Lots of people have criticized me and this blog for “hate,” saying Fr. John Unni at St. Cecilia’s in Boston is doing a great job of welcoming gays and lesbians into the Church. The Archdiocese of Boston says the parish is “devoted to the Gospel and Christ’s saving ministry.” Well, when it comes to saving people from their sins and calling gay and lesbian people to repentance and conversion, there’s basically zero indication that’s happening at St. Cecilia’s and lots of evidence to the contrary. It’s all sizzle and no steak as best as I can tell.
You’ve got people who supported gay marriage and opposed the Catholic church on marriage speaking at St. Cecilia’s for years. Is this how Fr. John Unni catechizes his Rainbow Ministry and leads them to salvation for their sins? I’ve got a few questions for Terry Donilon, archdiocesan spokesman, and Cardinal Sean O’Malley also: How exactly does that synch with Church teachings that marriage is between one man and one woman? How’s that synch with Cardinal Sean O’Malley’s statements defending traditional marriage, and Terry’s own statement, that while the church does not reject anyone, it “opposes changing the definition of marriage, because to do so would weaken one of the oldest and most sacred institutions of human society”?
Terry, Cardinal O’Malley, and Bishop Hennessey, we’d like an answer: How can we oppose weakening one of the oldest and most sacred institutions of human society, while still supporting a church and pastor who puts forward speakers whose focus and expertise is weakening and redefining that institution? And the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston has “full confidence” in the pastor?
Every time I think we’ve heard all of the story here, we find out there’s more. Here’s this article from the Rainbow Times on the rescheduling of the Mass originally promoted to “celebrate and commemorate Boston’s Pride Month. We pulled just a few of the more interesting passages.
Be here on July 10,” said John Kelly, chair of the LGBT-affirming Rainbow Ministry at St. Cecilia, referring to a new date for the parish’s “All are Welcome” Mass, a liturgy that Boston archdiocesan officials initially halted because of the “unintended impression” it supported Boston Gay Pride.
The archdiocese issued a statement, indicating support for the lay-led service. “We respect the desire of those individuals organizing and participating in the prayer service,” the statement said. “We know that the postponement of the June 19th Mass has been disappointing to them.”
The statement also served as the official announcement of the date for “a Mass welcoming the wider community of the faithful, including gays and lesbians,” now rescheduled for Sunday, July 10, during St. Cecilia’s regularly scheduled 11 am Eucharistic celebration.
The prayer service included hymns, prayers, readings, and a reflection offered by Richard Iandoli, vice chairman of the parish council, who at times fought back tears.
St. Cecilia is in fact a spiritual home to a significant gay population, with many parishioners finding their way to the church, by way of archdiocesan assistance in 2007, when the primarily gay Jesuit Urban Center abruptly closed its doors.
Iandoli also explained the need for a Mass, “specifically to celebrate Gay Pride, because it is difficult to be proud unless you are both loved and supported,” he said. “You see we are not disordered, immature, or sinful because we are gay, lesbian, or transgender – just children of God.”
C. J. Doyle, executive director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, said in a press statement, the idea of a Mass, as “an opportunity to celebrate one’s sexual identity is as offensive as it is obscene,” adding, “Homosexuals are welcome in the Catholic Church on the same basis as the rest of us poor sinners – they are welcome to the confessional.”
But Iandoli would have none of it. “We are discriminated against and hurt because we are gay. It is not in spite of it,” he said. “We need to minister to our needs cognizant of the facts. We do not have to hide them or act as if they are hidden.”
Furthermore, a special Mass “to single out a particular group for pastoral care is neither unusual nor unorthodox,” Iandoli explained, noting the church celebrates Mass “at home for the infirmed, in nursing homes for the aged, and in prison for the incarcerated.” During the academic year, St. Cecilia celebrates a 6:00 pm Mass for college students.
And Iandoli offered strong words of encouragement to gay youth. “I urge you to come out,” he said “The closet is a hateful, lonely, silent, and unholy place.”As Iandoli explained, “If you can, come out when you are ready and when it is safe, I think your yoke will be easier, your burden lighter. The freedom that comes from being honest with yourself, accepting yourself, and sharing that information about yourself when appropriate will release terrible psychological pressure and give you new energy and life.”
If I get this right, Fr. John Unni, under the watchful eye of auxiliary bishop Robert Hennessey and Cardinal O’Malley, is teaching his parishioners that a Mass that commemorates Christ’s sacrifice on the cross–which is celebrated in a hospital or nursing home for those who are elderly, physically infirm, sick, suffering from a chronic illness or maybe even close to death and can’t get to a church–serves the same purpose and is equivalent in their eyes to a Mass “specifically to celebrate Gay Pride”? The same holds for a Mass in a prison?
The archdiocese calls this “a wonderful example of the exceptional parishes in the Archdiocese.” Is Cardinal O’Malley not well? I’ll say it again, has Cardinal O’Malley lost his marbles?
Then we have the vice chairman of the parish council encouraging youth confused about their sexuality to “come out “as gay or lesbian. No mention of turning to Jesus Christ, no mention of abstinence and chastity as the route to holiness consistent with God’s plan, no prayer advised, no spiritual counseling advised, no psychological or family counseling advised, no medical risks of unsafe sexual behavior to be concerned about. Just “come out” as gay or lesbian and you’ll get “new energy and life”! How is this leading people with same-sex attractions to a deeper relationship with Christ and a life of virtue and holiness?
As we cited in a prior post, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has said:
All support should be withdrawn from any organizations which seek to undermine the teaching of the Church, which are ambiguous about it, or which neglect it entirely. Such support, or even the semblance of such support, can be gravely misinterpreted. Special attention should be given to the practice of scheduling religious services and to the use of Church buildings by these groups, including the facilities of Catholic schools and colleges. To some, such permission to use Church property may seem only just and charitable; but in reality it is contradictory to the purpose for which these institutions were founded, it is misleading and often scandalous.”
Can anyone cite even one written statement anywhere from Fr. Unni or the Rainbow Ministry or an example of a speaker at St. Cecilia’s in the past several years talking about how those with same-sex attractions should practice chastity as the path to holiness? One?
Cardinal Sean O’Malley, Bishop Robert Hennessey, Fr. John Unni, and diocesan spokesman Terry Donilon have all proven themselves ineffective in stopping this scandal and making sure that the Church’s teachings and message of salvation are clearly articulated at St. Cecilia’s Boston in-season and out-of-season. They’ve all failed to fulfill their canonical responsibilities as shepherds–dismally. There’s no choice but to ask for the intervention of the Holy See to have them removed.
For now, you can Take Action by emailing the Papal Nuncio, Archbishop Pietro Sambi at nuntiususa(at)nuntiususa.org and the Holy Father benedictxvi(at)vatican.va. Next week we’ll mount a full-fledged campaign where you can fax or email the Holy See.
You have absolutely no business demanding the removal of Cardinal O’Malley. He is in full conformance with the Church on the issue of same-sex attractions. He has a difficult job, and all you’re doing is making it even more difficult. Stop playing bishop and let him do his job.
Joe, I admire your strength, courage and perseverence through all of the criticism and negitivity being hurled your way. If only those traits were more evident in the Corporate Sole! For those of who feel like you and appreciate your continued quest for a diocese that is faithful to the Magisterium, you are a role model. Thank you for your continued attempts to save our beloved Church!
I would like to point out that this continual hectoring about the heterodoxies of Fr. Unni is doing grave harm to all the faithful of the archdiocese, not merely the homosexual congregants.
If the strident campaign of this and other blogs to force Fr. Unni to condemn the sexual practices of his homosexual parishioners is successful, the repercussions will redound ominously throughout the archdiocese.
What do I mean? If homosexuals cannot feel comfortable in their acts of immorality, how can heterosexuals? Do we want some celibate or even homosexual presbyter criticising our adulteries, fornications, even contraception?
Heterosexuals are severely discriminated against by the Church in its condemnation of contraception. This is a risk that homosexuals perforce do not have. Why would we want to hear contraception excoriated from the pulpit?
And why so unnuanced an attitude towards abortion as to ignore its final cause? Is it infanticide betimes or merely belated contraception? Do we really want to hear so blunt a message preached every Sunday before coffee and doughnuts?
And why should the Church allow two cohabiting homosexuals to receive Communion while discriminating against divorced and remarried heterosexuals? Is this the justice and charity preached by Jesus? Or is it hypocritical pharisaism?
So let us all, heterosexual and homosexual, receive the Sacraments of Salvation in the Church of Christ without Christ. Let us join hands in the sign of peace and take pride in our particular moral grotesqueries. As the words of the Consecration affirm, we will all be redeemed ultimately. Apocatastasis even for the soulless.
If you do some research on why Cardinal Law was sent to Boston, you will find out that he attempted to repair the damage done by Archbishop Humberto Madeiros. Archbishop Madeiros decided to start a gay ministry. He chose Father Geoghan or Shanley, I forget which, to bring gays to the church. What happened was a disaster. This priest became active in the gay community and ended up in prison where he was murdered. The strange thing was that his sentence was not final. When he died, the Church then was not responsible for multi-million dollar suits. I believe that Cardinal Law tried a flawed strategy of cover-up but was sincere in what he was trying to do. This attempt opened the “flood gates” of bad publicity for the Church in America. What is being done now is only a parallel to what Madeiros tried previously. His attempt ended in failure as will this one. What will undoubtedly come out is similar acts on the part of the clergy.
It was Cdl Madeiros who was the first Catholic bishop to boot Dignity from Catholic premises. His letters to the Curia show deep distress over homosexuality in clergy and the faithful.
Madeiros was appointed to cure the spendthrift ways of the RCAB in the era before his. Law was appointed to soothe the ethnic divisions within the RCAB that erupted after de-segregation and with gentrification and increased immigration, over which Madeiros had great difficulty due to his isolation by many of his clergy as not being “one of us”.
With all due respect, you are loose with the truth. Cardinal Law was sent to Boston from Springfield, Missouri, to “put a lid on the gay scandal”. Cdl. Medeiros was the one who sent Father Shanley as a minister to street people and knowingly knew that he was ministering to the gay community. Check out Wikipedia.
From Fr. Austin Fleming’s blog we get this information:
“Cardinal Seán P. O’Malley issued the following statement June 22, in response to recent events at St. Cecilia Church in Boston.
The philosophical and political agenda of Gay Pride in relation to marriage and sexual morality is incompatible with the Church’s teachings. For that reason, Father Unni rescheduled a Mass of welcome for all his parishioners to a time that would not associate the Mass with the Gay Pride agenda.
I realize that Catholics who have same-sex attractions are often criticized by their friends for coming to Mass and that the parents and friends of homosexual members of our Church are distressed that their loved ones feel rejected by their Church. We want all baptized Catholics to come to Mass and be part of our community, but we cannot compromise the teaching of the Church rooted in Scripture and tradition.
We hope that all Catholics will come to experience the love of Christ in our community and that in that love they will find the courage and strength to embrace the cross that is part of the life of discipleship.
It is regrettable that there has been so much confusion about this matter. I hope the statement on my blog of last week and The Pilot editorial “A teachable moment” will help people to understand the Church’s teaching. We must be a community that reflects both the love and the truth of the Gospel.”
I put Fr. Fleming’s words in italics to distinguish them more readily from Cardinal Seán’s.
Thanks for sharing the statement by the Cardinal. It’s helpful, but still represents confusion. It says:
“The philosophical and political agenda of Gay Pride in relation to marriage and sexual morality is incompatible with the Church’s teachings.” >>>That part’s very good!
“For that reason, Father Unni rescheduled a Mass of welcome for all his parishioners to a time that would not associate the Mass with the Gay Pride agenda.” >>>Problem here is that the original Mass wasn’t a “Mass of welcome for all his parishioners” at all. It was promoted as follows: *Liturgy to commemorate Boston Pride 2011* The Rainbow Ministry of Saint Cecilia Parish invites all friends and supporters of the LGBT community to a Mass in celebration of Bostons Pride Month.
*It invited friends and supporters of the LGBT community to a Mass in celebration of Boston’s Pride Month*. Frankly, as worded in the original notice, the Mass was not actually welcoming *all* parishioners–it specifically invited and welcomed friends and supporters of the LGBT community to celebrate Boston’s Pride Month. If you were not a friend or supporter of the LGBT community who wanted to celebrate Boston’s Pride Month, then you were not invited to the Mass whose theme was supposedly “All are Welcome.”
When will the archdicoese stop deceiving people about what’s was and is going on there?
“Problem here is that the original Mass wasn’t a “Mass of welcome for all his parishioners” at all. It was promoted as follows: *Liturgy to commemorate Boston Pride 2011* The Rainbow Ministry of Saint Cecilia Parish invites all friends and supporters of the LGBT community to a Mass in celebration of Boston’s Pride Month.”
So the Archdiocese redefined it.
If Cardinal Sean really accepts the teaching of the Church pertaining to homosexuality, why does he permit John Kelly to head an LGBT ministry at St. Cecilia’s? Paul Melanson is reporting that John Kelly willfully rejects the teaching of the Magisterium according to his own words!
On the one hand you have the Cardinal’s statement of June 22 as well as the statement on his blog and the Pilot editorial to which he refers. On the other hand you have Paul Melanson saying that John Kelly says something. Obviously the former is an immeasurably better indicator of what Cardinal Seán really believes than the latter.
Why does he permit John Kelly to head an LGBT ministry at St. Cecilia’s? Who knows? But the fact is, even a micromanager as bishop can’t possibly know what every head of ministry in every parish believes, and he doesn’t have enough hours in the day to look into everything that is going on. He has to rely on the judgment of those closer to the scene.
How many other heads of ministries in the diocese reject the teaching of the Magisterium on one point or another (for example, people running Pre-Cana programs who reject Humanæ Vitæ)?
IMO, to blame Cardinal Seán for John Kelly’s position at St. Cecilia’s is unreasonable, and to use John Kelly’s reported rejection of the Magisterium to insinuate that Cardinal Seán has been lying when he repeatedly supports the Magisterium is outrageous.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us that “everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way.” –No. 2478
“Why does he permit John Kelly to head an LGBT ministry at St. Cecilia’s? Who knows?”
That’s the whole point. And one which needs to be investigated by Rome.
It is Cardinal Sean’s responsibility to know. The word Bishop is Greek for “Overseer.”
It is HIS RESPONSIBILITY!
I disagree with this statement: “On the one hand you have the Cardinal’s statement of June 22 as well as the statement on his blog and the Pilot editorial to which he refers. On the other hand you have Paul Melanson saying that John Kelly says something. Obviously the former is an immeasurably better indicator of what Cardinal Seán really believes than the latter.”
The old axiom still remains true: actions speak louder than words. By refusing to deal with dissent, Cardinal O’Malley is only rendering lip service to Gospel values while allowing the poison of infidelity to spread like a cancer.
Peter S and Roger Vaste,
In your utopia, a diocesan bishop knows what everybody in the diocese says and does and has time to deal with all of them. In the real world, it’s not possible. There is not enough time for the diocesan bishop to handle everything that happens in the diocese, no matter how orthodox he is. Therefore it is profoundly unjust to judge that inaction in a given case signals approval of what has been done.
Furthermore, there are different styles of exercise of authority. One person may be a micromanager, another may delegate responsibility. One is naturally inclined to discipline, another tries to encourage people to do better. We must be willing to make allowances for the humanity and differing personalities of our bishops. We also need to accept that in almost all cases which a bishop deals with, there is an area of pastoral prudence, where one might judge one course of action best while another might think something else is preferable. So, the cardinal isn’t doing exactly what you want him to in this situation? Big deal. It doesn’t mean that Rome has to investigate; and it doesn’t call for fevered rhetoric about “allowing the poison of infidelity to spread like a cancer.”
Why are you trying so hard to put the cardinal in the worst possible light? Why don’t you do what the Catechism says you should, and interpret his words and actions as favorably as possible?
Satan wants to separate the flock from their shepherd.
“In your utopia, a diocesan bishop knows what everybody in the diocese says and does and has time to deal with all of them. In the real world, it’s not possible. There is not enough time for the diocesan bishop to handle everything that happens in the diocese, no matter how orthodox he is.”
Not in my utopia. In the Church’s teaching. Read Veritatis Splndor, No. 113 very carefully. It is a Bishop’s duty to defend orthodoxy. It is the responsibility of a Bishop to KNOW what’s going on in his diocese (or Archdiocese). To accomplish this, he needs to select worthy staff to assist him. Catholic priests, religious and laity who are loyal to the teaching of the Church and who serve as the Bishops “eyes and ears,” ensuring that the local Churhc remains faithful to sound teaching.
What you’re saying is that Cardinal O’Malley is not up to the challenge of overseeing the Archdiocese. And I couldn’t agree more!
Roger Vaste,
I have read Veritatis Splendor 113 at your suggestion, and it does not say what you say. You are making it up.
You use criteria of your own making to accuse me falsely of saying that Cardinal Seán is not able to do his “job.” This is fundamentally dishonest on your part.
What Veritatis Splendor says at 113 ff. is that the bishop must teach the truth. Cardinal Seán has done that.
No one likes a liar. This is what No. 113 says: “Dissent, in the form of carefully orchestrated protests and polemics carried on in the media, is opposed to ecclesial communion and to a correct understanding of the hierarchical constitution of the People of God. Opposition to the teaching of the Church’s Pastors cannot be seen as a legitimate expression either of Christian freedom or of the diversity of the Spirit’s gifts. When this happens, the Church’s Pastors have the duty to act in conformity with their apostolic mission, insisting that the right of the faithful to receive Catholic doctrine in its purity and integrity must always be respected…”
Notice the passage, “When this happens [dissent], the Church’s Pastors have the duty to act in conformity with their apostolic mission, insisting that the right of the faithful to receive Catholic doctrine IN ITS PURITY AND INTEGRITY must always be respected”?
Stop lying naturgesetz. I know you are attempting some sort of lame apologia for the Cardinal. But lying is a sin.
Not so fast, Roger. The document doesn’t just say dissent, it says “Dissent, in the form of carefully orchestrated protests and polemics carried on in the media.” Cardinal Seán has indeed done his duty by teaching the truth, repeatedly.
What you and others are doing in your comments strike me as aptly described as “protests and polemics carried on in the media,” the electronic media of social communication in this instance; and as such your vilification campaign against your archbishop “is opposed to ecclesial communion and to a correct understanding of the hierarchical constitution of the People of God.”
Not so fast liar. The so-called rainbow ministry has used the media (for example its blog – where posts were recently deleted – and other media (such as the Church bulletin, newspaper interviews etc) to promote dissent.
And Cardinal Sean has failed in his duty “to act in conformity” with his apostolic mission, “insisting that the right of the faithful to receive Catholic doctrine in its purity and integrity must always be respected…”
Once again, lying is a sin. But it is obvious that you have no intention of engaging in a sincere dialogue. You are committed to lying.
I’m done with you.
It’s obvious to me the Archdiocese is being led around by the nose. Does anyone else see Fr. Brian Hehir’s fingerprints all over this fiasco?
Fr Hehir’s influence is vastly overstated. It withered a long time ago.
Not so sure about that
I am utterly amazed at the obsession (and I use that word in a very clinical sense) with homosexuality and this blog. I follow it for pure amusement. We have murder, war, poverty and homelessness, discrimination against the disabled and races of man. We have people killing others through history in name of religion and god. We have social and economic injustice, suffering of the elderly and infirm. We have many instances of violence against the disabled, the elderly and the infirm. And what have we here: a paranoid obsession with homosexuality and with two same-gendered people in love. Boy, someone has their cosmic priorities screwed up. This obsession with gays and lesbians is pathological. State you position and let it go; perseveration is obsession.
I’m afraid I have to agree with you, Phillip. There is so much work to be done in the name of Jesus, and we are all fighting and expending energy over this issue (I include myself in this group of the distracted for weighing in over this issue, again and again, despite knowing that it’s pointless to argue). Perhaps we could all agree that in economically dark times like these, we should be paying much more attention to the Corporate Works of Mercy and less to the sins and failings of our brothers and sisters in Christ.
I, for one, am sorry that I spend time being angry and trying to be right when God’s children are suffering so horribly in this fallen world.
And what is “Gay Pride”? Is that not obsession? Your cheap tactic will not work here Philip. And I’ll tell you why. What you refer to as “obsession” is really commitment. Commitment to Church teaching. Every time someone thrusts the sin of homosexuality in our face – or any form of dissent from Church teaching – we will follow our duty to defend the faith and to resist dissent for the sake of authentic peace.
Philip,
This blog can’t do anything about people killing others throughout past history. Social and economic injustice are not our speciality. No one from the Archdiocese of Boston has done anything against church teachings to harm the elderly and infirm as far as I know. If you care mostly about social justice this blog is the wrong place for you.
This blog didn’t schedule and promote a Mass to celebrate Gay Pride, St. Cecilia’s in Boston did. This blog is standing up and defending Catholic Church teachings. If you’re troubled by that, this blog is the wrong place for you. Feel free to be amused by our defense of Catholic teachings, but kindly stop criticizing us for that.
Feel free to focus your time on another blog where the topics and viewpoints of the writer are more to your liking.
Phil,
50,000,000 abortion in the U.S.A since 1973.
And you left them out?
I’m telling you brother it is the liberation theology that got ya.
It’s not liberation theology that got me it’s the RC Church’s indecisiveness on the abortion issue through history. (Although I like the idea of being liberated from my boring self.) St.Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church and Saint, wrote in his many documents that that “ensoulment” happens at 40 days for men and 90 days for women (sorry, gals). The RC Church in The Declaration in Procured Abortion in 1974 admits that there is much confusion and dissent about the actual time of ensoulment. So I didn’t mention abortion because I want sure if Thomas was right and when the embryo was ensouled? The RC Church maintains life is sacred fron day 1, but human life is defined by ensoulment. Confused? I am. That why I didn’t list as one of my issues.
Philip Dzialo,
You write, “The RC Church maintains life is sacred fron day 1, but human life is defined by ensoulment.” But the Catholic Church does not define human life by the unknown moment of ensoulment. The Church knows that when sperm and ovum unite, there is a living organism of the species homo sapiens — in other words there is a human life.
Furthermore, the Church has taught from its earliest days that abortion is always wrong, regardless of ensoulment.
Not quite always from the very beginning…ensoulment was a real big unresolved issue in the early church. The Apostolic Constitutions (circa 380 CE) allowed abortion if it was done early enough in pregnancy. But it condemned abortion if the fetus was of human shape. “Thou shalt not slay the child by causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten. For everything that is shaped, and his received a soul from God, if slain, it shall be avenged, as being unjustly destroyed.” 7:3:15 This document claimed to have been written by the apostles. However, it was actually written late in the 4th century CE at about the time that Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire and serious oppression of Paganism started.
After this time, teaching changed and evolved.
Philip
Confused? No actually, I’m not. But I’m afraid you are, and I know exactly why.
The biological reality of human conception was something discovered or revealed in; I believe the 19th century. This was a new truth that was incorporated into church dogmatic teaching.
You didn’t list it as one of your issues because you find it to somehow unresolved. It is not unresolved for Catholics. “Ensoulment” is a theological issue not a biological one.
Pro-choice katholic clowns like to bring up ensoulment because it makes them feel better about killing babies. It funny the same arguments are used to forward euthanasia or the killing of the handicapped out of ‘mercy’. for more on this I’d suggest researching the Terry Shievo case and the katholic theologians that help execute her by starvation.
The good guy side of the argument or the side that ‘feels’ more just or that somehow seems to bring more karma (gag) is not Truth. Truth stands alone, it holds up to the test of time, it is rarely fashionable, frequently is painful and usually costly.
Pontius Pilate looked the Truth right in the eye and said “What is truth?”
“Why does he permit John Kelly to head an LGBT ministry at St. Cecilia’s? Who knows?”
That’s the whole point. And one which needs to be investigated by Rome.
More examples of lack of courage displayed by those who have been chosen to lead the RCAB. The one attribute one must have to be a leaer is COURAGE , like the courage to say “NO!” Unfortuanetly courage has been lacking for some time now, and the Roman Catholic Archdioce of Boston loses trust, truth and parishioners each and every day. How sad. Please Your Eminence, take control of your Archdiocese and lead us to holiness.
Jesus told the disciples that the poor would always be with them; yet, He would not. I love my fellow man but I must love God above all else. The only way my soul can be saved is by God’s grace and that’s worth fighting for to the end. I, too, am begging Your Eminence to lead us to holiness!
http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2011/06/st-cecilias-parish-in-boston-promoting.html
Please do the general readership a favor and stop with the Paul Melanson promoting. As much as some of you would like to think otherwise, he’s just an Internet blogger, not a bishop, not a cardinal, and certainly not the Pope.
I agree with Philip; there are much bigger issues to work on and fix in the Church than people’s sexuality. Leave this in Cardinal O’Malley’s hands and leave it alone, already.
Actually eles, he is a lay-philosopher and apologist and not “just an internet blogger.” And if the Cardinal believes he is wrong, let him come here and prove such to be the case.
Leave things in Cardinal O’Malley’s hands? We’ve tried that. For years. Joe Sacerdo and Paul Melanson – and other Catholic Bloggers such as Bishop Gracida – have shown us that the Cardinal isn’t getting it done.
If you don’t like this truthful message, maybe you should move on. Visit the Cardinal’s Blog if you like. But stop attacking faithful Catholics.
[text removed by Joe Sacerdo/Bryan Hehir Exposed]
I’m not in any position to judge Father Unni or Cardinal O’Malley. [text removed by Joe Sacerdo/Bryan Hehir Exposed]
I’m sure this post will upset Melanson’s followers, but all he and Joe Sacerdo are doing is making the Cardinal’s job more difficult, as I said above. Have some respect for the Cardinal, since doing his job is clearly a difficult task in a diocese as large as his.
If you will, let’s not make this blog the place to discuss other bloggers. No offense intended to anyone, but if you’ve got a comment or issue with another blogger on another blog, please take it up with them there. It baffles me why people keep introducing what appear like promotions for other blogs here and then that follows with comments about other bloggers here. No explanations, please. No justifications, please. No defenses. No “get in the last word.” Please just focus on the issue of the Rainbow Ministry at St. Cecilia’s and whether what you see and hear is reflective of how Fr. Unni is catechizing them.
As for how I am making the Cardinal’s job more difficult, I fail to understand.your logic. I’ve exposed a Gay Pride Mass that the Cardinal agrees should not have taken place. Why wouldn’t you see that as helpful?
I wasn’t trying to promote another Blog here. I thought that any link which pertains to this controversy would be relevant. I posted a link on another Blog which originated from Bishop Gracida’s Blog. I did so not to “promote” Bishop Gracida but because I thought his comments were relevant.
Notice how eles is posting a link to the Cardinal’s Blog. I thought that was acceptable if it was “on topic”?
But you’re still criticizing the Cardinal and demanding his removal.
I read his June 17 blog and not one thing he says defies Church teaching. Read it and try to find one flaw with it.
http://www.cardinalseansblog.org/2011/06/17/stanley-cup-champions/
FUNNY … VERY FUNNY … you want us to find something in Cardinal O’Malley’s blog that defies Church teaching. I have a bigger challenge. Find something in the Cardinal’s blog that is:
a. clear on what Boston Catholics should do regarding the gay agenda
b. not contradictory of some other statement the Cardinal recently made to the press (he is endlessly contradicting his own statements [for example look at the gay agenda controversy at St. Paul's School in Hingham]… why does he constantly contradict himself? Maybe because not all of his statements are written by him… and not everyone surrounding him believes in upholding the Catholic Church’s position on hot button issues)
c. remotely interesting
d. well thought out
e. remotely courageous
f. truthful
e. transparent – why is the Cardinal afraid to have dialogue on his blog. Why does his blog not permit comments anymore? Why did his blog previously censor comments that were critical of him or the Archdiocese. Why is Joe Sarcerdo more of a man than the Cardinal when it comes to standing up to criticism? Why is Joe Sarcerdo’s blog more of an open forum for free thought than the Cardinal’s?
It is time for the Cardinal to leave … he has done enough irreparable harm … please go … I know that will bother the gays and the trial lawyers … but it really is way beyond time to leave. You have overstayed your welcome. We need someone with courage here in Boston.
[...] do I know this and why am I judging the situation this way? They sponsor speakers talking at St. Cecilia’s in support of gay marriage. They organized a Mass to celebrate Gay Pride. Members of their Rainbow Ministry publicly state [...]
Who’s business is it to criticize the attendance of mass by homosexuals? Mass is for sinners, regardless of sin. Homosexuals are welcome as sinners.
Mass is not a social club that enforces a pharisee or herd “will” on the parishioner. As Benedict XVI has said, the church is not a social or philanthropic organization. It would do well to prevent it from degrading into one. Everyone is welcome to mass, it’s never been otherwise, so I don’t understand where this problem of not being welcome comes from. After all, it’s not the parishioners who extend the welcome, but Christ. Now, perhaps in smaller town your sins may be better known by others, and so the local homosexual is indeed more likely to be known as one. But where the arrogant idea comes from that parishioners has a say in who is welcome to mass on the basis of sin, I don’t know. Perhaps they should stick to their own reform instead of busying themselves with that of another. If anything, you may have a prodigal son on your hands who yearns to overcome his condition.
Now the point at which parishioners need to express concern, and where they often don’t, is when the clergy pervert the mass, or allow it to be perverted, by agendas such as Gay Pride.
Reading that Paul Melanson using one of his pseudonyms of the day–Roger Vaste-and calling someone a liar is absolutely hysterical!!!!!!