malley Whitewashing the Gay Scandal Investigation at SJS?) BCI shared that sources thought Msgr. Moroney would be out.  That’s now happened.  We also shared that also possibly out the door would be the Vice Rector as well as a faculty member disliked by some of the auxiliary bishops.  We expect the investigation to wrap-up soon, and more changes to follow.

We’re also sent a note to the investigation committee and suggested the following:

We hope that in your final report, you find a way of mentioning the ongoing issue of open homosexuality in the Boston presbyterate sending a contradictory message to seminarians and seminary faculty and leadership. How can Cardinal O’Malley expect to have a chaste seminary when he allows an openly homosexual ordained presbyterate?

Cardinal O’Malley Reports Cardinal Dolan to Papal Nuncio for Abuse Cover-up

On December 29, ChurchMilitant reported that Cardinal ‘Malley had reported a case of predatory homosexual sex abuse by a New York priest and the ensuing cover-up by New York’s Cardinal Timothy Dolan to the papal nuncio to the United States, Abp. Christophe Pierre.

In a letter dated Dec. 21, O’Malley alerted the nuncio to the case of Fr. Donald Timone, a priest of the archdiocese of New York, whom Dolan allowed to remain in active ministry — even calling him “remarkably tender and holy” in 2013 — after he knew of the credible allegations of sex abuse. 

The story about Timone broke in a New York Times article  which detailed that Dolan compensated two of Timone’s victims and allowed him to remain in active ministry, even as recently as this week. Cardinal O’Malley’s acknowledged in his letter to the nuncio that the story had just hit the mainstream media, saying, “today the New York Times has published an extensive report concerning the allegations against Rev. Timone.”

This initially appeared as a situation of one cardinal turning on another cardinal, and indeed to some extent, that is what’s happening; however, Cardinal O’Malley had no choice but to report this.  He told Catholic News Agency that he received a letter informing him about this in early November and he said he was too busy with travel to do anything about it until, coincidentally, the NY Times article hit, when he suddenly found himself with enough time to forward the letter to the U.S. papal nuncio.  Had O’Malley not reported this to the nuncio, he would have found himself with the exact same criticism he faced over the Cardinal McCarrick scandal–he received a letter about a grave situation and never did anything about it.  

The NY times has a well-established reputation now for “fake news.”  If the allegations of a cover-up of abuse are true, then it should have been reported to the nuncio.   But that said, Cardinal O’Malley and his staff are covering-up the Walter Cuenin abuse scandal, so Cardinal O’Malley is not exactly “lily-white” himself in this department.  

Baby Jesus in Cage at Boston’s St. Susanna Parish Migrant-Themed Nativity

An alert reader alerted BCI to this just reported by ChurchMilitant.

St. Susanna’s parish in Dedham has an immigration-themed nativity scene with the child Jesus in a cage. The parish is run by Fr. Steve Josoma, a priest with a notorious dissident, gay-friendly reputation, as BCI recently described in this post, Cardinal O’Malley’s Coddling of Homosexual Priests.

You can view ChurchMilitant’s video here.  As reported by Church Militant, “the parish has erected a nativity scene in front of the church laden with pro-immigration imagery. Baby Jesus is held inside a cage, and the Magi are separated from the Holy Family by a plastic safety barrier. The cage is a reference to the social media firestorm that took place this summer when images surfaced in the media purporting to show migrant children separated from their parents and detained in cages.

The plastic barrier, meanwhile, is a reference to President Trump’s plan, in the works now, to build a wall between the U.S. and Mexico to deter illegal immigration. Next to the plastic barrier inside the crèche is a sign that states “Deportation.” Above the nativity scene is a banner asking the question, “Peace on earth?”

Saint Susanna’s pastor, Fr. Stephen Josoma, told Boston’s CBS affiliate WBZ News 4, “We try to take a picture of the world as it is, and to put it together with a Christmas message.”  Josoma also commented on immigration issues, saying, “If Jesus was about taking care of one another, then this is not the way to take care of one another.”

One concerned Catholic from the area wrote a letter to Fr. Josoma against the politicized use of a nativity scene. The letter argues that “using the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity to make political points is unbecoming and borders on sacrilege.”

“It does nothing to further the mission of the Church to save souls,” he continues, “and it belittles the Incarnation.”

The author of the letter goes on to write:

Advent is a penitential season of joyful expectations. Yet, St. Susanna’s nativity scene advoids Advent entirely to make political points. The Baby Jesus is not supposed to appear until Christmas, and certainly not in a cage. And, Father, if there were ever an Advent when the Church should be squarely focused on penitence, it is this Advent of 2018. In recent days, American dioceses have declared bankruptcy and chanceries have been raided by the police because ecclesial authorities have utterly failed to address the continuing evil of certain pederast priests, bishops and cardinals.

A copy of this letter was also sent to Cardinal Sean O’Malley.

As you can see in the BCI post linked above and as reported by ChurchMilitant, during Cardinal Law’s tenure, parishioners at St. Brendan’s in Dorchester had complained that Josoma was in an active gay relationship with Fr. Ron Coyne, another priest assigned to the parish. Their complaints reached the Holy See, and Josoma was sidelined for several years — until Cardinal O’Malley reinstated him to active ministry.

And in 2013, St. Susanna’s had plans to host Fr. Helmut Schuller, a well-known theological dissident from Austria as part of a U.S. tour by Fr. Schuller backed by  dissident groups like Call to Action, New Ways Ministry and the Women’s Ordination Conference. Cardinal O’Malley barred the event due to Fr. Schuller’s defiance of Catholic teachings.

BCI believes St. Susanna falls under the jurisdiction of Bishop Reed. Try dropping a line to Bishop Reed at 508-650-3545 or <reed(at)catholictv.org> as well Vicar General Bishop Uglietto <vicar_general@rcab.org>, and  to ask them to address this scandal.

Cardinal O’Malley & Boston. Aux. Bishop Fail to Correct Transgender-Advocating Pastor

In case you are wondering what Cardinal O’Malley and Aux. Bishop Robert Reed did in follow-up of learning this bombshell news, Boston Parish Promotes Transgender “Rights” and Men Accessing Women’s Bathrooms. the answer is simple.  Next to nothing.

In that October 24 post, we reported how St. Ignatius in Chestnut Hill, MA had a full-page letter from their transgender parish administrator in the October 21 bulletin pushing opposition to a ballot question that would have restored sanity in the state and repealed an absurd law saying it was OK for men to use women’s restrooms.  More than 500 people signed our Change.org petition asking Cardinal O’Malley to fire the pastor and ensure a correction was issued in the bulletin, and to also speak out and tell Massachusetts Catholics to vote No on ballot Question 3.

None of the Massachusetts bishops said a peep about Question 3, freely letting people commit a sin by voting to preserve the evil law, and it was defeated by a huge margin.  And, all the pastor at St Ignatius did under pressure was issue a lame clarification buried several pages into the Nov. 4 bulletin, essentially backing the previous message   Here’s what he said:

Dear Parishioners,
As you know, in the bulletin on October 21 on the bottom of Michael Sennett’s courageous and beautiful letter to the parish, there was a YES on Proposition 3 symbol. That was Michael’s personal, heartfelt plea to you, our parishioners.

Of course, as pastor, my duty is first and foremost to encourage parishioners to inform their own conscience and make decisions for themselves. Fr. James Keenan, S.J., a Boston College moral theologian, recently wrote in an article on “Conscience and Synod on Youth” referring to the teaching of his late mentor, Fr. Klaus Demmer, “the first moral task for the church is to teach loud and clear, early and often, that we each have a conscience…The second task is to remind us that we must form and follow our consciences.1

It is important, therefore, to clarify that my, or any of our parish staff ’s, endorsement of a particular candidate for elected office or our express desire for a vote for or against a given proposition or proposal is not to be taken as a reflection of an official position of the Church or the Archdiocese of Boston.

Let us honestly share with one another our views and feelings, respectfully listening and learning from each other, so that justice and the protection of human dignity from womb to tomb – our Gospel values – will win out in this and every time we exercise our democratic right to vote.

Please remember to vote on Tuesday.

Peace,
Fr. Joe

This is wrong in so many ways. All transgenders have (or had) gender dysphoria, which is most often caused by psychological issues which are treatable and should be treated. They need help. The pastor’s duty is to be a shepherd of souls, to help the souls under his care to avoid sin and get to heaven, not just to let people make up their own minds however they choose.  Can. 528 §1 says:

“The parish priest has the obligation of ensuring that the word of God is proclaimed  in its entirety to those living in the parish. He is therefore to see to it that the lay  members of Christ’s faithful are instructed in the truths of faith…With the collaboration of the faithful, he is to make every effort to bring the gospel message to those also who have given up religious practice or who do not profess the true faith.”

This pastor, Rev. Joseph Costantino, S.J., Pastor <pastor.st.ignatius@bc.edu> is doing the opposite of his duty.  And Cardinal O’Malley, Vicar General Bishop Peter Uglietto, and Aux. Bishop Robert Reed are looking the other way pretending nothing is wrong.  We would invite BCI readers to contact Bishop Uglietto <vicar_general@rcab.org>, and Bishop Reed at 508-650-3545 or <reed(at)catholictv.org> and let them know what you think of the inaction.  And pray for the pastor and parishioners.

St. John Chrysostum said “The road to hell is paved with the skulls of erring priests, with bishops as their signposts.”  Does anyone believe this to not be the case here in Boston?

 

MA Bishops, Cardinal O’Malley Cop-out on Transgender Bathroom Bill

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.

Update on Transgender Bathroom Bill, Bishop O’Connell Town Hall, and MA Bishops

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.

BOMBSHELL: Boston Parish Promotes Transgender “Rights” and Men Accessing Women’s Bathrooms

Just when we thought we’d seen it all, a Boston Archdiocesan parish led by a “gay-friendly’ pastor has done something worse than we could have imagined.  The “gay-friendly” pastor at St. Ignatius of Loyola in Chestnut Hill — welcomed by Cardinal O’Malley to the parish in 2016 despite his published history of leading a “gay-friendly” parish in New York City — has a full-page propaganda letter in their parish bulletin touting the parish administrator’s story as a transgender person and urging parishioners to vote “Yes” on the upcoming “Bathroom Bill” ballot question. A “Yes” means the existing law stands that allows transgender people to use whatever bathroom they please. A “No” means the law would be repealed, restoring safety and sanity to the Commonwealth by simply saying that people should use the restroom of their biological gender, as it’s been for the nearly 200 years since there have been public restrooms.

Please sign our Change.org petition to urge Cardinal O’Malley to immediately remove the pastor of the parish and also ask the Massachusetts Catholic bishops to issue a clear public statement that they support a “No” vote on Question 3.

First, excerpts from the letter from the transgender parish administrator:

Dear Parishioners,
I delivered the below text at a recent interfaith action event for transgender equality, hosted by Temple Israel of Boston…

One of the most frustrating aspects of being a catholic trans man is that people often insist on praying for me, but never with me. On the surface, they may appear well intentioned, and undoubtedly some are sincere. Yet, I know there are folks who pray for me to…change who I am at the very core of my being. They pray for what they assume to be a choice, a sickness, a disorder…. Opponents find comfort in limiting my human rights…This hatred and fear mongering is used to validate repeals to our protections, as is the case with Massachusetts Ballot Question 3… this measure seeks to roll back public protections for the transgender community.  A no vote would succeed in stripping trans people of our rights, whereas a yes vote would preserve current legislation.

I never imagined that my faith would become a battleground. Often, I feel caught between my two communities…I exist in both communities without being a contradiction. If anything, my identities enhance each other. The choice I make is to reclaim what it means to be queer and religious in today’s world…

I cannot deny I benefit from privileges that others in the trans community do not. I experience passing privilege, meaning most people would not realize I am a trans man, unless I willingly outed myself. I am white, I come from a loving and supportive family, and I was able to receive a college education. My insurance has fully covered trans related services.   However, many of my trans siblings are faced with difficult choices…

…we encourage the people of Massachusetts to love the transgender community, and uphold the protections in the name of dignity. Thank you!

(At the bottom of the bulletin page, there is a “Yes on 3” logo, clearly implying the support of the pastor for this position)

To say the publication of this in a Catholic church bulletin is terrible and outrageous is an understatement.  The salvation of many souls is put at high risk by this.  The smoke of Satan has clearly infiltrated this church.

People do indeed need to pray for the parish administrator, whether he wants the prayers or not, as well as the pastor, Fr. Joseph Constantino, who was well-known as an advocate for the gay agenda before coming to this parish (see this post and ChurchMilitant’s report, “”NY CHURCH DRAPES ALTAR STEPS WITH GAY FLAG”)

Here’s what people need to know about transgenderism and the bathroom bill.

First, yes, it is indeed an issue of privacy and public safety, and here is a link to a list of 26 bathroom incidents that have been in the news. It’s important to note that the concern is not that transgendered individuals are more likely to be sexual predators, but rather that sexual predators could exploit such laws 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, showing this concern about safety and privacy is legitimate.  Here are just two examples:

• Man Caught Looking over Changing Room Wall in Target (Revere, MA): A man was seen peering over a Target unisex changing room wall into the next stall where a young female was changing
• A female security guard at a Washington, D.C. grocery store was arrested for physically escorting a man out of the women’s restroom after he refused to leave because he identifies as a woman

This predatory behavior inflicts serious emotional and psychological harm on the victims.   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. Businesses are also affected, like a female spa owner who faced a discrimination claim for declining to wax the genitals of a man identifying as a woman.

That’s part of the issue, but there’s more to it than that, as described at VoteNoTo3.com. What’s happening is the pro-transgender movement is positioning a mental disorder as a civil right. And the cost to us is the loss of our rights.

1. Transgenderism is not a civil right, but an uncivil wrong
2. Transgenderism is not a unique form of self-expression, but a mental disorder
3. Transgenders need psychiatric assistance, not public accommodation
4. Opponents of transgenderism are not crazy bigots, but sane and loving people who care about their families, faith, and freedom

Cardinal O’Malley needs to remove the pastor of the parish immediately and have a correction published in the parish bulletin. He and the Massachusetts Catholic bishops also need to come out publicly and voice their support for voting No on Question 3.  They and the do-nothing Mass Catholic Conference have been silent on this, and for the salvation of souls, they need to speak out and encourage their pastors and clergy to speak out.

Please sign our petition to immediately ask Cardinal O’Malley and the MA Catholic bishops to correct this situation.

In his 2006 Letter on Homosexuality, Cardinal O’Malley said the following:

It is never easy to deliver a message that calls people to make sacrifices or to do difficult things….We must teach the truths of the Gospel in season and out of season. These recent times seem to us like it is out of season, but for that very reason it is even more urgent to teach the hard words of the Gospel today.

Friends and relatives of homosexual Catholics sometimes feel torn between their allegiance to Christ and their concern for their loved ones. I assure them that these goals are not incompatible….Calling people to embrace the cross of discipleship, to live the commandments and at the same time assuring them that we love them as brothers and sisters can be difficult. Sometimes we are told: If you do not accept my behavior, you do not love me. In reality we must communicate the exact opposite: “Because we love you, we cannot accept your behavior.”

Cardinal O’Malley, it’s currently “out of season!”  Evil triumphs when good men do nothing. Now is the time for you to stand up and do exactly what you said must be done in 2006!

Here’s a link to the Change.org petition which emails Cardinal O’Malley asking him to remove the St. Ignatius pastor and emails all Massachusetts bishops asking them to publicly urge MA voters to vote “No” on Question 3. Please spread the word to like-minded friends and family members and ask them to sign also.

Fr. Bob VerEecke, formerly at St. Ignatius at Boston College, removed from pro-gay parish after ‘boundary violations’ with male parishioner

This story broke last week, but BCI missed it in the midst of the Walter Cuenin coverage. Jesuit Fr. Bob VerEecke was the pro-gay pastor of St. Ignatius of Loyola parish in Chestnut Hill, MA for 27 years, until he left in June of 2016. He was replaced at St. Ignatius in MA by Fr. Joseph Constantino, who was previously pastor of the gay-friendly parish, St. Francis Xavier in Manhattan, from 2006-2013 (see below). In other words, the Jesuits more or less swapped the assignments of the two pro-gay pastors at their respective pro-gay parishes.

St. Francis Xavier in Manhattan, is a hotbed for pro-gay dissent and LGBT  activism. When same-sex “marriage” became legally recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2015, St. Francis Xavier Church’s Facebook page shared a photo of a rainbow flag draping the steps up to the altar.

Here’s are excerpts from the original report by LifeSiteNews, “Jesuit priest from pro-gay parish removed after ‘boundary violations’ with male parishioner.”

NEW YORK CITY, September 18, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – A Jesuit priest at a well-known pro-homosexual Manhattan parish has been removed as pastor for “boundary violations” with “an adult male who attended the parish.”

Fr. Bob VerEecke has been removed as pastor of St. Francis Xavier Church and restricted “from the exercise of public sacramental ministry,” according to a September 15 letter from Jesuit superior John Cecero read out at parish Masses last weekend.

A letter from acting pastor Fr. Daniel Corrou posted on St. Francis Xavier website Tuesday revealed the allegations concerned “a recent, unwanted and inappropriate conversation and attention of a sexual nature toward an adult male who attended the parish.”

Corrou wrote that “there was nothing criminal about this interaction” and that VerEecke “agreed that the incident took place, acknowledges his lack of good judgement, and is sorry for the incident.”

This confirms the September 15 letter from Cecero, superior of the USA Northeast Province of the Society of Jesus.

“About a week ago, the Archdiocese of New York communicated to me complaints by an adult of boundary violations by Fr. VerEecke. I reviewed these complaints with Fr. VerEecke, and he acknowledges a lack of good judgment in his behaviour,” Cecero wrote.

“Consistent with our Province Ethics in Ministry policies, I am removing Fr. VerEecke from the Church of St. Francis Xavier and restricting him from the exercise of public sacramental ministry. I anticipate that many of you will share my regret in taking this action, but we as a Church have learned the hard way that boundary violations must be met with a swift and decisive response from church leadership.”

St. Francis Xavier is notorious for its support of the LGBT agenda, hosting regular meetings for Catholic Lesbians and Gay Catholics. It draped a rainbow flag on the altar steps after the Obergefell decision legalizing same-sex “marriage” and in conjunction with the city’s Pride event, Church Militant reported in June 2015.

The parish traditionally marches in the NYC Pride Parade, which was organized this year by parish staff Robert Choiniere, doctoral student at Fordham University, and co-producer of “docudrama” Full of Grace: The lives of LGBT Catholics.

“Celebrating Pride is about as Catholic as you can get,” Choiniere, who appears holding a rainbow umbrella on a New Ways Ministry report on LGBT Catholics in Dublin for the World Meeting of Families, wrote in the June 24 parish bulletin.

“St. Francis Xavier has been a shining example for many decades of this truth…The sacred procession of Pride is a proclamation of our identity as Children of God,” he wrote.

Indeed, New Ways Ministry, a dissident group that lobbies the Catholic Church to accept homosexuality, lists St. Francis Xavier as one of its “LGBT friendly” parishes.

Jesuit Fr. James Martin, who has been lobbying the Church to normalize homosexuality, is scheduled to speak at the parish October 3.

Martin, “friend of Xavier was present at the World Meeting of Families in Dublin,” will speak on “how the Catholic Church and the LGBT Community can enter into a relationship of respect, compassion and sensitivity,” the parish website says.

“Jim will be at Xavier to speak about his experience in Dublin in light of recent painful events in the church,” the announcement says.

Known as “the dancing priest,” VerEecke has choreographed numerous liturgical dances.

In June last year, VerEecke led parishioners of St. Francis Xavier in a “wave” as he danced in the sanctuary, and several young women swirled around in front of him to “Celebration” by Kool and the Gang.

VerEecke was known for his kooky liturgical dance and other pro-gay advocacy while at St. Ignatius in Chestnut Hill, MA.. Beyond the tragedy of what VerEecke did, there’s another scandal.  Cardinal Sean O’Malley welcomed the previous pastor from St. Francis Xavier to be the new pastor at St. Ignatius of Loyola in the Archdiocese of Boston. Surely he knew about his gay advocacy at his parish in New York before accepting the appointment. Here’s what Church Militant reported in 2015 in “NY CHURCH DRAPES ALTAR STEPS WITH GAY FLAG”:

MANHATTAN, June 29, 2015 (ChurchMilitant.com) – A Catholic church in New York City has posted a photo of its altar steps draped in the rainbow flag.

Saint Francis Xavier, known as a bastion for gay Catholics, has a reputation for gay activism, with members regularly marching in the city’s gay pride parade.

The photo was posted on the parish’s Facebook page on June 27, the day right after the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its revolutionary decision legalizing same-sex “marriage” in all 50 states, and during the weekend of gay pride festivities in New York City.

The pastor once wrote a parish bulletin encouraging the Church to rethink its teachings on homosexuality, and the parish hosts regular meetings for Catholic Lesbians and Gay Catholics, as well as a Zen Meditation group. Although the Courage apostolate — the only Church-approved ministry to Catholics with same-sex attraction — is headquartered in New York City, the parish has yet to welcome the orthodox apostolate there.

Cardinal O’Malley should be asked why he freely accepted the appointment of Fr. Constantino to be pastor of St. Ignatius, given his history.

And does anyone else think the Fr. VerEecke story sounds just a little bit similar to what we reported about Fr. Walter Cuenin’s unwelcome advances on a male Brandeis student and Terry Donilon’s “non-denial denial“?  He said there was no charge of molestation (which we knew), and then he said no allegation of molestation — which was merely a parsing of words — but would he agree that it was an unwelcome sexual advance after the victim had been plied with alcohol and was unable to say no?

Boston Diocesan Denial and Deception by Donilon

In our last post, Why Did Cardinal O’Malley Cover-Up Gay Abuse Scandal?, we shared insider news about Fr. Walter Cuenin’s scandalous actions that got him removed from Brandeis in early 2015, as well as the cover-up by Cardinal O’Malley, other archdiocesan officials, and senior Brandeis officials,  Despite the fact that an archdiocesan official confirmed the key points before BCI posted the story,  Secretary for Communications, Terry Donilon, has been parsing words to try and deny the story to reporters and also discredit BCI.  That’s been his modus operandi for years. Today we’re going to debunk his response and ask readers for help expose this scandalous situation.

First, a quick note about Terry Donilon. He came into his position – where he is paid nearly $200K in salary and benefits – as the result of a rigged search (see BCI post “Sham Search: Terry Donilon” and do read the comments)  Ann Carter, then CEO of PR firm Rasky Baerlein, led the “search.”  Beyond the obvious conflict of interest of an archdiocesan vendor hiring the person who would manage their services and decide on their continuing employment, the founder and then-Chairman of the firm was Larry Rasky, who had known the Donilon family for years from his political work starting with the Joe Biden campaign back in 1988. Terry needed a job when he left Shaw’s Supermarkets. Resumes of far superior candidates interested in the job never made it to the full search committee. Terry’s is known to be spelling and writing-challenged, and most press releases or statements from him have required the proof-reading and spin of Fr. Bryan Hehir and/or outside PR folks.

Oh, and he also is comfortable deceiving to deflect attention from the truth.  Back in 2010, BCI accurately reported about another rigged search months before the outcome of the search was publicly announced.  When Terry was asked about the BCI post by a news reporter, he responded, “I have no intention of responding to anonymous and unfounded claims and attacks posted in Boston Catholic Insider.”  (See Diocesan Deception from Donilon).  The truth was that it was a rigged search, just like the one for Terry’s own job–he just didn’t like that we exposed the truth and moral corruption. He was never able to give one example of an “unfounded claim” on BCI, including the post he complained about.  Now onto the Walter Cuenin scandal.

Our post about the scandal originated with this tip from an anonymous reader, “Truth Teller,” on a different post about coddling of homosexual priests, including Fr. Walter Cuenin:

Cuenin did not leave Brandeis because of “health.” He was removed because he took a young man away, plied him with alcohol and molested him. Both Brandeis and the Archdiocese wanted to keep it quiet. Shouldn’t they have been concerned if there were other victims?

Via private emails, we got some additional information from “Truth Teller,” and we were then able to validate enough of the story that we published it.  In a phone call on Sept. 11, Fr. Bryan Parrish, episcopal vicar and secretary for parish life, confirmed to another Boston blogger that Cuenin’s official status with the archdiocese is a “restricted Senior Priest”, which means no ministry is allowed and no church housing is provided.  Cuenin has a very public problem with alcohol and the restrictions were related to that. He also confirmed that the allegation of sexual misconduct with a Brandeis student reported on Boston blogs (including Conquered by Love) did happen.

After we published the story and reporters started asking questions of Fr. Parrish, they were directed to Terry, who went into damage control mode and issued the following deceptive statement to reporters:

There has been no charge of molestation of a minor or young adult. Fr. Cuenin has faced serious health issues in recent years. It has been our experience with Boston Catholic Insider, an anonymous blog, that the information they distribute is consistently false and misleading as is the case in their September 13, 2018 entry.

For the record, the Archdiocese of Boston is committed to ensuring the safety and well-being of children and young people in our parishes and institutions….Cardinal Seán P. O’Malley encourages any person in need of pastoral assistance or support to contact the Archdiocese’s Office of Pastoral Support and Outreach by calling 617-746-5985.

We never said there was a “charge of molestation”–we said all the student wanted was to ensure Cuenin left campus and couldn’t do this again.  Terry used the word, “charge,” so he could pretend his response was true.  Here’s what we sent back to Terry:

I’d like to clarify what you mean so we can make any required corrections. With regard to the Sept 13 entry, can you share specifically what is inaccurate?  Obviously, all of the bullet points are accurate and are well-documented and have been shared with the RCAB previously, so there can’t be any disputing those points.  So, your issue is obviously with our saying a student was plied with alcohol and then molested.  Your statement says there was no charge of molestation of a minor or young adult.  You also have said there was no allegation.  We verified the report of the molestation with an archdiocesan official last week before publishing it, so something is not adding up. Hopefully you can clarify exactly what did or did not happen.

We know for a fact that Fr. Cuenin’s ministry is restricted, and it’s for a reason more grave than just a minor alcohol problem. We know the expectation is that since he’s in ill health today and wheelchair-bound that it’s highly unlikely he will engage in inappropriate activity with others.  We also all know he left Brandeis very abruptly, and for someone so popular on campus with students, faculty, and administration to leave without a farewell party, the reason was gravely serious.  Brandeis has had multiple opportunities to tell us our story was inaccurate before it was published and they declined to refute the story.

Is the word “molestation” the problem?  We’ve now removed it from our post.  Would it be more accurate for us to say that there was an incident reported where a student was drinking with Fr. Cuenin, and Fr. Cuenin engaged in inappropriate sexual activity with the student or non-consensual sexual activity with the student?  …

Lastly, I must say that your comment about BCI publishing consistently false and misleading information rings hollow.  Since you’ve been in your job and BCI has been writing our blog, never once has one of your claims that BCI published “false information” proven to be correct.  Never once. You’ve said we made “unsubstantiated claims” but invariably that’s because we published the truth and the RCAB simply didn’t like seeing the truth published or the media attention.

Carol McKinley sent this message to him:

Let me predict how this statement will play out:

1.  Already enraged Catholics will conclude the Archbishop thinks a priest plying someone’s college age child with alcohol to lower resistance to his sexual advance is not molestation.  Might want to google “Bill Cosby”

2. The victim, who instead of suing or pressing criminal charges, who made the unbelievable sacrifice of  agreeing to just letting them get Walter into supervised treatment, is now going to…read the archdiocese is calling him a liar.  I don’t think the statutes have run out, but you are going to take the gamble.

The likelihood everyone is lying about the allegation is quite low.  (and it is an allegation, but Walter’s faculties were stripped and he was ushered off to treatment).  But if that is the case, you have a duty to tell us so we will correct and retract errors.  This is the Catholic Church you work for and there are Sacramental issues at play, for people who live by them.

If stupid PR strategies could fly, this would be a jet.  Go back to the bunker and come up with a truthful statement that doesn’t violate the trust of this victim by calling him a liar.

No response from Terry.  So here’s where we sit.

• “Truth Teller” assures us the story is 100% accurate. Out of respect for the victim’s right to privacy, we are not pressuring anyone to speak out publicly, but if the victim forward, both the Archdiocese of Boston and Brandeis will be forced to acknowledge what happened.
• Despite multiple messages sent to various senior administration officials at Brandeis including those involved at the time asking them to confirm or deny the story, they refuse to respond. If this scandalous story was inaccurate, why wouldn’t they just respond and say the story is not true?
• If any reporter asks Fr. Parrish at this point what happened, he’s sending people to Terry Donilon, and Terry is responding with the deceptive statement to deflect attention from what actually happened.  He’s parsing words and refusing to acknowledge there was an incident of inappropriate behavior by Cuenin with a student–and that led to his removal from Brandeis.

We see two ways for the impasse to be broken and the full truth to come out, and need your help.

1. The victim — even with their name not being released — publicly tells their story to a newspaper.  We can direct the victim to any of a variety of publications who would maintain confidentiality, take their testimony and write the story.
2. Readers pressure both the Archdiocese of Boston and Brandeis administration to admit what happened.  Here’s who to contact:

Archdiocese of Boston:
Terry Donilon, Secretary for Communications
Work: 617-746-5775
Cell: 401-480-0171
tdonilon@rcab.org

Vicar General Bishop Peter Uglietto
617-746-5619
vicar_general@rcab.org

Brandeis University

Jamele Adams, Dean of Students

781-736-2600

deanofstudentsoffice@brandeis.edu

Ira Jackson, Executive Vice President, Communications and External Relations
781-736-3993
irajackson@brandeis.edu

Here’s what you should ask:

Can you please confirm that the reason for Fr. Walter Cuenin’s removal from his role as Catholic chaplain at Brandeis in January of 2015 was an incident with Fr. Cuenin involving alcohol and inappropriate sexual behavior with a male student?  If this description is not completely accurate, please correct whatever is inaccurate to give the correct description of the incident.

And what policies and protections are in place today to ensure that similar incidents don’t happen again to other students?

If Terry responds back with the canned statement above, call or email him back and ask him to answer the actual question you asked directly with a Yes/No answer.  You might also remind him that his salary is being paid by Catholics like you.

Let us know how you make out.

Cardinal O’Malley’s Coddling of Homosexual Priests: Part 2

There was just too much to share in our Part 1 post about open promotion of the gay agenda by priests in Boston and how Cardinal O’Malley coddles these priests, so we now bring you part 2.  There will also be a Part 3 coming separately.

Fr. Stephen Josoma, pastor of St. Susanna in Dedham

Way back during Cardinal Bernard Law’s tenure, Irish parishioners at St. Brendan’s in Dorchester were scandalized to see their pastor, Fr. Ron Coyne and his ‘co-pastor,’ Fr. Steven Josoma, openly conducting themselves as a sexually intimate couple inside and outside the sanctuary.  They sought intervention from the Vicar Forane, Auxiliary Bishop, Cardinal Law, and ultimately the Holy See, and when it got to the point where the priests were reportedly simulating the Sacrament of Marriage in the sanctuary to homosexual couples, the parishioners called the Cardinal’s office and demanded the removal of the priests.  After both were sidelined for several years, under Cardinal Sean O’Malley both were reinstated as pastors.

In 2005, Josoma famously was doing a skit at a parish event with another gay-advocating buddy (now-former priest, Fr. Bob Bowers). As reported by the Globe, their skit included a joke with sexual innuendo about comparing a part of the male anatomy (“Mine’s bigger”).

Fast forward. At St. Susanna’s, the pastor and the parish were in the news in 2013 for plans to host a presentation by Austrian dissident priest, Fr.  Helmut Schuller.  The talk was part of a U.S. tour co-sponsored by 10 dissident organizations that publicly disagree with the Catholic Church’s teachings that prohibit homosexual activity, “gay marriage,” women priests, and married priests. Co-sponsors included gay-agenda-advocates like DignityUSA and New Ways Ministry, as well as Call to Action, FutureChurch,  Voice of the Faithful, and Women’s Ordination Conference.  Thankfully, Cardinal O’Malley banned the priest from speaking at St. Susanna’s, saying he would not allow anyone to speak on church property who advocates beliefs in conflict with church doctrine.  (We wish that policy were upheld more consistently, but more on that in a moment).  But why was Fr. Josoma on-board with having such a dissident present at his church in the first place?

Not long after that, in December 2014, Fr. Josoma’s parish featured as a faith formation speaker, Michael Hartwig–a former priest, vice rector and professor of moral theology at Holy Trinity Seminary in Dallas, who was relieved of his duties in Texas when he came out as a homosexual and left the seminary to live with his life partner, the head of the Dallas Gay Alliance.  His name was in the news around a gay scandal at the seminary that hit papers after he left  and took a job at Dominican-run Albertus Magnus College. and he was also in the news for having sued Albertus Magnus over their decision to not renew his contract because he represented himself as a former priest when he applied for the job but then revealed publicly in the Dallas Morning News he was actually a priest of the Dallas diocese “now on leave” (while at the Albertus Magnus living with his life partner).  His topic for the faith formation series was “Divorce and Remarriage – Gay Marriage,” and the description said,

“Our theme this evening was to explore the relationship between Jesus’ and Paul’s teachings on marriage and contemporary patterns of marriage and to ask how the Church might advance these ideals in the contemporary context.”

If Fr. Josoma felt his parish would have benefited from authentic faith formation around  the meaning and definition of marriage as Jesus Christ taught us, and current threats to those teachings, surely he could have found a better speaker than a gay former priest who took off to live a homosexual lifestyle with his life partner, couldn’t he?

Fr. Walter Cuenin, former pastor at Our Lady Help of Christians and former chaplain at Brandeis University.

Our Lady’s, under his leadership, was known as “gay-friendly” for years and he was renowned for having preached at a Gay Pride interfaith gathering and testified against an amendment to ban gay marriage. What’s astounding is the fact that his public advocacy for the gay agenda and leading souls away from salvation went on virtually unchecked for roughly 12 years under Cardinal Sean O’Malley. Consider the following:

• April 2002: Cuenin testified to a MA legislative committee in opposition to a proposed amendment that would have banned gay marriage.  He argued that Defense of Marriage Amendment amendment seemed to violate the Catechism of the Catholic Church because homosexual marriage was a human rights issue.
• September 2002: In a New Yorker article entitled, “The Reformer“, he said gays and lesbians should be allowed a front-row seat at church and not be told that their lives are “basically disordered.”
• May 2005: Our Lady’s bulletin has a notice that the Gay and Lesbian Faith Sharing group invites all parishioners to Boston’s Gay Pride Parade
• June 2006:  Cuenin was the featured speaker at the Gay Pride interfaith prayer service.
• April 2007: Cuenin speaks in Lexington at Interfaith Forum on topic of “God, Gays, and Faith.”  Faithful Catholic, Alice Slattery sent an urgent request to Cardinal O’Malley prior to the talk asking him to intervene and stop the talk, but she got no response.  She then sent a follow-up letter to Cardinal O’Malley_on April 12 2007 giving more background on Cuenin and also naming other officials and priests from the Archdiocese with past involvement in pushing the gay agenda. (more on this in Part 3).  She also got not response.  (Perhaps the letter was received by Fr. Kickham?!)  Alice also had a letter published in the local Lexington newspaper saying that “Cuenin doesn’t represent all Catholics.“
• February 2012: Cuenin, in an interview with the New Ways Ministry, said:
  

  “The Catholic Church opposes gay marriage, so I cannot directly say I support it, but I have seen from my experience that for many people it creates a much healthier environment..For example, if you were to go to Provincetown in the summer time, where a lot of gay people go, it’s a radically different place today than it was 20 years ago,’ Cuenin said. ‘They are there with children and married, raising kids, so they go home at night. In other words, it has transformed the whole gay scene.”

  (BCI comment: Why would a celibate Catholic priest be checking out the gay scene in gay mecca, Provincetown, for decades and be so familiar with it?)

• October 2014: Cuenin, in his assignment as Catholic chaplain at Brandeis University, had what he described as an “enormous gay pride” rainbow flag displayed outside the chapel to “recognize Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer History Month.  In an article in the Brandeis Hoot, he is described as an “official LGBT ally on campus through his work with Trisk (Brandeis‘ LGBTQ+ student social grou). He also continuously makes himself available and accessible to struggling students in his role as a confidential resource.” (BCI comment: so young people struggling with their sexual identity go for counseling from a Catholic priest who’s on the record as saying he feels homosexual activity and gay marriage are positive things?)

Fr. Cuenin left Brandeis in January of 2015 for health reasons and is currently a senior priest in the Archdiocese of Boston. He has been out of the news since his departure from Brandeis.

After years of complaints to both Cardinals Law and O’Malley about Fr. Cuenin’s promotion of homosexuality, he was finally removed as pastor by Cardinal O’Malley not for his public dissent from Catholic teachings, but rather based on the results of a financial audit that showed improper use of church funds for a leased car and excessive payment of Mass stipends.  Then Cardinal O’Malley reassigned him be a college campus chaplain, where he was allowed to freely counsel students confused about their sexuality and fly a Rainbow flag over the campus chapel.

Many priests in the Archdiocese — certainly a large minority of the presbyterate and perhaps a slight majority of those between 55 and 75 — are homosexual men, and many of those have come to understand themselves by reference to their sexual identity as the gay subculture defines it.  Does Cardinal O’Malley see this as a problem?

Why has Cardinal O’Malley coddled  priests like those named above and in Part 1 (plus others) and allowed them to stay in active ministry where they are leading souls astray and away from salvation?

More in Part 3.