We detour from the immediate topic of Fr. Bryan Hehir today to highlight this excellent post by Paul Melanson at LaSalette Journey entitled ”Catholics want the truth, not sentimental paternalism” because of that post’s connection to this blog’s interactions with Vicar General Fr. Richard Erikson over our coverage of Fr. Hehir. It gets even more interesting and timately when you look at a recent email sent by the Vicar General to chancery employees.
Paul cites Dr. William E. May, a professor of moral theology, who wrote that Catholics, “want the truth, not sentimental paternalism. And they know, deep in their hearts, that the priest speaks the truth if and only if he affirms Church teaching and offers them the help and support they need to make it real in their lives.”
Towards that end, Paul highlighted some things Fr. Erikson said in an interview with The Boston Globe Magazine back in 2006. Here’s what Paul wrote:
Father Erikson spoke of being a “father figure” during his interview with the The Boston Globe Magazine. But, as Dr. May has said, Catholics have a very definite idea of what a loving father should be. They are looking for truth and not sentimental paternalism. And yet, when faithful Catholics have expressed their legitimate concerns over dissent within the troubled Boston Archdiocese, the response they have received from Father Erikson is not that of a loving father concerned with people’s souls, but that of a bureaucrat anxious to dismiss complaints with a wave of the hand while accusing those who have meticulously documented their concerns of engaging in falsehood. This is not the proper approach if one is sincere about “rebuilding trust.”
For readers who have followed our interactions with the archdiocese in recent weeks, we think you know already that we’d agree with the opinion above. The dismissing of valid, well-documented and canonically justified complaints is not a great way to build trust.
Beyond that, Father Erikson was also quoted in the article as saying:
“I expect people to judge us by our actions. I can go down to the Boston Common with a megaphone and proclaim Christ, but it’s how are we living our lives, and how are we leading…And are we doing so in a way that would imitate what Jesus Christ would do out of love and care? And let me say something about upholding Christ…He doesn’t need me to uphold him. But I need to uphold him. It’s about what I need to do to be centered in Christ. Because if my life here becomes primarily about finances and about structure and about corporations, and if I’m more concerned about the heater than I am about people’s souls, then I have lost perspective.
This is beautiful to hear someone like the Vicar General role having said back in 2006. Unfortunately, it seems that there’s something about the chancery in Boston that may change people over time. Though we have not yet seen any emails or actions in response to our blog to correct the undermining of Church teachings we’ve documented which leads people’s souls astray, here are excerpts from a recent email sent by Fr. Erikson to all chancery employees about finance, structure, and corporations:
Good afternoon,
As I have mentioned at the past couple of Pastoral Center meetings and via email, on 1 July the Catholic Media Group began under Scot Landry’s leadership and the Catholic Foundation continues its great work under the interim leadership of Kevin Kiley. The past several months for the Foundation, while challenging at times, have created new opportunities for not only new catholic media initiatives but an interim period to review our fundraising operations in order to position ourselves for an even more successful future… Turning to the Catholic Foundation, there is hope and confidence that this interim period will be an opportunity to evaluate strengths, improve were need be, affirm best practices and look at new ways of fundraising for the Foundation and others in our RCAB family, so as possibly to benefit from economies of scale. Kevin Kiley and I are meeting regularly to ensure a smooth and effective transition to a permanent successor once the Search Committee completes their work. The Search Committee, chaired by Jack Connors, has begun meeting and assigned duties. The goal is to find a permanent successor as quickly as possible. Some highlights worth noting of recent accomplishments and planned short-term goals during this interim period:
Accomplishments: ·
- The Appeal cash budget to support Central Ministries for Fiscal 2010 of $13.5MM has been achieved.
- 2010 Appeal pledges at the parish level are higher than last year at this time.
- Most of the Foundations’ fundraising team remains intact and disruptions in service are not anticipated.
- A review of TCF operations, policies and procedures is underway in order to get a new successor quickly up-to-speed.
- Outreach to each Board and PAC member is underway to gather thoughts, comments and recommendations on Foundation operations.
Short-term Goals:
- Successful closeout of the 2010 Appeal campaign.
- Ready 2011 Appeal campaign for launch next March.
- Prepare for a permanent Cabinet Secretary in hopes of minimizing the learning curve.
- Review other major dioceses fundraising efforts to evaluate best practices.
I am confident that this transition period will be smooth, orderly and fruitful. I am grateful to all who have assisted to make this transition as productive as possible and one that, in the long run, will benefit the mission of the Church.
Blessings, Fr. Rich
The archdiocese is a big organization to run and we do not fault Fr. Erikson for communicating what is going on structurally and financially, and keeping the train on the tracks as he is called to do in his chancery job. We simply highlight the aspirational statement by the Vicar General from 2006 when he started, and invite you to compare it vs the the recent actions.
Father Erikson said “I expect people to judge us [Archdiocesan officials] by our actions.”
People are now doing exactly that.
I understand the archdiocese needs money to run, but when I see how little the leadership is doing to advance the pro-life, pro-family cause, it leads me to send a good portion of my tithing money to Catholic groups that are out in the trenches unabashedly proclaiming the truth: groups like Human Life International, American Life League, etc. If only the Boston hierarchy (Helloooo Cardinal Sean…. ) would realize that fundraising would be a whole lot easier if Catholics heard the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
The fullness of Catholic truth is obviously considered “inconvenient” in the Boston archdiocese.
Fr. Erikson takes his marching orders from Fr. Bryan Hehir.
Hehir is after the destruction of The Church as we know it and some ‘vision’ of the future church, Boston is leading the way. Does any Catholic in Boston who does not draw a pay check from the diocese really care about the corporate mission?
What actually does the diocese produce?
Salvation?
Dr. Mary Grassa O’Neill makes $325,000 per year to run the Catholic schools in the diocese.
I’m sorry it has become worse than dumb it has become a parody of itself.
Sentimental Paternalism is a technique used to numb the conscience. EBH has been awakening the conscience of the faithful in Boston we need to keep going.
Fr. Erikson needs to address how absurd some of the salaries in Braintree are if he does not he is a good boy in a world that needs a strong man. Talk is cheap.
To meet with the Vicar General and Fr. Bryan Herir or not to meet: that is the question. I don’t know if you have made your decision, but please allow me to offer a few thoughts, this being the first time I have commented on any blog. I find that you are passionate in your pursuit of truth and that you have great love for the Church. Through this blog, you obviously are trying to protect the Church you love, and find grave error in Father Herir’s nuanced positions in their applicability to contemporary issues of our day. If everything you have exposed about Father Bryan Herir regarding his motives and positions is true, then I too share your great concern and alarm. You are serving a just end.
However, it must be admitted that you are attacking a priest anonymously, as the very title of the blog makes clear, so the means by which you are achieving the end must be seriously considered. I was always taught that you shouldn’t say something about someone that you wouldn’t say to his face and I believe that is good advice. Now that you have this opportunity, I agree with a previous writer on the blog, Bill that you should take the diocese up on their offer. In this meeting, you would have the opportunity to verify Fr. Herir’s positions by asking him to state clearly his views on abortion, gay marriage, women’s priesthood, etc. You can ask him directly if he completely supports all the magisterial teachings of the church. This will either invigorate you in the nobility of your cause and blog or it may soften your stance and even provide insight that you don’t presently have in his favor. I believe justice would demand a fair hearing since this blog isn’t just a general indictment of a stance or position in the church but is, in effect, an attack on a priest’s character and his fidelity to the church.
WWJD is a great question to ask, and I would think it prudent for you and fellow members of the blog to ask it before you finally decide about the meeting. By the way, giving advice is always easier than living it, so forgive me if I make bold to solve your problems when I probably should be focusing on my own!
One final point; the best reason for not meeting is, in my mind, the fear of repercussion and losing your job. Does God expect you to risk committing professional suicide in service to your pursuit of truth? Only your conscience can guide you on that one. However, if a priest is being torn down unjustly, then I wouldn’t want that on my conscience. Therefore, it may be worth the risk. If you do lose your jobs serving the truth, then let it be on their consciences, and you will surely blessed. If you don’t lose your positions, and your view of Father Herir is reinforced, you haven’t lost anything but will only be on firmer ground in your service to Christ and His Church. JMJ, Jack
Jack, the problem with your argument is this: you wrote, “However, it must be admitted that you are attacking a priest anonymously.” This Blog has not “attacked” any Catholic priest. It has, instead, engaged in criticism or fraternal correction.
Why should it matter whether a person or persons are anonymous? Especially when they are telling the truth?
Are you really just “Bill” who demanded names previously? Is this why you take great pains to write, “this being the first time I have commented on any blog..”?
I really don’t think anyone here is going to fall for your argument. It’s been examined thoroughly. And it has been found wanting.
“You can ask him [Fr. Hehir] directly if he completely supports all the magisterial teachings of the church..”
Why would we have to ask when his very words betray his lack of fidelity to those teachings? Words have meaning. Nice try “Jack.” Perhaps you and “Bill” should invite Fr. Erikson and Fr. Hehir to respond here and to commit their responses to writing? Or is there some reason for their refusal to do so?
Michael,
You are incorrect. I am not Bill. However, I believe that you are right, that the truth is the truth regardless whether it is spoken anoynymously or not. I don’t have full knowledge of what the truth is, but from what I have read on this blog, I am very unsympathetic and opposed to what I have learned to be Fr. Herir’s views. My only point is this : if the man is being tried in the court of public opinion, doesn’t justice dictate that he have the right to defend himself and shouldn’t the pursuit of truth lead to embracing that opportunity?
Carl,
I would love to read Fr. Herir’s clear articulation of his positions on this blog, but it’s not my blog or place to invite him. You perhaps know more about this, but if he has already been invited to address laity concerns and has declined to respond, then you would have to ask him why. I would only be guessing at his reasons.
Michael and Carl, my suggestions could be wrong, of course, but my intent is only to add another voice to furthering, what I perceive to be, the well intentioned purpose of the founders of this blog. Pax Christi Jack
Bill, er Jack writes, “My only point is this : if the man is being tried in the court of public opinion, doesn’t justice dictate that he have the right to defend himself and shouldn’t the pursuit of truth lead to embracing that opportunity?”
If Fr. Hehir wants to defend himself, all he has to do is visit this Blog. The fact that he isn’t says it all.
Jack,
I didn’t catch your last name.
As I have indicated before, I’ve been asking Fr. Hehir to meet with me and/or a group of other Catholics for many years. People friendly with Fr. Hehir, who agree he is misleading Catholic souls also went directly to him to lobby for a meeting with concerned Catholics. He declined each time. I extended the offer to Fr. Erikson and he declined. I think we all know why.
Every single person who is now blogging anonymously has had direct fraternal discussions with Fr. Hehir. They have spoken to the Cardinal. They have documented the evidence and sent it to the Nuncio. They have sent the evidence all the up the ladder to Rome. Numerous times and for numerous years.
The fruit of those attempts were that Cardinal O’Malley was given another diocese and folks at the Vatican agreed to provide shelter to Hehir by giving him an honor.
It is an exercise in futility. The corruption and the corrupt that shuffled and protected perverts is still very much in place.
It doesn’t matter what Fr. Hehir says in a private meeting about his personal fidelity to the teachings of the Church. That is the game Ted Kennedy played. He was taught to play that game by Fr. Drinan and Fr. Hehir so why on earth would we waste our time. What matters here is what he is teaching the people. The record speaks for itself.
The time for private meetings has passed.
When you see all the evidence gathered in one place, you see the devastation Fr. Hehir and his cronies have brought upon souls, our Church and our country. Many priests, lay people, Bishops, are now overwhelmed and deeply concerned about what is going on in Boston. I and others have advised all priests to lay low and keep their mouths shut least they’ll find themselves under threat and a long ride up to Fr. Groeschel’s with a padded room and a prescription for a drug that will act like a chemical lobotomy. We are internally occupied.
Some lay people are in a position to step forward in the public square and expose the corruption. Others are not in a position but still want to contribute. The initiatives are growing nationally. There is growing concern in the Boston Chancery and at the USCCB and there are various efforts to persuade us to “stop”. The only meetings we are interested in are meetings with the evidence on the desks, where we do all the talking and they do all the listening so that each person we give the evidence to is held accountable for it.
You sound like you love the Church too You also seem to agree with the logical conclusions that rational people draw, and are also troubled by the 40 to 50 years of Fr. Hehir’s own words and deeds at assemblies that train dissidents to take the trash back to their parish.
Why don’t you print off the materials, make a copy of the videos, make an appointment with Fr. Hehir and Fr. Erikson yourself? Let us know how it works out.
p.s.
As I have said before and I will say again – there are several Catholics who would be willing to step forward to a meeting with Fr. Hehir, Fr. Erikson and each side with legal representation – so long as the Nuncio is present and we are given an hour to go over the evidence.
Clear a loading dock at the Pastoral Center and make sure the ‘meeting’ involves some visits to various rectories where aforementioned cohabitation with lovers have been mentioned. We have a lot of questions as to why Fr. Toomey has been treated the way he has been treated in light of the Cardinals lack of discipline with these priests or for his personal secretary who left to live with his sportscaster lover in New York who is promised a spot in the diocese should he decide to return.
I’ll tell you what, as we make our way on the rectory tour, we’ll even agree to put the Cardinal in the car and take some pictures to put up on the Cardinal’s travel blog.
Jack,
Welcome! Your assessment of us is more or less valid, and I comment here in response to you and to “McKinley.”
We are passionate in our pursuit of truth and we love the Church and her authentic teachings. We are trying to protect the Church in the face of people from within the Church in the Archdiocese saying and doing things that undermine Church teachings, and we find grave error in Father Hehir’s statements and actions that even those who disagree with this blog have been unable to dispute. Fr. Hehir has emerged as the most publicly visible and publicly quoted figure in this archdiocese opining on very important matters of church teaching and policy, and he still is described by many inside and outside the archdiocese as the Cardinal’s most influential advisor. (By the way, a priest emailed us recently to express support for the blog and used the expression “one-man wrecking crew on Church teachings and Catholic orthodoxy” to describe a certain someone who we will leave nameless).
Independent of the 40-year history we have documented (which cannot be set aside), if you take just Fr. Hehir’s recorded comments from this spring since this blog began–at the BC session on Catholic Conscience exemptions, at the Catholic Healthcare Association meeting, and on WBUR regarding creating policies to formalize educating children of gay parents–it should be obvious to everyone that no one controls Fr. Hehir. As LastCatholicinBoston said, “talk is cheap,” and Fr. Hehir does not take his marching orders from the Vicar General. Who controls Fr. Hehir? Why meet if no one, including Cardinal O’Malley, controls Fr. Hehir? Is Fr. Hehir going to say, “Gosh, thanks so much for letting me know my nuanced statements and behind-the-scenes actions over the past 40 years on contraception, abortion, private vs public morality, gay marriage and homosexuality, voting for pro-abortion politicians, Catholic conscience exemptions, etc. have had the effect of undermining Church teachings, giving air-cover for tens of millions of abortions, and encouraging Catholic politicians like Ted Kennedy to break ranks with the Church to support killing the unborn and push through gay marriage”? “You realize that we live in a complex pluralistic society and these are all very complicated multi-dimensional issues, so I have said these things to avoid alienating our political supporters [of which we actually have nearly zero]. Now that I’m aware of this helpful feedback from you anonymous bloggers, I’ll try to tighten things up a little bit with my publicly captured comments, so I’m not the subject of public exposure on your blog any more. [Meanwhile I'll continue undermining the Church outside of public comments in ways you'll find tougher to document and expose]. Can we shake hands and be friends now?”
What would Jesus do? In Matthew 21: 12, “Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all those engaged in selling and buying there. He overturned the tables of the money changers…And he said to them, “It is written: ‘My house shall be a house of prayer,’ but you are making it a den of thieves.”
“McKinley” is right–except for one recent development. Indeed, people blogging anonymously have had direct fraternal discussions with Fr. Hehir and/or sent him emails and gotten no response. They have spoken to or written to the Cardinal. They have documented the evidence and sent it to the Papal Nuncio and to the Vatican.
The good news is that the Holy See has visited and continues to visit this website. And thankfully, back-door communications in recent days have revealed interest by the Holy See in what we have exposed as well as encouragement for our apostolate and ministry. They also have revealed an interest in receiving documentation of the nature we have posted and a new interest in hearing from concerned Boston-area Catholics. We will share more about what readers can do towards that end separately.
Yes, we continue to prayerfully consider the possibility of a meeting. But, the downsides and risks remain as we have documented previously. In the absence of someone in attendance who has demonstrated they can and WILL do something about the documented concerns by faithful Catholics (and sadly, there’s no one in Boston who qualifies based on what we’ve seen), it is difficult to see any upside potential to faithful Catholics of a “meet-and-greet” session, and certainly not enough to offset the downside. If the Archdiocese can bring in the Papal Nuncio from Washington DC or newly-designated Congregation of Bishops prefect Cardinal Ouellet from Quebec, that may change our current thinking.
We will send an additional email to Fr. Hehir inviting him to respond to our concerns, but are not hopeful. We maintain it would be far more effective for the Archdiocese to work on addressing the fundamental concerns we’ve raised on behalf of millions of faithful Catholics than to work on addressing the problem of how to tone-down the anonymous bloggers. More on this topic in a separate post.
Mike,
I found your comments a very reasonable and logical presentation of your current stance. What I am hearing is that you don’t want a futile meeting that won’t accomplish anything substantially, but would be open if the proper terms and authorities representing the Vatican were present. I am new to this blog and was not aware of the history of your attempts at meetings, as clarified by McKinley. That you remain prayerfully open to a meeting with the right conditions, despite the frustration and righteous anger of many years: I consider a sign of the Spirit at work. I appreciate you and McKinley’s clear passion and dedication. In Christ, Jack
“Jack” still refuses to address why Fr. Hehir doesn’t visit this Blog to defend himself. Would “Jack” agree that Fr. Hehir’s refusal to remain “prayerfully open” to clarifying his views at this Blog is a sign that the Spirit is not at work in his life?
Jack,
We hold meetings all the time, the diocese never shows up.
This blog IS a meeting. EBH could call for a tiny Chat or Skype meeting via the internet any time. They want a meeting in Braintree to bust heads, and for getting people in line.
It feels like the tables in the temple are tipping and they are scrambling to pick up the falling coins and they want to convince the tipper to stop.
The meetings that we here are already holding call for authentic Catholic teaching, orthodoxy and diocese policies that are in line with Rome. We also consistently call to expose Fr. Bryan Hehir for what he is. You know the expression: if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, sounds like a duck then perhaps it is a free mason within our midst.
The question that keeps popping up in my head is, do Fr. Hehir and the rest of them actually believe in God? I’m not sure they do, but IF they do, do they really think God isn’t paying attention to what they’re up to? In that light, they better hope Dante is wrong about his depiction of the population of Hell.