Those following the blog know that we have had the pleasure of comments by Boston Archdiocese Vicar General, Fr. Richard Erikson and a request for dialogue. A post by Paul Melanson at La Salette Journey entitled, “Constructive Criticism or Condemnation” prompted us to now tell you exactly what has resulted from our interaction with him. Today’s blog was written last night and in our review queue ready for posting when we received an email back from the Vicar General first thing this morning. Advance apologies for the level of detail. Grab a cup of iced tea, iced coffee, or lemonade and read on.
When Fr. Richard Erikson was first named Vicar General in 2006, we were impressed by his background—former St. John’s Seminary instructor, and U.S. Air Force Lt. Col and chaplain for seven years who had been deployed to Ballad, Iraq to minister to injured soldiers at the center of the insurgency and most attacked sector in Iraq for a 40-day tour. What was not to like about this person coming back to Boston? But, now four years later, well, we’ll just say something about being in the Boston archdiocesan hierarchy must get to people and wear them out after a while.
On June 24, we wrote criticizing how Fr. Bryan Hehir helped reinforce a “wound to Catholic unity” by praising the Catholic Health Association’s leadership as they celebrated the passage of CHA-backed “Obamacare.” Hehir also suggested the CHA’s voice in the debate carried equal weight to that of the Catholic Bishops, and our post prompted a response from the Vicar General, who said our blog posts were disrespectful, inappropriate, and inaccurate in criticizing Fr. Hehir. Here is Fr. Erikson’s original public comment:
To the author(s) of this blog:
You have made many statements and assertions in the text of your blog that call for comment and engagement by the leadership of the Archdiocese of Boston. We are open to entering into serious and sincere discourse with individuals who have the confidence to identify themselves and engage in civil discourse with respect for all individuals involved. Such has not been the case with your blog. We have reached out to you before. I am reaching out to you again. You do not identify yourselves and you regularly engage in disrespectful, discourteous and inaccurate attacks including consistently inappropriate and cruel disparagement of Fr. J. Bryan Hehir. Should you be interested in coming forward for thoughtful and respectful conversation on issues that matter to you, we would be happy to reciprocate such courtesy.
Fr. Richard Erikson
Vicar General and Moderator of the Curia
We responded back immediately on the blog asking that Fr. Erikson “let us know any specific points or things we have posted here that you, Fr. Hehir, or the Archdiocese believe are factually incorrect…if there are any factual inaccuracies, they will be immediately corrected. Almost always when we ask this question, it turns out that there was not a factual error, but instead it was a complaint that the actual actions or words of the person described in the blog didn’t look so good presented publicly along with a logical interpretation of those facts.” We didn’t hear back, so we wrote Fr. Erikson an email. Here are excerpts:
Fr. Erikson,
As you know, the Bryan Hehir Exposed bloggers and others have sent you or copied you on well over a dozen messages at this email address, and we never received any response other than one short acknowledgment message from your secretary.
Fr. Hehir went on a string of public speaking engagements where he said or failed to say things that objectively undermined the Church. Recent examples: His comments about conscience protections for Catholic healthcare workers at a BC forum, his comments on WBUR about the Hingham situation that contradicted the Cardinal, his recent comments at the CHA. The issues we have raised are not “our” issues—they are issues for all Catholics, and in the absence of the archdiocese doing anything to correct Fr. Hehir’s statements and ensure he no longer is spreading inaccurate views, we had to say something. What we have posted is factually correct–and if there are errors in the facts, just let us know. It is also factually correct that he has been distorting and misrepresenting the truths of the faith and Church doctrine for nearly 40 years, and we are tired of letting this happen with no one in the church correcting it and preventing further scandal and confusion to the Catholic community at large. For the sake of our children and grandchildren, we are trying to help an Archdiocese–which many say is at the point of imploding–to uphold the fundamental truths of the faith. We are doing what we are doing because you guys seem increasingly incapable of doing this yourselves and have left a void. Six weeks have passed (actually eight weeks now) since Fr. Hehir publicly contradicted the Cardinal’s version of what is happening with Catholic schools in a situation with national visibility (that could affect Catholic education across the country for generations in the future), and archdiocesan officials have said NOTHING publicly. Are meetings being held to formulate a policy on whether to admit children of gay parents? If so, who is involved and what is happening?
If you and the Cardinal exercise strong leadership and ensure that the truths of the faith are taught and communicated in-season and out-of-season instead of letting the likes of Jack Connors, the Chancellor, Bryan Hehir, Neil Finnegan, and others who dissent from the faith (often publicly) run things, then we would have nothing to write about and the blog would fade away. Instead, all we see is the Cardinal blogging about his travels, places he goes, people he sees, looking more and more like an absentee archbishop. It is his responsibility to teach, sanctify, and govern. A huge number of priests, chancery workers, and laity are frustrated with the leadership void and see things in the Archdiocese getting worse and worse. Are you upset with us because we are simply blogging what is obvious and it’s troubling because we are exposing it publicly? Do you plan to do anything about the legitimate issues we have raised for the sake of millions of Catholics and their salvation? Or is the hope to just stop us from exposing the issues publicly as we have?
Fr. Erikson wrote back saying he did not wish to engage in an email conversations with people who remained anonymous, and said he welcomed the opportunity to meet with us. A few days later, on July 6, we wrote back:
Fr. Erikson,
We hope you had an enjoyable July 4 holiday weekend. The blogging team has discussed your offer to meet. We have several questions before agreeing to a meeting:
- What are your specific objectives for the meeting, and what would you propose as agenda topics?
- Who from the archdiocese would be present? Will anyone in a position to address the issues we have raised be in attendance?
- Since the issues raised on the blog have been brought up previously to Cardinal O’Malley and others over several years with no action ever taken, what is it about a meeting with you and your staff that will result in something different happening? If you have not yet seen the comments posted in follow-up of your original comment, we invite you to review those at: http://bryanhehirexposed.wordpress.com/2010/07/02/greatest-danger-to-church-is-internal-pollution/http://bryanhehirexposed.wordpress.com/2010/06/24/fr-bryan-hehir-wounds-catholic-unity-by-undermining-u-s-bishops-on-healthcare/
In case it was not clear to you and others, the key reason that we have remained anonymous up to now is because this archdiocese has a well-established history in recent years of retaliating against people and trying to silence them.
If the objectives in a meeting are primarily to identify the bloggers and extended team and have a meet-and-greet dialogue with years more of inaction on the fundamental concerns, then we’re sure you would agree it’s not worth it for our entire team to trek into Braintree and your staff to stay after hours to meet. Please let us know your thoughts on the above when you have the opportunity to respond.
Sincerely in Christ,
The Bryan Hehir Exposed team
We heard nothing back until this morning, but more on that in a moment.
We have known and continue to know that we are on solid ground with our blog posts and criticism. Paul Melanson’s excellent commentary “Constructive Criticism or Condemnation” puts it all in perspective and further explains the basis for what we are doing here. Here are some excerpts, but you should really read the whole post:
It is most significant that the Vicar General, Father Richard Erikson, doesn’t provide any specific examples of posts which he feels were “disrespectful, inappropriate and inaccurate.” For this would suggest a certain dishonesty on his part. It is important, especially for Christians, to be truthful in every communication. This because it is only by testifying to the truth that Christians can spread the truth of the Gospel and do their part to build up the Kingdom of God.
I suspect the Vicar General is confusing criticism with condemnation. Dr. Montague Brown explains the difference between the two nicely: “Criticism is the honest appraisal of the value of ideas or actions…Pursued in the right spirit, it is a positive undertaking whose purpose is to gain an accurate understanding for the sake of growing in wisdom and virtue….Condemnation goes beyond evaluation of an idea or action to a declaration of the worthlessness of a human being. It is never fair and is a wholly negative judgment, referring only to weaknesses. Because condemnation is unreasonable, it serves no purpose in our quest for wisdom and virtue.” (The One-Minute Philosopher, pp. 28,29).
Since Father Erikson has asserted that criticism of Father Bryan Hehir has moved beyond criticism and into condemnation, the burden is on him to demonstrate how this is so. Thus far, he has failed to do so. At any rate, the Code of Canon Law is clear:
ß2 Christ’s faithful are at liberty to make known their needs, especially their spiritual needs, and their wishes to the Pastors of the Church.
ß3 They have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church. They have the right also to make their views known to others of Christ’s faithful, but in doing so they must always respect the integrity of faith and morals….
So, to readers of the blog and to Fr. Erikson and others in the Archdiocese, we hope it’s been clear and it remains clear that we are merely exercising our canonical right to make our views and needs known that relate to the good of the Catholic Church. And we are offering fraternal correction along the way as we are also called.
This morning we got an email from the Vicar General, just after we had given up on hearing back from him. He said nothing of a private nature that was not said publicly in his prior post, so here it is:
Good morning,
The objective of the meeting is to have a frank conversation about what is the best way to serve Christ and His Church. I believe there is much on your blog that is untrue and harmful to individuals and to the Body of Christ. I know of your convictions based on what you write in the blog. I hope our conversation would give you a broader frame of reference for future blog entries. I anticipate Fr. Hehir, myself and, perhaps, one or two of my colleagues from the Pastoral Center being present for this meeting.
Blessings,
Fr. Erikson
We have promised our readers an update for a while, so now you have it. We appreciate the outreach from the Vicar General and opportunity for face-to-face dialogue with him and with Fr. Hehir, and have not yet decided on how to respond. We do pray that we can best serve Christ and His Church, so it is positive that we are in agreement on the end goal. Since starting this blog, we have heard from bishops, priests, laity, and well-known theologians who all say what we are doing is valuable, much needed, and is indeed serving Christ and the goo0d of the Church. But, the continuing statements that the blog has much “that is untrue” have not been backed with any examples, despite our asking several times. (Just for clarity’s sake, we will re-state and re-present the key facts in as objective a way as we can in the next weeks worth of posts.) In the end, it seems like the goal of a meeting is simply for them to educate us (without acknowledgment of the objective facts and truths we have presented), and for us to then moderate and tone-down legitimate, canonically-authorized and requested criticism–without the Archdiocese doing anything to address the concerns fundamental to faithful Catholics.
Readers, what do you think?
Joe, I think Fr. Erikson’s response is disappointing. He still refuses to state which facts he claims are untrue. Broad statements like “to best serve Christ and His Church” do nothing but make good sound bites. I’m afraid it’s a ruse to do as you said – get the bloggers to identify themselves and tone down their criticism, which from what I can see is valid. I’d suggest you hold off from meeting until Fr. Erikson or the Cardinal or Fr. Hehir responds to specifics and acknowledges that best serving Christ’s Church would be to adhere to the Magisterium. Given the mess that the Archdiocese is in, this blog’s adherence to keeping the truth in the public eye is invaluable.
I cannot help but wonder how productive a meeting with Archdiocesan officials would actually be at this point in time. I only say this because Father Erikson has asserted that those who author this Blog, and others who contribute to it with comments, “regularly engage in disrespectful, discourteous and inaccurate attacks” which include “consistently inappropriate and cruel disparagement of Fr. J. Bryan Hehir” and yet refuses to cite examples of such behavior.
Father Erikson states that, “We [the leadership of the Archdiocese of Boston] are open to entering into serious and sincere discourse..” But authentic dialogue entails clarity in expression, meekness and patience in the exchange, mutual confidence and a prudent consideration for the other’s characteristics and circumstances. Authentic dialogue is “truth..wedded to charity and understanding to love.” (Ecclesiam Suam). Patience in the exchange does not include accusations which are not corroborated by facts.
What Fr. Erikson has incorrectly classified as rudeness or “inappropriateness” is, in fact, frankness. As Dr. Brown explains, “Since friendship is at the heart of all real community, frankness is also an ideal in all cooperative ventures. It is a sign of close friends that they may speak freely about whatever is on their minds without taking offense….If people are involved in a serious project, it is important that they feel free to criticize each other’s ideas and accept criticism.”
It would appear that Fr. Erikson [and perhaps other Archdiocesan officials] are not prepared for such authentic dialogue but merely wish to control the course of any discussion.
This was the answer I received from Paul when I wrote him.
Make tape-recording the meeting a precondition. Then there won’t be any “he said, she said” afterward.
Joe, I very strongly believe that Cardinal O’Malley must attend the meeting,too. The reason I say this is that in the early ’90s when the Moderator for the Archdiocese, Bishop Wm. Murphy, gave his full support to Fr. Walter Cuenin and the leaders of Catholic Charities ,including Dr. Joseph Doolin(the President of Catholic Charities),Fr. Phillip Earley,Vivian Soper, Pat Dunn,and New Ways Ministry promoters,Fr. John J. White and Jean Proia, as well as the President of Boston PFLAG,Charles Connors,to develop the Companions Program, I do not believe that Cardinal Law knew what was going on. When I was thrown out of the Catholic Charities meeting at the Wilson St. office at St. Patrick’s,Natick,and silenced for having asked if Cardinal Law knew about the fact that the Companions leaders were recommending that Catholics join the New Ways Ministry and, in fact, give support to PFLAG, Bishop Murphy blamed me for asking if Cardinal Law knew what was going on and he told Fr. Dan Twomey(then pastor of St. Patrick’s) to silence me.
I believe that Cardinal Law did not know the full extent of the damage that was being done to get Catholics to promote acceptance of same-sex sexual behavior in his name through Catholic Charities. I do not believe he would have given his approval had he really known what was happening.
I believe that you really need to have Cardinal O’Malley present at your meeting with Fr. Erickson,Fr. Bryan Hehir(the President of Catholic Charities) and whoever else Fr. Hehir invites to attend and give him support.
Sincerely,
Alice Slattery
cler·i·cal·ism (klr-k-lzm)
n.
A policy of supporting the power and influence of the clergy in political or secular
“I believe there is much on your blog that is untrue and harmful to individuals and to the Body of Christ.”matters.
He is accusing us of lying and actually harming our neighbor. I think his collar is too tight and is blocking his oxygen.
It seems he is doing this because EBH represents some sort of threat to the power structure. What he needs to understand this is not a ‘voice of the faithful group’ or folks making legal claims against the diocese. (although I think some of us do sympathize with these people) We are not the ‘sit in’ crowd or the church groupies that long for women in the priesthood (absurd), we are not a group of Boston College quasi-Catholics.
From my participation I believe that EBH represents a group of Catholics who buy the whole package, we don’t struggle with church teaching, we struggles with a church (Boston)who doesn’t seem to ‘take all that stuff very seriously’. We are clearly and unabashedly in line with Rome and Benedict XVI.
We have very little reverence for trendy Jesuit teaching like seamless garments or garments with seams for that matter. Over all, we seem to be well versed in Catholic teaching and dogma. We are not afraid to disagree with views that we see as in error or in conflict with church teaching and tradition. Including views of such highly regarded folks as Fr. Bryan Hehir.
At this point I think a meeting with the Boston diocese ‘big guns’ is a bit of a joke. I think EBH should continue doing what it has been doing and if Fr. Erikson at some point gets beyond our “outlandish threat to the kingdom of Braintree” and begins to perhaps offer some teaching and hope, then maybe we’ll meet with him.
His offer to meet with us and Bryan Hehir indicates to me he really does not understand even in principle what this Blog is really about. He will eventually one way or another.
“His offer to meet with us and Bryan Hehir indicates to me he really does not understand even in principle what this Blog is really about. ”
LastCatholic -
What is this blog really about?
Is it about helping “expose” things in the Church to help bring about a change of course?
Or is it about throwing accusations at priests and other Church officials, without really expecting it to change the course at all?
How many readers a month ago would have thought the Archdiocese would be willing to meet? How many blog posts, here and otherwise, have indicated that the Archdiocese doesn’t care about the views of orthodox Catholics or the orthdox Catholics themselves?
These priests have every reason to hate the folks that write this blog. But it looks like they have reached out to have a “frank conversation” to help reconcile the Church. Isn’t that what priests should do in the name of Christ?
There used to be concerned expressed that “THEY ignore us.” Now that they aren’t ignoring us, the thought is that “they feel a threat to the power structure.” This isn’t high school.
Perhaps they are thinking: “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.” (Matthew 5:11).
Bill
I personally am not surprised that the diocese would like to meet with us. I am also not particularity moved by the gesture.
“These priests have every reason to hate the folks that write this blog”
Hate this:
“Hey Billy, why don’t you go clap the erasers”
I am probably the biggest bomb tosser on this blog and have never said “I hate” anybody.
Many of us believe this is a ‘Turn the tables over in the Temple’ moment. Threat to the power structure? Are you kidding? High school? The President of the United States attended the funeral of Ted Kennedy in a Boston Church with the implied blessing of the Cardinal. This is an outrage to many Catholics WORLDWIDE. Such an event could not have occurred with out complete cooperation of the diocese. There is reason to believe that Fr. Hehir is in the middle of it and made it happen. If this is the case I am sure he wove as swell tale to soothe the conscious of Fr. Erikson and His Eminence Sean (the Blogger).
I have quoted it many times.
Fr. Corapi called Boston “Ground Zero in the Culture of Death”. The issues at hand and discussed on this blog are well beyond a few formal leaders in Braintree. The Church hierarchy is not a paramilitary organization it is more of a family, a family that we all have a role in. EBH are just trying to be good sons and daughters following our Catholic conscience.
Since Reverend Erickson spent 40 days in Iraq hiding under a desk, this does not make him a hero. My nehew did six months in Iraq. My dad spent six months in Stalog Luft III. Read about Marine Corps saint Capodano. Erickson wants to identify the enemies of the archdiocese and then “chop them up”. Do research on the Inquisition. If Cardinal Burke was chopped into pieces here in St. Louis and then shipped out of town, just what do think that these “skunks” are up to. Semper Fi.
By quoting Father Corapi, you added a lot of validity to your diatribe. Semper Fi.
Joe -
Why wouldn’t you take this meeting? I’m frankly shocked that you wouldn’t immediately take it.
I understand why you have reservations and why you might not believe that it would lead to a positive outcome. But those risks are not outweighed by the possible benefits of you making your case to them directly.
Why are you are assuming Father Erickson’s outreach is somehow insincere? Based on what? If you are going to parse everything Fr. Erickson says to judge it’s sincerity, shouldn’t readers also wonder if you’re sincere in saying that you liked his background when he was first appointed. Why should we think that is any more sincere than Father Erickson’s response?
Furthermore, I would think you would salivate at the opportunity to present your concerns directly to Father Hehir. Whatever we think of him, frankly at least he is man enough to sit in the same room with you.
While there is a lot for readers like me to agree with on this blog and on BostonCatholicInsider, there’s something wrong with you hiding behind anonymous posts. And let’s state what we all know: (a) “Joe Sacerdo” is as much a real person as “Francis Marion” was; and (b) that there’s some connection between all these blogs. Carol McKinley has the courage to go on the record with her own views and defend them. Same goes for Michael Voris. So does Bishop Gracida. So does CJ Doyle. So do so many others. There’s something honorable about taking a controversial view and accepting the consequences to defend it and to take some heat.
What are you and your team really afraid of if you took this meeting? Losing your anonymity? If you truly believe you are right about your judgments, shouldn’t you at least be willing to suffer a little “white martyrdom” defending them? You suggest often that Church leaders like Cardinal O’Malley should “stand up” for Church teaching in the midst of a secular culture, that hates the Church. You and other blogs critized the Church for not blasting that crazy Globe magazine piece by Charlie Pierce, yet you’re not willing to stand up for your views that you initiate.
It’s my judgment that your group and your blog will lose credibility if you don’t take this meeting. Don’t you want to TRY to change the Archdiocese’s future path? Or did you just want to take shots at Father Hehir, Father Erickson and so many others and not have to be accountable for what you say? If you don’t take this meeting, I and others will view you as cowards. I’d never say that about McKinley, Voris, Doyle, etc.
Father Erickson and Father Hehir are man enough to take this meeting with you, even after all the anonymous insults you’ve thrown at them. I think that’s pretty remarkable. Do you have the courage to do so too?
Maybe they’re not as bad as a priest as you have viewed them to be. But you’ll never know until you sit in the same room and judge their sincerity.
Do yourself and your community a readers. Take the meeting.
Bill
Father Erickson is “crooked and insincere”. If the Pope is irrelevant, then “send Erickson to Toledo” where Domenico Theotocopoli painted the truth. Before you can take on your enemies, you have to identify them first.
Bill, I think if Fr. Erikson and Fr. Hehir are, as you said, “man enough” to have a meeting, then they’d be “man enough” to correct any supposed falsehoods. All it takes is a few keystrokes to point out specific problems. So far, nothing. This blog isn’t anonymously posting “insults.” Rather it seems to me it’s posting facts about problems that have existed in the Archdiocese for years. Twice the blog founders have asked Fr. Erikson to correct anything he sees as erroneous, and he has still failed to address that. I cannot see how a face-to-face meeting will help unless this issue is publicly addressed. And should a meeting ever develop, I agree with the woman who said the Cardinal should be present.
Sheila -
Fraternal correction is a deep tradition of our Catholic faith.
Did I miss the part of our tradition that suggests it should be done anonymously on a blog? Or that all conversation between “brother/sister Catholics should be done via email” so that those that want to hide can have it on their terms.
“Joe” should take the meeting and ask for specific examples there. Maybe Erickson wants to respect the time honored tradition of providing fraternal correction face to face.
If “Joe” takes the meeting and no facts are brought up, THEN your concern is valid. It just seems ridiculous that this blogger DEMANDS that Archdiocesan officials respond to everything via email.
Pope Benedict has written about the dangers of the New Media Age and the anonymity and lack of direct personal contact and relationship. I think he was talking specifically about this sort of stuff.
They offered to meet. “Joe” should take the meeting not hide behind the argument “but we want to only communicate with you via email” route.
Bill
Bill,
You new here? Were you sent by the Chancery or their PR firm to pull people towards some false pretense, just like Bryan Hehir and the rest of them in the Chancery do?
The concept of fraternal correction long pre-dates blogging, so I don’t know what kind of point you’re trying to make.
Your comment about Pope Benedict and the dangers of the New Media Age is so full of holes you could drive a truck through it. He may have felt things like Facebook as a substitute for interpersonal communications were a concern. But in January he embraced blogs and new media:
Go forth and blog!
http://wyblog.us/blog/media/b16-go-forth-and-blog
He did it again in May 2010:
“http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/communications/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20100124_44th-world-communications-day_en.html
“The development of the new technologies and the larger digital world represents a great resource for humanity as a whole and for every individual, and it can act as a stimulus to encounter and dialogue.”
If I were the bloggers, I would do exactly what they have been doing. The archdiocese has become very vindictive. I’d only take a meeting if the Cardinal (Fr. Hehir’s boss) was present and only after they name what they find objectionable. If no one in the archdiocese acknowledges the truths of what has been written on this blog (as they haven’t) and no one in a position to act on the concerns is going to attend, exactly what will be gained from a meeting? Fr. Hehir will just spin the same yarn he’s been spewing for the past 40 years about how everything is a complicated problem in our complex pluralistic society. Blah, blah, blah. I also heard today that Fr. Erikson may want out of the Pastoral Center and prefers to go back to the Air Force some time soon.
Even from out-of-town, it is obvious that Erickson and Hehir have an agenda which will not be sidetracked by any opposition. If the Vatican espouses “gay marriage”, then I encourage you to back off. If not, then “more fire to the feet”.
Thank you for the great service you are performing in keeping the laity informed and in assisting the cleansing of the church of Christ. In recent decades His church has been defiled far beyond what anyone would have imagined. Through your efforts, however, what remains of the malignancy can be excised and a leaner, cleaner organization emerge to pursue its true mission in the Boston Archdiocese once again. May God bless your efforts.
Bill says, “If you are going to parse everything Fr. Erickson says..”
Bill, you couldn’t be more wrong. Fr. Erikson is the one who has engaged in hypersensitivity.
Even from here, it is obvious that Father Erickson is not sensitive, he is “crawling out from under his rock” and engaging in “forked tongue” dialogue. Why do you think that Geronimo got so upset with negotiations with Custer and his crowd? Semper Fi.
Bill wrote, “Father Erickson and Father Hehir are man enough to take this meeting with you, even after all the anonymous insults you’ve thrown at them. I think that’s pretty remarkable. Do you have the courage to do so too?”
This statement is dishonest. I have seen no “insults.” Only cogent commentary that continues to go unanswered. If Fathers Hehir and Erikson are really “man enough” for a metting, why are they not “man enough” to commit their views to writing by responding to commentary here?
I’ll tell you why. A face to face meeting allows wiggle room for denying that one actually said something. But once one commits a statement to writing, there is no denying it afterward.
Why are Fathers Hehir and Erikson so afraid of responding at this forum? And how does this constitute “courage”?
Michael –
My main point was not so much that Fathers Erickson and Hehir be celebrated for courage in having a meeting. I was intending to contrast that with the lack of courage on the part of Joe and the other bloggers to attend unless the Archdiocese responds VIA EMAIL to their long list of concerns about Father Hehir come in first.
That to me is just a smokescreen for Joe and the bloggers from not wanting to own up to their ideas and defend them personally.
Commenters on this blog have argued that orthodox Catholics don’t have their concerns taken seriously by the Archdiocese. Now you have the chance to have a meeting and ask for a response face-to-face.
You are right that both sides might interpret the meeting differently and that the Archdiocese would have “wiggle room” to report its side if it chose. But so would “Joe.”
How many leaders of organizations would engage in a detailed email exchange with someone that is anonymous? Can you think of any business leader, school leader, government leader, apostolate leader that would get into a detailed email conversation with someone anonymous?
Instead of spending a lot of energy complaining that the Archdiocese won’t respond via email to these concerns, why doesn’t Joe see what the response is when he expresses them personally?
If someone is doing the “work of the devil”, they are completely dangerous and devious. That is what appears to be going on here. Semper Fi.
I meant to write “meeting” in the second paragraph.
There is something which needs to be said here. Father Erikson has bought into a false notion of charity. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1822, explains that, “Charity is the theological virtue by which we love God above all things for his own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God.
In other words, God must always come first. But Father Erikson has reversed this order. Father Felix Sarda Y Salvany explains why this is problematic on pages 92-95 of his book Liberalism is a Sin: “Are not your vigorous denunciations, it is urged against us, harsh and uncharitable, in the very teeth of the teaching of Christianity which is essentially a religion of love? Such is the accusation continually flung in our face. Let us see what its value is. Let us see all that the word charity signifies.
The catechism, that popular and most authoritative epitome of Catholic theology, gives us the most complete and succinct definition of charity; it is full of wisdom and philosophy. Charity is a supernatural virtue which induces us to love God above all things and our neighbors as ourselves for the love of God. Thus after God, we ought to love our neighbor as ourselves, and this not in any way, but for the love of God and in obedience to His law. And now what is to love? Amare est velle bonum, replies the philosopher: ‘To love is to wish good to him whom we love.’ To whom does charity command us to wish good? To our neighbor, that is to say, not to this or that man only but to everyone. What is that good which true love wishes? First of all supernatural good; then goods of the natural order, which are not incompatible with it. All this is included in the phrase ‘for the love of God.’
It follows, therefore, that we can love our neighbor, when displeasing him, when opposing him, when causing him some material injury and even, on certain occasions, when depriving him of life. All is reduced to this in short: Whether in the instance where we displease, oppose or humiliate him, it is or is not for his own good, or for the good of someone whose rights are superior to his, or simply for the greater service of God.
If it is shown, that in displeasing or offending our neighbor, we act for his good, it is evident that we love him even when opposing or crossing him. The physician cauterizing his patient or cutting off his gangrened limb may none the less love him. When we correct the wicked by restraining or by punishing them none the less do we love them. This is charity and perfect charity. It is often necessary to displease or offend one person, not for his own good, but to deliver another from the evil he is inflicting. It is then an obligation of charity to repel the unjust violence of the aggressor; one may inflict as much injury on the aggressor as is necessary for the defense. Such would be the case should one see a highwayman attacking a traveler. In this instance, to kill, wound, or at least take such measures as to render the aggressor impotent, would be an act of true charity.
The good of all good is the divine good, just as God is for all men the neighbor of all neighbors. In consequence the love due to a man inasmuch as he is our neighbor ought always to be subordinated to that which is due to our common Lord. For His love and in His service we must not hesitate to offend men. The degree of our offense towards men can only be measured by the degree of our obligation to him. Charity is primarily the love of God, secondarily the love of our neighbor for God’s sake. To sacrifice the first is to abandon the latter. Therefore to offend our neighbor for the love of God is a true act of charity. Not to offend our neighbor for the love of God is a sin.
Modern Liberalism reverses this order. It imposes a false notion of charity; our neighbor first, and, if at all, God afterwards. By its reiterated and trite accusations of intolerance, it has succeeded in disconcerting even some staunch Catholics. But our rule is too plain and to concrete to admit of misconception. It is: Sovereign Catholic inflexibility is sovereign Catholic charity. This charity is practiced in relation to our neighbor when in his own interest, he is crossed, humiliated and chastised. it is practiced in relation to a third party, when he is defended from the unjust aggression of another, as when he is protected from the contagion of error by unmasking its authors and abettors and showing them in their true light as iniquitous and pervert, by holding them up to the contempt, horror and execration of all. It is practiced in relation to God when, for His glory and in His service, it becomes necessary to silence all human considerations, to trample under foot all human respect, to sacrifice all human interests, and even life itself to attain this highest of all ends. All this is Catholic inflexibility and inflexible Catholicity in the practice of that pure love which constitutes sovereign charity. The saints are the types of this unswerving and sovereign fidelity to God, the heroes of charity and religion. Because in our times there are so few true inflexibles in the love of God, so also are there few uncompromisers in the order of charity. Liberal charity is condescending, affectionate, even tender in appearance, but at bottom it is an essential contempt for the true good of men, of the supreme interests of truth and of God. It is human selflove usurping the throne of the Most High and demanding that worship which belongs to God alone.”
Liberal charity is self-love which demands that worship which belongs to God alone. Meditate very carefully on those words. They describe most aptly the attitude of so many Catholics today.
It is our duty as Catholics to remind others of these truths and to expose those who are promoting sin or error. But often we will find ourselves being criticized (even by other Catholics, whose commitment toward Catholic teaching is, at best, questionable) for doing so. This should never deter us. When such people accuse us of “negativity,” we should recall the words of Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand: “..the rejection of evil and of sin is a response which is purely positive and morally called for, and it possesses a high moral value. One cannot truly love God, without hating the devil. One cannot really love the truth, without hating error. One cannot find the truth and grasp it clearly as such, without seeing through errors. Knowledge of truth is inseparably linked with knowledge of error, with the unmasking of error.* All talk about the superiority of ‘yes’ over ‘no,’ about the ‘negativity’ of rejecting that which should be rejected, is so much idle chatter.” (The Cult of the ‘Positive’).
Indeed it was Cardinal Newman who wrote, in the Grammar of Assent, “I would maintain that fear of error is simply necessary to the genuine love of truth.” (John Cardinal Newman, Grammar of Assent).
St. Francis de Sales, a Doctor of the Church, expresses himself: ‘If the declared enemies of God and of the Church ought to be blamed and censured with all possible vigor, charity obliges us to cry wolf when the wolf slips into the midst of the flock and in every way and place we may meet him.’” (pp. 97, 100-101).
Pope John XXIII said essentially the same thing: “…as long as we are journeying in exile over this earth, our peace and happiness will be imperfect. For such peace is not completely untroubled and serene; it is active, not calm and motionless. In short, this is a peace that is ever at war. It wars with every sort of error, including that which falsely wears the face of truth; it struggles against the enticements of vice, against those enemies of the soul, of whatever description, who can weaken, blemish, or destroy our innocence or Catholic faith.” (No. 93).
Father Erikson’s notion of charity is distorted. This is why he places more importance on the rights of Father Hehir (falsely asserting that the priest has been “cruelly disparaged,” than he does on the rights of God. If Father Erikson’s charity were authentic, as defined by the Catechism, he would be more concerned about the faith being undermined and watered-down in the Archdiocese of Boston.
God first. And then our neighbor for the love of God.
Thank you Michael Cole for your insight and thoughts. I hope Bill reads it and begins to understand what EBH is all about.
I think Bill is a pen name of Fr. Bryan Hehir.
Read Malachi Martin and his thoughts on Vatican II and world socialism. That is the agenda. The sex abuse scandal started in Boston with faithless priests and chaplains sent into the gay community by Humberto Modeiros. Cardinal Law was sent in by the Vatican to “stop the bleeding”. I would say that both the “devil and the deep blue sea” are big problems in Boston and spreading elsewhere. Father Hehir is the “big man on campus” at Harvard and is “rubbing shoulders with the elite” in government. So what? Is he doing it for God or is he doing it so that the faithful accept sin that he sees as developmental relationships?
I obtained this from La Salette Journey. And I commend Paul Melanson for his courage in spreading the hard truths at his Blog.
Bill,
You sound sharp and connected. If you are (connected), you know exactly what is going on in the archdiocese when orthodox priests (or lay people) “fraternally correct” the errors of Cardinal Sean’s administration.
Name a single person – just one – who has stepped forward in an honorable manner to have a frank discussion about errors with anyone running the Archdiocese and successful in stopping something scandalous.
Not only is it an exercise in futility, you put your vocation/your job in jeopardy.
“The objective of the meeting is to have a frank conversation about what is the best way to serve Christ and His Church. I believe there is much on your blog that is untrue and harmful to individuals and to the Body of Christ. I know of your convictions based on what you write in the blog. I hope our conversation would give you a broader frame of reference for future blog entries.”
You don’t know what the Archdiocese is up to when they invite you to have a frank conversation about what is the best way to serve Christ and His Church?
Let me explain.
Have you read the recent post over at Boston Catholic Insider?
If you have, and you are connected, you know exactly what that post is referring to.
Has Fr. Erikson called in Fr. C and Fr. K or Fr. J and Fr. B to have frank discussions with the lovebirds about the best way to serve Christ?
No, but he shows up in the comments section to invite bloggers to see his point of view about Hehir (et al) so they can have a broader frame of reference for further blog entries?
Broad enough to stop posting Hehir’s own actions and words so they can go on their way having a gay old time without concerns about having the Vatican show up here one day and get the lo down on what is going on under the tutelage of Cardinal O’Malley?
What you don’t seem to realize, is that the Catholics running this blog want to be the ones to have frank discussions with the Archdiocese about how to best serve the Church. We in the drivers seat, you passenger. If you want to have a meeting, you’ve got to ante up evidence the meeting is going to be conducted in good faith to meet our objectives. We want the archdiocese to flip from silencing people who ‘fraternally correct’ errors to silencing the dissenters.
We don’t have time and we are too seasoned to play a few rounds of rope a dope.
Thank you Father.
Dear TheLastCatholicinBoston,
Thank you.
Thanks too, for all your work for and with the BHE team.
Fr. B -
I in no way see myself as an apologist for the Archdiocese. I’m not. I agree with you that the Archdiocese SHOULD respond to the scandalous situations with the priests you mention (assuming what you say is true).
My main point yesterday was that I thought Joe should take the meeting to bring these concerns directly to Father Erickson and Hehir face-to-face. Perhaps it will lead to something good, although there’s no guarantee of that. Perhaps it will lead nowhere – if that occurs then the only thing “Joe” loses is his anonymity. And why is that so precious, really?
You wrote: “Name a single person – just one – who has stepped forward in an honorable manner to have a frank discussion about errors with anyone running the Archdiocese and successful in stopping something scandalous.”
Perhaps Joe and this team will be the first.
Fr. Erikson wrote in his email that “The objective of the [proposed] meeting is to have a frank conversation about what is the best way to serve Christ and His Church.
Being frank entails being honest. I am still waiting for him to show where blog posts have been inaccurate, cruel and inappropriate.
I guess I’ll be waiting a long time huh?
You are doing the will of God by being suspect to the real motives of what is going on. Keep the faith. Semper Fi.
How can the powers to bein the Archdiocese be believed when they are aware of the existence of the “Lavender Mafia” and do nothing to expose this group who are still active in their degrading actions.
Good response. Keep the faith. Semper Fi.
The “Lavender Mafia” is lead by the King of Excrement.
Pretty harsh but probably true. Semper Fi.
That’s the elephant in the room Tom.
Josoma and Cuenin have been quite forthright in and with the gay community about their active sexuality with their lovers and the dynamic of their relationships is well-known across the archdiocese. Yet, the Cardinal and his staff play deaf, dumb and blind. All the while empowering the lavender mafia.
Frankly, many of us are beginning to wonder about what team the Cardinal is on himself. I hate to say out loud what many of us are whispering – but this is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in the face of the empowerment of the lavender mafia here in Boston.
We are long in the tooth under the regime of Cardinal O’Malley. The pretense that there haven’t been attempts to engage in respectful conversations is dishonorable. The results of trying to change the archdiocese for anyone who has a vocation or a job under Cardinal Sean’s oppressive administration have been punitive.
Fr. Erikson finds comments here “inappropriate” because they expose the shady activities of the Boston Archdiocese. Of course, Fr. Hehir and the Archdiocese honoring pro-abortion, pro-homosexual Mayor Menino is entirely appropriate for Fr. Erikson.
The hypocrisy makes me want to vomit.
Do me a favor. Spread the sawdust first. Semper Fi.
n.b.
For the record, when I say “team”, I’m speaking about faithfulness to Catholic doctrine governing human sexuality.
We have several celibate priest colleagues who had homosexual attractions before ordination who are on our “team”.
The line in the sand is not homosexual vs heterosexual priests but rather, faithfulness to doctrine and discipline in living a celibate priesthood.
The Cardinal Archbishop of Boston is building. He is building a climate that empowers the preaching the lifting of prohibitions upon sexually activity in the homosexual community. This is being accomplished by silencing and punishing people who have stepped forward to have “frank conversations” about it.
We are engaging in discussions about Fr. Erikson’s ‘outreach’. I’ll go on record publicly saying what I’ve told the team:
Anyone rushing in to the Pastoral Center under the delusion the Archbishop is appointing Fr. Hehir to have good faith discussions about our objectives to drive rampant dissent on human sexuality out of his regime better pack an overnight back for the long ride up to Fr. Groeschel’s with a note in their hand saying they are mentally imbalanced and a long list of what they are forbidden to discuss in the public square.
Here’s the problem. The Pope has made it plain that homosexuals are “not called to be priests” because they have a moral deficiency. That is the issue here. Let’s say that you had sons who were altar boys. Would you want them serving Mass with a “known and active gay” priest?
I believe there is much… that is untrue and harmful to individuals and to the Body of Christ.
If your reports of Fr. Hehir’s actions are accurate, then the sentence above accurately describes Fr. Erikson’s responses to date.
Until Fr. Erikson documents the “untrue” statements in your reporting, then his accusation commits the very crime he accuses you of.
As such, you would be under no obligation to meet with him until he corrects his sin against you by documenting the “errors” that he accuses you of having committed.
There is no point in having a meeting without the Archdiocese of Boston setting out in advance, in writing, its comments and criticisms of the content of http://bryanhehirexposed.wordpress.com
Even then, the results of any such meeting would almost certainly be reported differently by the two sides.
What we need here is public debate. I suggest this should be done through the pages of The Pilot. God bless you.
The Pilot which is published by the Archdiocese? I don’t know about that. But I agree about the need for public debate. Why not an independent forum online where all are allowed to comment as long as they do so courteously? The forum could have two moderators: one from the Archdiocese and one from concerned Catholics who are alarmed at what’s going on in the Archdiocese.
Thanks very much to everyone who has posted comments–from the blogging team and from readers. So many have come in since Friday that it is impossible to reply to all of them individually on the blog or to thank everyone personally.
We appreciate the response by the Vicar General and offer of a meeting with him and Fr. Hehir, as well as the perspectives “Bill” has conveyed on the benefits of a face-to-face meeting.
This seems to boil down to two issues and questions, the first of which we’ll address in this comment:
1) What exactly does the Archdiocese believe is untrue or factually incorrect on the blog? Every statement or action by Fr. Hehir we have posted has a reference or multiple references documenting when and where it occurred. On the one occasion several months ago when we were told we had something wrong, even though the substance of what we wrote was accurate, we immediately changed it and acknowledged the correction, and when we were asked to keep away from a particular topic, we abided by that.
Since no one from the Archdiocese will tell us what they feel is untrue, here’s our best guess. Based on an interaction a few months back between someone from the archdiocese and a former member of the blog team, we heard that they don’t like how we connect the dots. In other words, the fact/reality of what Fr. Hehir said or did is indeed accurate and there is nothing untrue about that, but they don’t like the conclusions that we draw–which are the same conclusions that millions of other Catholics would logically draw from those actions. For example, Cardinal O’Malley issues a statement saying the Denver precedent of barring children of gay parents from Catholic schools needs to be carefully considered and the next day Fr. Hehir is on the radio saying the Cardinal is not looking at what happened in Denver and they are moving full speed ahead writing a policy to officially accept children of gay parents in Boston Catholic schools. We report these facts, highlight how Fr. Hehir contradicted his boss the Cardinal Archbishop and how the record was never set straight on what’s really happening, and we say these indisputable facts suggest we have an episcopal leadership problem in Boston. Is this an example of something we wrote that’s considered “untrue,” “inappropriate,” and/or “disparaging”? Or, Fr. Hehir speaks at the CHA conference and praises the leadership of the nun who helped pass abortion-funding Obamacare at the same time the president of the USCCB has been criticizing the CHA for wounding Catholic unity. We report these facts with an audio clip from Fr. Hehir’s keynote address and say that these indisputable facts suggest Fr. Hehir helped reinforce this US. Bishops-labelled “wound to Catholic unity.” Is this an example of something we wrote that’s considered “untrue,” “inappropriate,” and/or “disparaging”?
We have documented the concerns we and other Catholics have in very specific terms, and want to help bring about a positive change of course for the archdiocese and the Church in Boston. But we find it difficult to properly consider the prospect of a good-faith meeting with an unsubstantiated accusation about untruths in our blog as the primary basis for the Archdiocese wanting to have the meeting. Steve Kellmeyer said it well in his comment.
If we’re not mistaken, Steve is a fantastic Catholic public speaker who runs or has some affiliation with an excellent website, “CultureWarNotes” (www.culturewarnotes.com). It’s like the Drudge Report of Catholic culture. Do check it out.
We will comment on the second concern separately.
Joe -
I’m not sure what the second question you’ll respond to is.
But would you be willing to answer the following:
a. Why must you get these responses to what is “untrue” in EMAIL first as a condition to the meeting?
[I agree with the comments you and Steve have made that Father Erickson would have done exactly what he accuses you of IF he doesn't mention what he believes is untrue on this blog in your meeting. The fact that he won't respond to those via email doesn't mean he doesn't have legitimate facts to share. But you'll only know if you meet].
b. Do you think any good could come from a meeting with Father Erickson, Father Hehir and others from the Archdiocese?
[If so, you should take the meeting without conditions. If not, why do you make it seem like you'd take it if Father Erickson responded via email? Based on the comments from many, it seems that people don't have much hope for a good outcome. But you'll never know unless you do it.]
c. Why are you anonymous?
[Many folks fighting for the same things as you (Voris, Melanson, McKinley, Doyle, many others) are not.
d. Do you think "guerrila warfare" is a tactic that should be played against the Church and its leaders, from within the church, by faithful Catholics?
[I read that "Francis Marion" was the father of guerrila warfare. I wonder if that is the purpose of this blog. Whether we like his decisions or not, our faith teaches us that our Archbishop is a successor to the Apostles, an Apostle for our own age. If we believe he is in error, I agree that faithful Catholics should try to help him correct his actions, but guerrila warfare tactics don't seem appropriate from within the Church.]
e. What is the ultimate goal/purpose of this Blog? What was the goal of “exposing” Father Bryan Hehir?
[If it is to try to change some things in the Church, or help correct some errors by the Church, wouldn't you want to take the meeting on the Church's conditions to see if you could make some progress? Was it to try to get Cardinal Sean to replace Father Hehir in his role? If it was to tear Bryan Hehir down personally, how do you reconcile that with your faith?]
You and the team here have worked for months on this Blog. It seems from Father Erickson’s emails that the Archdiocese has noticed and is not ignoring you.
Don’t make the tactical mistake of thinking the ball is in your court now.
It’s not.
Through your blog, you’ve hit the ball into their court. They have just replied, “Come on over to our side of the court so we can
beat the crap out of youdiscuss how you’ve been uncharitable, libelous, and have gravely injured the Body of Christ. We’ll also lecture you about the relevant parts of civil & canon law for good measure. Come on over! It’ll be fun.”They desperately want you to play by their rules.
Right now, you’ve playing by your rules– the “new media” rules. They find this scary. It’s outside of their comfort zone, and they can’t possible control things when the game is played this way.
Keep focused on your goal: expose the corruption. Make them answer on your terms.
To date, they haven’t said anything that indicates good faith on their part in asking to meet with you. Ergo, it’s not a good-faith request.
Perhaps it’s reasonable to expect that they could publicly answer at least one or two specific, substantive charges you’ve made against Hehir & what his presence implies for the state of the Archdiocese. If their responses are solid and indicate good faith on their part, then there might be grounds for considering a meeting.
Keep up the good work, guys. Don’t let them sidetrack you.
Exit questions: How much time have you burned already by chasing your tails on this question? And how many more blog posts could you have written with that time?
Boston Mike is that you?
Right on.
You “hit the nail on the head”. You “hit the ball out of the park”. That is the deviousness of a “snake which is crawling out from under a rock”. Semper Fi.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Pope Paul VI’s Encyclical Letter Ecclesiam Suam (which lays out the authentic principles of dialogue), also warns of danger. A danger which faces apostolates such as this one. I refer especially to No. 88:
“But the danger remains. Indeed, the worker in the apostolate is under constant fire. The desire to come together as brothers must not lead to a watering down or whittling away of truth. Our dialogue must not weaken our attachment to our faith. Our apostolate must not make vague compromises concerning the principles which regulate and govern the profession of the Christian faith both in theory and in practice.
An immoderate desire to make peace and sink differences at all costs (irenism and syncretism) is ultimately nothing more than skepticism about the power and content of the Word of God which we desire to preach. The effective apostle is the man who is completely faithful to Christ’s teaching. He alone can remain unaffected by the errors of the world around him, the man who lives his Christian life to the full.”
Our yes should mean yes and our no should mean no. Anything else comes from the Evil One. It was Our Savior who told us this.
Of course, Fr. Erikson’s response is disappointing. It is a stall tactic. He still refuses to state which facts he claims are untrue.
They really need to feel more publicity heat. For my small part, I constantly send links to your blog and tell folks this is the way
heresy needs to be addressed ….Keep up the good work.
Don’t go to any meeting. Keep doing what you are doing. If something is factually incorrect, just let them respond to it with a post on the Diocesan website.
Bill, I think we all get your point although the two dozen or so other people who’ve commented here don’t agree with you. The issue should be the problems brought up. I believe you’re sidetracking the subject with “the best defense is a good offense” tactic. If that’s not your motivation, I’m glad, but could we get back to the point of all the problems this blog has raised? So far I’ve not seen one of them publicly addressed by the Archdiocese.
Sheila –
It is clear that I am advocating a minority position.
But I’m confused why everyone thinks and expects the Archdiocese should be addressing the points raised on this blog via EMAIL, not in a face-to-face meeting.
I’m not trying to sidetrack the main point.
But if the main objective is to get those points addressed, why wouldn’t someone want to do that in any way the Archdiocese is willing to do it?
And the expectation that the Archdiocese would “publicly address” the points on this blog, ON this blog, or via email with ANONYMOUS bloggers is not realistic.
Bill,
I can see how much you love Christ’s Church and I want to go on record thanking you for trying to be a mediator in the situation.
While being put in a league with CJ and Voris feels a bit out of my league, I think you are onto what is truly a new ministry within the Church – orthodox and faithful Catholics who are rising to expose the corruption. The ministry is taking shape, finding ways for those who are front and center and hands on and who therefore have access to the most accurate picture on what is actually happening.
I want to also address a few of your observations and concerns relative to the anonymity and Fr. Erikson’s outreach.
I am writing in the capacity of a Boston blogger who is grateful for the Catholics running BHE and Boston Catholic Insider, and for the unity it is bringing to all of us as a force.
We are under siege here in Boston and the anonymity is a result of the missiles launched by the diocese in the direction of people who have been trying to have frank conversations with them since Cardinal O’Malley took over the diocese. when you walk into a room and somebody beats you, you are going to stop going into the room as a mode of survival. Since everyone in the Boston Catholic blogging community sees the trajectory of Cardinal O’Malley’s administration veering off the course of the salvation of souls, and we all take our baptismal call seriously – sitting quiet as they do it is simply not an option. Actually,the anonymity it’s not really that new as Diogenes has been at it for quite some time. It is a way to continue your apostolate without the threat of being removed while still getting the horrific state of the diocese under Cardinal O’Malley exposed.
This mission is critical because Hehir and his band of anti-Catholic thugs at the Kennedy School of Government are setting up Boston as ground zero for the false church they have waited 40 years to erect and have been given carte blanche to erect by Cardinal O’Malley. All of the people are now in power. All who object have been silenced or run out of town. The corrupt at the Vatican are clearing the path for Cardinal O’Malley and Hehir to carry out the dirty deeds.
To be silent in the face of this – or give legitimacy to the Cardinal’s administration, are serious sins of omission and commission. The people do not want to be a part of the dog and pony show.
You’ve stated that fraternal correction is a deep tradition of our Catholic faith. The problem with being invited to the Chancery under the guise we are going to be participating in a great tradition in our faith is, what he wants to do with the meeting doesn’t fall under the definition of fraternal correction, it comes under bullying people speaking the truth with the objective of shutting them up.
You said that it seems ridiculous to you that the bloggers are “demanding” Fr. Erikson demonstrate in good faith that the objectives of flipping the switch from persecuting the orthodox coming to them with threats against the bodies, minds and souls of the faithful – to one where they will start having ‘frank conversations’ to ‘fraternally correct’ dissenters will be met.
There are two reasons for this.
1. Have you seen him fraternally correct Austin Fleming? Ron Coyne? Steve Josoma? Did they go the people running the Voice of the Faithful internet site? Catholic Democrats? Women’s Ordination Groups? Have they fraternally corrected Arch Street or the Paulist Center?
2. Fr. Erikson has made a claim that the 30 years of Bryan Hehir’s dissent is somehow all a big misunderstanding and what is being divulged here is untruthful but has refused to clarify his statements with substance.
He seems to indicate, he’d like to give us his opinion on exposition of factual information about Fr. Hehir’s career. With all due respect, Boston bloggers are not interested in the opinions of the people running the diocese. We were at one time but after years of actually listening to it, and being victimized by their conduct, we now realize there is no hope they will agree that the best way to serve Christ’s Church is adherence to the Magisterium. Our souls are not aligned. We are not in the same spiritual world.
You have stated that the group operating this blog will lose credibility and my question is, with whom?
You may not see the irony in this – but you are actually posting anonymously. And, the people at the Chancery are not exactly our target audience. With factual and accurate information, credibility has already been established with our target audience. The response of faithful priests and Catholics has actually been overwhelming.
Finally, you said:
“Perhaps they are thinking: “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.” (Matthew 5:11).”
Herein lies the difference in the perspectives of the different spiritual worlds we are operating from.
Fr. Hehir rounded up Jack Connors and the Catholic School Foundation to threaten cutting off funding to Catholic Schools who did not accommodate parents who demand the cessation of teaching on human sexuality in Catholic Schools.
He has been caught red-handed brainstorming about how to eradicate conscience protections of Catholics as they impede doctors who want to serve patients by decapitating the children in the womb alive.
He was caught praising Sr. Carol Keehan as a hero in getting Obamacare implemented.
You see these actions of Fr. Hehir’s as some kind of martyrdom and servitude to truth and Christ. You see the people exposing the lies and deceptions as the enemies and persecutors of truth.
I don’t think I have to explain to you the reasons why the selling of abortion and the eradication of the conscience protections of Catholics as what Christ had in mind when He spoke about the Beatitudes.
In Christ,
Carol
Bill,
Peace!
Perhaps you misunderstand. You seem to think the bloggers are looking for a response from the hierarchy within Boston, I believe they are looking for a response a little further up the line. Only by shouting out from the rooftops what they see and have experienced, and by makng other aware will they succeed.
It is so clear to me that these faithful bloggers have tried and tried in vain. Perhaps at first they followed all the correct protocol, and waited patiently for the responses they hoped would come. Only after many, many disappointments does one begin to realize Christ himself is calling these souls to witness to Him.
Thankfully in the process they have not lost the faith. In fact it seems somehow stronger and also sadly all grown up. I bet most of them wish they could go back to those easy days when the church seemed honest and true and their yes meant yes, and no meant no. The painful reality must have come slowly and at a deep personal loss of spiritual innocence.
Bill what you don’t seem to see is that they have already been attacked and beaten and bruised by the very Church they love and serve. That they continue on should prove to you their courage, not timidity.
Perhaps that subtle ‘anonymity’ you want exposed or seem so put off by, is what gives sharpness to the blade of their spirit. If finally it gets the Boston chancery officials on their toes – well so be it. I don’t believe that is the real goal. The goal is to be faithful to Jesus, even when no one else is. The goal is to keep witnessing. If you are so eager to see the face, you must let the scales fall from your eyes and know that it is Christ and his very body that speaks and says “no more”.
God bless you, don’t give up.
This battle is important.
You are important , you mean something to Jesus!
Bill, I’ve read your passionate post (6:50pm)
a. Why must you get these responses to what is “untrue” in EMAIL first as a condition to the meeting?
Because the diocese thus far has not disciplined dissent but rather, promoted it.
Because there has been a long line of trying to have frank conversations to no avail.
Because the diocese has thus far used the Cardinal’s blog to slander and malign people speaking up about errors.
Because the tome Fr. Erikson has used thus far indicates he’d like to render a personal opinion about exposing 40 years of Fr. Hehir’s own words and the logical conclusions drawn from them.
You seem to be insensitive to the fact that the actions of the diocese thus far has eroded trust. Fr. Erikson has been asked several times to state publicly, for the record, for all to read – that the objective of removing people who are dissenting from the faith or living with their lovers and teaching sexual immorality to the faithful, will be met.
What we have now are the boys hunkering down to protect promiscuous priests and teaching that promiscuity to others. We have a Nuncio and a Vatican, who in the face of getting hundreds of letters and emails about this dynamic promotes the Cardinal empowering it and annoints and honors Fr. Hehir to undermine people sending the letters and faxes.
This was the problem with their dealings from the get go. Meanwhile, we have people trained by Walter Cuenin pointing to children’s labias and penises and telling them to say the name of them out loud.
It is ludicrous and we are finished with it.
What we want Bill, is real reform and we are not going to get it by talking to the people taking orders from the Kennedy School of Government.
One more thing -
You ask if guerrilla warfare upon a Bishop is a legitimate apostolate in Christendom.
This is a fight against the principalities and powers – not the people sucked into the vaccuum of their counsel. It is not guerrilla warfare but rather taking the whip to the thieves in the Temple.
They are stealing our faith and have been stealing it for 40 years.
We waited to long to suit up in armor and drive them out. I personally hope and pray that our better late than never efforts are pleasing to God and they will shorten our time in purgatory for all the souls we permitted to get carried away by the vultures while singing kumbaya.
One thing I know for sure – we will be long out of purgatory before those setting up the false church.
You wrote: “Name a single person – just one – who has stepped forward in an honorable manner to have a frank discussion about errors with anyone running the Archdiocese and successful in stopping something scandalous.”
Perhaps Joe and this team will be the first.”
Dear Bill and BHE Bloggers:
The abuses of power that have played out publicly with orthodox Catholics have been enough to dissolve trust. To my reading, there is an arrogance not acknowledging and pastorally responding to requests by the victims of these abuses.
Under these circumstances, it is unrealistic for Fr. Erickson to ask the bloggers to accept an invitation to discuss their expectations on what and how to blog. Everything you need to know about “the meeting” is implied in his emails.
Trust is earned and Fr. Erikson is not being realistic about how their own actions have brought this situation on.
Carol,
I agree with you on many things, but I think the writers of this blog should take the meeting. God doesn’t demand we succeed but He does demand that we try. Fr. Erikson’s invitation is unprecedented. While I suspect his motives, I could not in conscience dismiss him.
Joe and the others should not go unarmed, however. They should call on the Holy Spirit for guidance and protection. Go to Mass as a group before the meeting. Prepare beforehand with Rosaries and the Divine Mercy Chaplet. Fast as well, according to their ability. I would happily have a Mass said for this special intention and offer my communions for their effort.
Think of all the “saves” that occur at abortion clinics because of the brave few who stand there, armed only with a Rosary. If there’s even a chance there can be a “save” at the chancery, they should take it.
Wow. To receive acknowledgement from the Vicar General demonstrates the growing readership and attention this blog has received. Due to an increased workload, I’ve been unable to view recent posts, but am amazed there are 47 on the most recent post this one. Please keep up the good work!
Fr. Erikson wants nothing but to silence you. Short of that, he will waste your time, play with your conscience, and, if you fail to cower, paint you as a disobedient and hateful man. He desires no instruction or discussion. Don’t play along.
Carol and Kate have it correct, although Carol’s number of 40 years is too short. Bishops were ordaining perverts in the 50′s, hence, they were already turning a blind eye then.
The good God is chastising us. He has given the bishops over to false theologies, viruses you could say, that allow them to think they are doing good while they undermine everything. A frank discussion of this from a solid Catholic is found on waragainstbeing.com. Pray always, keep shining the light on the infection, and keep yourself unspotted from the world (and the archdiocese).
Listen to what this man is saying. If these “bums” are against the Pope, then “to the ramparts” and “dump the hot oil”.
Very interesting and lively discussion. Joe, I think it would be helpful to hear from you the second question you alluded to earlier. Also, as it is Sunday, the Lord’s day of rest, maybe BrianHehirExposed bloggers might consider a mandatory “fast” from the blog for a day?
Once again, there are too many new comments to respond to individually.
Thanks to all, and special appreciation to Carol for stating it as it is and to Motheroften for your eloquent words which also describe our situation in a way I could not have conveyed nearly as well as you did!
To “Bill” as has been stated by many others above, the basis for a meeting as described by Fr. Erikson, even if unprecedented and potentially worthwhile, is described as him lecturing us on why what we are doing and the way we are doing it is wrong. We’re already aware he feels that way. With no examples given, his accusations feel baseless. If we have not proven the truths on this blog, then how will a face-to-face meeting change that?
The second question is covered by Carol Mckinley. Is anything going to come from this? The historical record and the recent record suggests the answer to that is “no.” We will repeat just example again. That Fr. Hehir was allowed to speak at the CHA and praise their leadersihp after the polarizing national debate on healthcare–and after the Catholic Bishops came out opposed to the CHA’s divisive position in favor of Obamacare–says something is very wrong in this archdiocese that goes above the paygrade of Fr. Erikson and Fr. Hehir. It suggests not only a flaw in Fr. Hehir’s judgment (that we have commented on previously) that he felt it was OK to go to the conference, it suggests a flaw in the judgement of whomever approved his talk and him traveling to the conference, and it suggests that nobody is in control–at least over Fr. Hehir and what he says and does, and perhaps even more broadly. (The reactions in follow-up of the Hingham schools situation reinforces the latter). Since the archdiocese’s recent history shows no one can or will control such actions, and no one will do a thing about such things as gay priests publicly living in a state of sin and scandalizing their parishes, and these are already well known, it makes no sense that suddenly a meeting with the bloggers will change all that. Why doesn’t the Archdiocese invest the time you’re spending on us (faithful Catholics proclaiming the Truth and exposing problems) instead actually cleaning up the messes and making sure everyone you have authority over lives and proclaims the Truth?
As suggested by the last commenter, William H, we are closing comments for the day so people can focus on God and their other personal obligations. We will reopen comments Sunday evening. Have a blessed day!
Bill,
Before responding, let me say that if we were in the shoes of this Archdiocese at this time, we would likely be making similar outreach to the bloggers as PART of our response strategy. But it feels to us that the Archdiocese’s goal is “to do something about the bloggers” vs “to actually do something about the legitimate issues highlighted by the bloggers for the good of the Church.” Most of your questions have been answered by other people already by now.
a) Why do you need to know what is considered “untrue” before a meeting?
Answered by Carol Mckinley at 8pm, as well as Steve Kellmeyer, Boston Mike, Jerry, John O’Gorman, and others.
b) Do you think anything good will come from a meeting with Fr. Erikson, Fr. Hehir, and others from the Archdiocese?
No, ‘fraid not. If Fr. Hehir felt his comments on WBUR about the Hingham/Catholic schools situation were appropriate and the Archdiocese agrees, and if Fr. Hehir and the Archdiocese felt it was appropriate for him to keynote the CHA and make the comments he made, and there are no consequences for these actions (and others we have documented), and since the proven modus operandi for this Archdiocese is to silence or wear-down faithful Catholics while letting dissenters run free, it really does not feel like anything good will come from a meeting. This article and the experience of this person further validates our sense that a meeting would result in little or nothing changing:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/11/29/ex_parish_leader_quits_diocesan_council/
c) Why are you anonymous?
Answered by Carol Mckinley already and in our message to Fr. Erikson. This archdiocese has a well-established history of retaliating against people. Priests and lay people involved with our effort all fear this. Some people could be fired from jobs and lose their livelihoods and we have no doubt that certain people in the archdiocese would pursue such direction. Bigger question is, if the Archdiocese doesn’t believe on its own for the good of the faithful that it should act to address dissent it has known about for years (eg. gay priests living in sin with “boyfriends”) and did nothing about issues we have exposed this year, and even felt comfortable giving the late Sen. Kennedy a coronation for a funeral against the established Catholic funeral rites (as documented in excellent pieces by Fr. Roger Landry at CatholicPreaching.com) well before our blog existed, then why would revelation of the names of the “anonymous bloggers” make a hill of beans of difference towards different actions by the Archdiocese?
d) Do you think “guerrila warfare” is a tactic that should be played against the Church and its leaders?
Answered by Carol McKinley. Read Mark 11:15-17 for how we view the current situation, as Carol described. Though we have had some changes of team members and people move on since the last post by “Francis Marion,” the real question for the Archdiocese is the following: Assuming you don’t take issue with Jesus’ turning over the tables in the temple to drive out the thieves and money-changes, then why wouldn’t you guys appreciate and value Jesus’ approach, simply updated and applied to the current situation in the archdiocese? What are you afraid of, if it got the Church to evangelizing the truths of our faith and saving souls more quickly?
e) What is the ultimate goal/purpose of this Blog?
The blog has evolved since the original purpose, as people have come and gone and the nature of what’s transpired in the archdiocese has changed. Read Motheroften’s response. The goal is to be faithful to Jesus and to the truths of our faith, as embodied in the Magisterium of the Church and keep witnessing to our faith–even when no one else is. If and when we observe public dissenters from the truths of our faith and teaching authority as defined by the Magisterium, we call attention to that and expose it for the purpose of it being fraternally corrected. Fr. Hehir is one prominent public example of this. We’ve already tried writing private letters to the Cardinal and the Chancery and been exhausted by them being ignored for years. If there is no correction or change of course (as exemplified by the the public dissent continuing) and it is clear that someone continues to undermine the teachings of the Church and lead the souls of faithful astray, what do you (and Fr. Erikson and the Archdiocese) feel is the appropriate remedy? Is the right solution to reprimand the faithful Catholics and try to get them to be more demure, quiet, and respectful with their criticism, or is the right solution to cut off that which causes sin?
“Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come! If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.” Matthew 18:7-9
It is rather clear that the Archdiocese’s main goal in a meeting with the Vicar General (as suggested by Fr. Erikson in his own words) is to reprimand and somehow rein-in the bloggers so this “problem” goes away. We would suggest the fastest way for the Archdiocese to have the matter of the bloggers “go away” is actually NOT to have a meeting with us, but instead to ensure that your Cabinet secretaries always act and speak consistent with the truths of the Catholic faith. How’s about you guys give that approach a try first?
Meanwhile, we will try in our next few posts to present our content in a slightly different manner, to see if we can find a meeting of the minds on what is objectively true.
Joe -
Thank you for your thoughtful responses.
You make a lot of assumptions about why the Archdiocese wanted a meeting with you. Generally speaking, you don’t give them the benefit of the doubt at all. That said, it does seem justified that you would be skeptical of their motives and want to proceed with caution. I get that.
Many of the commenters also assume that because you’ve sent many letters to Cardinal O’Malley, the Nuncio, and other church officials and have received an inadequate response or inadequate action on their parts, that this meeting would similarly have an unsatisfactory outcome or be a waste of time. I think a meeting is a different, more powerful, level of communication and offers the potential of a different outcome. If you know that there have been meetings with Father Erickson that have produced no positive outcome, then I would agree with you that this meeting might be (another) a waste of time. But as Chris commented above, it does seem that this offer is unprecedented. My sense is if the path that the Archdiocese is on doesn’t change, you may wonder down the years if you might have made a difference if you tried to address these concerns personally with Father Erickson. FYI – The link to the reconfiguration story above seems to have occured before Father Erickson was the vicar general.
Over the next several weeks, I’d recommend that you pray about what the most effective approach is to reach the goals you specified. If you want to achieve your goals ONLY through emails and blog postings, you’ll likely fall short of achieving your goals. That, I guess, has been my main point.
God bless,
Bill
Billy,
The diocese needs to be concerned with their goals.
When they start to do that, they will see that the goals of EBH are the goals of Benedict XVI.
Speaking of which; have you nincompoops found the True Cross Relic yet?
Maybe they should call a meeting and tells us how their intentions are always good because after all ‘we are church’.
Duh, secure the family treasures next time, for God sake.
…as always…pray without stopping.
Joe,
Hang in there. There are a lot of faithful Catholics who support this blog and know that your assumptions are grounded in historical fact.
The offer of a meeting is only “unprecedented” because the heat is on. Keep exposing the truth. We don’t want another blah-blah-blah meeting.
We want faithfulness to Church teachings – in the pulpits, in our Catholic schools, and in our colleges that are allowed to call themselves Catholic within the Archdiocese. We want good priests to have the “freedom” to stand up and speak the truth without getting trampled by political power-brokers.
I’m amazed by the dedication, restraint and love of the Church your team has shown trying to help restore our beloved faith. My family and I are praying for you, buddy. Hang in there.
Bill and all,
The issue isn’t about giving the benefit of the doubt to a potentially misguided or uninformed person. History is clear. If the archdiocese, the Cardinal, Fr. Erikson, or Fr. Hehir, wanted to change, they would have the full assistance of the Holy Ghost, no? A good-will effort on their part would include a public apology for past abuse of authority. They would not continue to approach faithful Catholic parents as their enemies, as they do.
The notion that a cardinal archbishop would turn about if we the faithful just gave him sufficient instruction and attention is both ludicrous and presumptuous.
To be clear, if your son brings home his boyfriend some day, don’t ask, “What happened? I sent him to good Catholic schools!” And if you think you tell the good God it’s Cardinal O’Malley’s fault, you have a surprise coming.
Joe, I concur with Mack that there are many faithful Catholics that support this blog and your assumptions about the current state of the Boston Archdiocese. I cannot imagine a valid reason for Fr. Erikson’s unwillingness to post specific objections to your posts on this blog as you requested so that all who follow it might be better informed prior to a meeting. It certainly does appear suspect given the climate of distrust. It is profoundly sad that rather than support those that so love God and His Church and want to be faithful to the gospel (and Cannon Law) are instead being ostracized. The fact that you ‘hit a nerve’ must mean that you are on the right track. I pray for your continued perseverance, wisdom and strength, and thank you for all you do. You are NOT alone in this!
Bill
It may be I’m reading something into your messagge that you do not intend to convey, but I’m getting the impression you think it is unwarranted that we don’t give the archdicese the benefit of the doubt given the results described above of our seven years of meetings and pleadings with the archdiocese to act upon priests who are derailed and disordered and taking lay people down the drain.
Id liike to remind you that the conference we pleaded the cardinal and his cabinet to stop fr hehirs participation in, included a priest advocate of pornogrphic movies run by a bishop who was caught making unwanted sexual advances on a male employee whom the Vatcan has refused to apply a zero tolerance policy upon. What the cardinal and his cabinet did, including fr erikson, was to taunt catholics pleading with them by having the cardinal write a blog post about what an asset hehir is to the Church.
What is most disturbing about your post, is that youseem to be saying fr erikson will not and does not act upon sexual scandals based uponwhat everyone knows in the diocese, and what is chronicled here(and what has aready been sent in paper trails, unless we come to the chancery and tell him to do so. What happened to the structure where the archbishop gives fr. Erikson his marching orders?
You are confiming wha everybody in Boston already knows. The Cardinal is not in control. And, no mattr how disturbing info is, they will not act on it.
To Fr. Erikson & Company. The sins of the Fathers! You should be ashamed of yourself, Cardinal O’Malley too, for allowing such scandals to continue. Which if we keep to the teachings of the Church is sending many, many innocent souls to hell! AND I DON”T Mean the CHILDREN. Today I will be attending a wake for an 88 yr Old Catholic man, a wonderful man who because of the church scandal in 2003 stopped attending Mass. How many more of the Elderly who are at deaths door will die without the Sacraments too? I just hope & pray that the Brown Scapular I managed to get on him before he died, along with this mans good works (he converted his wife to Catholicism in order to be married in the Church 65 yrs ago, raised 4 beautiful children along with fostering numerous others) will count for something. Meetings? Teach the Faith! Shame, shame on YOU.
Joe Sacerdo,
Good morning!
Do not get sidetracked in this thread. Write again. and again. and again. Let me know if you need something to write about. I have a few topics I would like covered that no one has heard about yet.(Can we chat?)
Motheroften,
Sorry for the delayed response. Good advice about not getting sidetracked. I’d welcome your input on topics to cover in the near future. Feel free to drop a private email to me at joesacerdo(at)gmail.com or to the entire blogging team at bryanhehirexposed(at)gmail.com. God bless!
Joe
“You are confiming wha everybody in Boston already knows. The Cardinal is not in control. And, no mattr how disturbing info is, they will not act on it.”
I’m afraid it is much worse than that – when they do take action, they assemble an army against the faithful Catholics and parents giving them the paper trail.
As McKinley has pointed out, this was and is what needed to be reformed.
That a paper trail would not only be ignored by the Nuncio and the Vatican, but they would thumb their noses as faithful by giving Cardinal O’Malley another diocese and Fr. Hehir an honor at the Peace and Social Justice dicastry is beneath contempt.
I think that the Cardinal is “in control”. That is the horror of this situation. He is allowing the “cancer”. Do some reading by Malachi Martin on the words of Our Lady of Fatima and “bishop versus bishop:”. You have to trust in the truth! Don’t waver because of the deviousness of “men in red”! Semper Fi.
Dear Fr. Erickson,
May God’s peace be with you!
Glad to see that you have become a fairly regular reader of this blog. No doubt it is not your favorite place to visit, yet maybe like me it has called and nagged and tugged at you from time to time. Maybe you first read out of a sense of duty or obligation to your bishop, wanting to be on top of the current turn ‘the crisis’ has taken within the diocese. Perhaps you had ‘heard’ about the awful things people were saying on this blog about a fellow priest and came here out of a sense of indignation. Maybe Fr Herir is a friend of yours, or you bump into him in the hallways at least, and he always seems like such a nice chap! Poor fellow, suffering under these persecutions from those awful bloggers! I am sure he is bright and clearheaded and all his talks and arguments are as easily swallowed as raspberry jell-o on a cool summer’s day! What could be better than a brilliant man to explain his position and fight for the good! How could these bloggers attack him so cruelly? What they say just couldn’t possibly be true! Could it? Perhaps you have had the conversations with him and others over the damage these darned blogs are causing to the church and you are just going to put your foot down now and make all this stop.
Father Erickson, I think I see what so many other commentors have failed to see thus far on this thread. You don’t have an answer. You are desperate to see the face of these bloggers perhaps because in your mind you want to be able to make what they say untrue! Wouldn’t it be so much easier to justify that ‘this blogger doesn’t know what they are talking about because afterall “Joe Sacerdo” is bald, or fat, or not nearly as good looking as you are- then you can quietly discount him in your mind and heart and go your way. Call it working for the church, or being a friend, or trying for common dialogue if you’d like- but I don’t think that’s what it really is. I think its mental gymnastics Father Erickson. I think you want to see the faces because you are afraid of them being right not wrong- and you want to visibly excuse yourself from having to defend the church from such common ordinary people.
Obviously you are not lacking in courage and so have addressed these bloggers directly. But, answer their questions about what is untrue- good golly you are still looking for answers yourself! How could you possibly answer questions when you just don’t have all the answers. If any meeting is to take place it will have to be on your turf so you aren’t forced to feel uncomfortable. You will have to at least appear to have it ‘all together’- and bring along a few friends for support!
Father Erickson, when you sit in the chapel and pray to God and His Holy Mother do the thoughts nag at you? Do you ever wonder when you look around why everything has become so politically correct around you? Do you think to yourself, “this isn’t what I really signed up to do”? I am sure you pray, I am sure you are ‘doing your best’ I am sure these thoughts laid out here so clearly, tug and nag and make you all sorts of uncomfortable. I am sure you think following the right protocol at this point in time is the answer to the problems in Boston. At least that’s what all the experts have told you from doctors, to lawyers, to politicians and bishops. So you are a party man a team player and you get on board and keep going forward.
I would ask you simply to stop for a moment. Stop and pray one more time.Do it here and now. Think about how much Jesus loves you, yes you personally. Then think about how much he loves Joe Sacerdo personally. I would like you to entertain for one moment that you are both working for Christ. Try to imagine yourself facing Jesus next to Joe Sacerdo and know for certain Jesus isn’t shaking a finger and saying ‘tisk tisk Joe” but rather has his arms outstretched and nailed to a cross. He has redeemed Joe as he has redeemed you Father Erickson. Joe is doing everything in his power to be faithful to Christ by chasing out the money changers. Is it possible, just possible you may be the one that needs to go a bit deeper? After all you were the one ordained, consecrated and set apart to be a witness for Jesus. The church is your bride Fr Erickson you promised to lay down your life for her. Not just when it was comfortable or politically correct but most especially when she needed protection. That day is now. You must step up to the plate Fr Erickson and protect the mystical body from the harm she is suffering. Forget about friends and buddies you work with – think of Christ and be faithful to her!
Perhaps Fr Erickson it is time to be uncomfortable to walk a mile in Joes shoes . The next time you pass Fr Herir in the hallways it would be best to ask him where he really stands on these issues and double check if this man wearing the same collar you are isn’t in fact mocking the very Jesus whom you love and serve. If you do so, me thinks you will have more in common with Joe then with Fr Herir.
God bless you.
Dear Joe,
Thank you for this blog. My wife and I live in Lynnfield. We are sadden by how few Catholic Churches follow the teaching of the Pope and Magisterium.
Most Churches in our area have changed the words of the Nicene Creed and no longer say “…for us men” and the liturgy has been watered down with inclusive language – especially Eucharistic Prayer 4. In many Churches the Blessed Sacrament is no longer the center of the Church but relegated to a corner. When children receive their First Communion they do so in the hands, not kneeling. And the use of so-called Extraordinary ministers is no longer extraordinary but commonplace. When I attend Mass (depending on where I go) I sometime feel as if I attended a Protestant service.
And can someone please explain to me how is it that Ted Kennedy can spend decades promoting abortion and homosexual marriage, and be buried with full honors by the Cardinal? How can the Church claim these things are abominations in the eyes of God and anyone take the Church seriously? I simply don’t get it.
For what it is worth, I do think you should meet with the priests who are offering to meet with you.
God bless you and Carol.
David
David,
Benedict XVI has affirmed that the faithful have a right to a reverent Mass. I would suggest you and the Bride taking a ride to Our Lady of Lourdes in Newton any Sunday for the High Latin Mass at noon.
Regards
Correction; Mary Immaculate of Lourdes.
Don’t forget that you are not “promised a Rose Garden”! These “snakes” are wearing the “robes of sheep”. If they are in direct opposition to the Pope as irrelevant to modern society and the “Utopia of the socialist paradise”, then you are bound to resist in as pragmatic a way as possible since you have a family to worry about. Semper Fi.
Do you guys really hope to accomplish anything by a bunch of anonymous nincompoops?
If anything, you are making them harden their stance.
If you are too afraid to speak up….then dont expect anyone to take you seriously!
Again, my impression and understanding of EBH is that it is not to address any collectives ‘concerns’ or to meet with the authorities to facilitate a ‘mutually satisfactory compromise’.
The topic here is loss of the Faith, and the larger picture of Catholic life as laity in Boston. Specifically Fr. Hehir has been ‘targeted’, it has been well documented why.
As far as them ‘hardening their stance’. Softening to the diocese so they’ll like us is a positively nauseating notion.
If EBH were simply a bully pulpit is would have ended long ago. I am admittedly probably the most loose with my words of all who visit, God loves me too.
I think anybody who suggests another Catholic in Boston is ‘afraid’ should spend a little time with Bill Cotter and the folks at the Abortion Mills to get a little perspective on fear and putting ones faith on the line…
Fr. Bryan Hehir is a mockery on many fronts. Abortion and coddling homosexual enemies of The Faith are just two of them.
Taken Seriously? EBH understands the order of things like say…Salvation, Sin, Eternal Damnation etc. In context; the power, prestige and honor of an invitation to Braintree leaves many of us a bit underwhelmed.
Lou,
If you would not mind.
Please do not paint all the fine people associated with this blog as nincompoops. Feel free to call me; TheLastCatholicinBoston a nincompoop anytime you would like.
Regards,
Lou,
You have it right. When Cardinal OMalley and the me get complaint about their corruption, they harden their hearts and go into attack mode. Perverts are safer then ever.
We are not the least bit interested in winning a contest with the archdiocese.
Don’t you get it?
As they fortify the schism they are executing, we ar exposing it.
Putting the truth out there or everyone to read.
The more shenanigans, the better.
Bill, you seem to think this matter is one between those you call ‘anonymous bloggers’ and the Archdiocese. It’s not. It’s between the faithul of the Archdiocese and their spiritual Father, the Archbishop. He is the one answerable to us and to God. To date, it is he who has been ‘anonymous.’
Any answer the Archdiocese provides to the questions posed by this blog should be for the information of the faithful, you and me, our friends and neighbors. It is we who want answers. The ‘anon bloggers’ are doing us, as the Body of Christ, a great and necessary service. Chiding them for not dashing into the spider’s web is just a little disingenuous, IMHO.
As far as Fr. Erickson posting on this blog, what’s the problem? He’s a leading advisor to the Cardinal and he will not be having a private conversation with the bloggers. He will be speaking to all of us. I urge him to get to it at once.
I am not going to leave an opinion, only to commit here to pray for you every day in this endeavor. It is hard to stomach the buzzwords, but here’s one that seems to make the Chancery very, very nervous: transparency. Here’s one to keep in your pocket, rubbing it like a lucky stone: holiness.
I wish you well.
If you want to do some good investigative reporting, I have three words for you: Father ___ ___. [name removed by Bryan Hehir Exposed]
Joe and the team,
I just saw Peter’s post above. Frankly, I think you should not go down this road. It’s one thing to document instances of abuse of a position in the church with facts, another to post a priest’s name and say — hey, look at that guy! I know absolutely nothing about the pastor above. However, he has the right to a good name and respect as a priest.
Please, if people want to share information on a situation, please, ask them to contact you privately with their information. Joe, your blog will lose credibility if people start posting names and making unsubstantiated accusations.
Chris, thanks for highlighting the concern. We agree with the concern and removed that detail. We do ask that people not post unsubstantiated claims publicly. If there are topics you’d like to see us investigate further or report on in the future, you can email us via the Contact Us page.
You all need a hobby
If there is a meeting with Fr. Erickson and Fr. Bryan Hehir, I hope Fr. Hehir will be required to answer the question: Do you actively support the organization of Courage and EnCourage and can you describe exactly what you are doing to do this?
Courage is the only Catholic organization that the Holy See Pontifical Council for the Family supports for helping homosexual persons to live in accordance with the laws of God and the teaching of His Church. This very active and growing organization helps by developing an interior life of chastity which is the universal call to all Christians. One can move beyond the confines of his/her identity to a more complete on in Christ.
When Catholic Charities worked with the leaders of Boston PFLAG and New Ways Ministry to develop the Companions program, it was a movement to prevent the growth and development of Courage and EnCourage in the Boston Archdiocese. The horrendous antipathy the leaders expressed against Courage and EnCourage was displayed in a very arrogant,demeaning way by the leaders of Catholic Charities. It would be very revealing to know whether or not Catholic Charities, under the leadership of Fr. Hehir still continues to demean and undercut the work of Courage and EnCourage. Is there any priest from the Boston Archdiocese who will be attending the Courage Conference from July 29-Aug.1,2010? Is there any member of Catholic Charities who will be sent to attend the Courage Conference? It is being held at the Mundelein Seminary ,Univ. of St. Mary of the Lake in Illinois and is being strongly supported by Cardinal George who has hosted Courage and EnCourage many times in the past. He is not afraid of openly supporting the teachings of the Catholic Church on this very vital family issue.
Has Fr. Hehir ever recommended the use of Catholic Charities money to support Courage/EnCourage? Certainly Catholic Charities money had been used to support the Companions program and, in fact, it could be still used to support the dissidents who developed the Companions program even though it is not going under that title any more. Does Fr. Hehir support Courage/EnCourage or does he support the new Ways Monistry/PFLAG approach? We really need to know his belief on this issue!
As good a person as you appear to be, you have to understand the nature of the homosexual lifestyle. The foundation is prosmiscuity. There is insecurity and confusion. By giving in to this, you are institutionalizing “insecurity and confusion”. Abortion is deeply tied into this lifestyle.
The last sentence of my previous request should have been New Ways Ministry(not Monistry).
Thanks
You’ve all given the secular press fodder to ridicule us …
Beware the yolk of the pharisees
Mike A –
Regarding the secular press…
Sticks and stones may break our bones but
they are heading for a fiery pit of eternal damnation.
Christianity has never been a popularity contest.
I can see why the Archdiocese wants to know who you are. They would just love to “burn you at the stake”. You have a “silver tongue”. Semper Fi.
This “meeting” seems like a trap.
I assume “Joe Sacerdo” is a priest. Well, he will be a permanently suspended priest if he walks in to a meeting like that. Who are those “one or two” people from the Pastoral Center if not canon lawyer and ecclesiastical notary?
If you must, send a layman already known to be associated with you, who won’t spill the beans, and even then, send a videographer. What does the AD have to hide? What is there to discuss? Fraternal correction, in this case, is to the Cardinal, who appoints people like Hehir to sit on his cabinet. Does anyone really think Erickson can suspend or reassign Hehir? What’s the point of this meeting?
There is no doubt that the “snakes” have invited the mice to a mutually beneficial meeting. Semper Fi.
This blog is basically the voice of the faithful coming out of right field … pray for humility
Na na, na na, na na!
I’ve got humility, you don’t.
I’ve got charity, you don’t.
I argue like a girl, you don’t.
Substance, Mikey, substance. You’ve got to unlearn the lib-conditioning you were given in school.
Substance, Fr. Erikson, substance. What happened to St. Thomas Aquinas? Were he still around, Fr. Hehir would never have been ordained, and you know it. More at waragainstbeing.com.
There’s a pool going around as to who you guys are …
Mike A,
Wow. What a coincidence. There’s a pool going around here as to which Pastoral Center employees are anonymously posting here.
If this group is basically voice of the faithful coming out of right field, that’s because your animus has been formed to view things within the Church from the perspective of power and money. (Which definitely confirms you work at the “Pastoral Center”).
Voice of the Faithful wanted to overthrow the power and structure of the Church headed by a Pope and replace it with a model that defines doctrine by democratic vote from the parish level and take control of the money. The Pastoral Center is now loaded with them. With the exception of a few, they are in every position in the Archdiocese thanks to Fr. Hehir and his appointments.
We are the people with the Pope who are exposing your charade. We are letting the world know.
We don’t want control of the money or the power.
Think of us underground reporters exposing a takeover of the Catholic Church in the United States led by the Kennedy School of Government. We are not going to put ourselves in the position of losing our jobs and vocations.
We’ve got moles everywhere. Sit back, relax and enjoy the show.
Mike A,
We agree with what “Anonymous Blogger” and Jerry wrote. We are simply a group of Catholics who believe what the Church believes. We are with the Pope, and we’re with the teaching authority of the Church. If someone finds affinity with Voice of the Faithful out in “left field” where they wanted to change the power and decision-making structure of the Church, then no doubt from that viewpoint they would see people who support all of the teachings of the Church as being in a place other than “left field.” We just after faithful adherence to the teachings of the Catholic Church in-season and out-of-season. We hope and pray that some day that will be defined as “mainstream Catholicism” in Boston.
“Moles everywhere” …. now we’re getting scary
If you want to confront ANYTHING or anyone … including the Papacy … It may be helpful to read and study over St Catherine of Siena … We all want what is right and true … The devil thrives in anger … we all have to watch out.
Where in the Summa does Thomas say, “na na na”?
Where in the New Testament does the Lord commission moles?
You’re still arguing like a girl, Mike. na na!
“We all want what is right and true” Really? Not Fr. Hehir, which is the whole point of this website. Substance, Mike. Come on, defend Fr. Hehir.
P.S. I’m not affiliated with this website. I say this for their benefit. (I’d be happy to be called an affiliate, though.)
Jerry
Sounds like you’ve been out-argued by some girls haha
Mike A,
Regarding your pool. Typical Boston, if you paid attention to what is going on in this blog you would understand that the issues at hand are far more than a few disgruntle employees in Braintree.
EBH is bringing things to light. It is the diocese that needs to confront things not EBH.
Come on Mike how much is enough? I’m no expert on Catherine of Sienna, but didn’t she basically tell the Pope of her day to do his job and to go Back to Rome?
Without exception every position on every issue that EBH expounds they (we) are with Rome and Benedict.
Why would it prompt the diocese big guns to ‘hate us’ (as stated by ‘bill’ the apparent spokesman) ?
The carefully orchestrated campaign to deconstruct the catholic church in America is becoming more and more self evident. We are upsetting the apple cart that has become a sham and they know it. Active and out of the closet homosexual priests, Caritas debacle and obama care connection, pro-life activist treated as lepers, A blogging Cardinal with more frequent flier miles than a transatlantic commuter, and Fr. Bryan Hehir the home grown Harvard intellectual prostituting the Faith.
What would Catherine of Sienna do? Dear Catherine lived in the time of schism. Do we? Should we call it what it is or make believe? You tell me; is Nancy Pelosi a Catholic or not? Does Fr. Hehir represent the Roman Catholic Faith or some other ‘vision’. His own words convict him – it is a vision of a new Church. He has that right, he does not have the right however to call it – The Roman Catholic Faith.
I wish some of the critiques of EBH would quit throwing around scriptural snippets like some self righteous Baptist and referencing Saints they have read about on Wikipedia.
The tables are in the process of being turned over. They have made his Fathers house a market place once again. Where are you standing?
Here is what I found from research on Nancy Pelosi. She is an “undercover nun”. She wears a “hair shirt” to bed at night. She holds secret rosary sessions in a hidden cavern under the Capitol building. Everyone thought that she sneaks off for a “swig of Irish coffee”. She is really going into a special closet in her office to pray to Our Lady of Guadalupe. Shame on you!
Jerry,
“We all want what is right and true” Really? Not Fr. Hehir, which is the whole point of this website.
Love it.
Consider yourself with the official title of affiliate of BHE.
LCIB,
Nicely said!
To the individual from Boston who is posting as “Mike A”, “Anonymous” and “STBV”: in the interest of open dialogue, we not been moderating comments here, and have allowed your comments to go through except for the most egregiously offensive. But the other serious participants on this blog have other better things to than to keep responding to the barbs you are throwing from left field or from outside the ballpark, which also have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of this post. There are no doubt other blogs that are a better match for your viewpoints, and we encourage you to visit there instead. We will be now be moderating comments on this thread.
To Jerry, LastCatholicinBoston, and Anonymous blogger, thanks again for taking the time to offer your insightful comments in defense of our positions. (Sorry you had to spend your time countering those barbs).
I think, as much as I disagree with some of these posters (Mike, etc), it would be better for the blog’s credibility to allow voices with alternate views to be seen or heard. If someone chooses to waste time engaging them that’s their choice. Sometimes it’s better to put up with the slings and arrows for the sake of the over all mission.
We are called to love our enemy, dialoging is not required, nor is compromise. I think ‘A Priest’ who has advice for EBH may be better off working on rubrics of the Latin Mass and offering it at their parish, and let the sleeping giant of the church militant do its work.
The incessant pastoral approach that has completely feminized Catholic men, is killing The Church, not renewing it.
Some times slings and arrows should be met with a clenched fist. Sometimes homosexual priest should be tossed out of the priesthood like the plague they are.
What is the mission anyway, to be popular?
There are no alternative views to orthodoxy. You either are or you are not.
I hope that Fr. Erikson will explain which of your statements might be false. It is only Christian charity for him to correct any untruths about the Church. Whether or not you identify yourselves, you are influencing many people for good or ill. If we in your audience are being led astray, the hierarchy should lead us back promptly. Waiting for weeks to see if you will meet with them is not charitable to us.
Colbe Mazzarella
[...] don’t care the least about doing something about the problems we have raised. (Remember, the objective of meeting with us from their perspective was “…to have a frank conversation about what is the best way to [...]