Wolves, and Bryan Hehir’s First Boston Social Justice Conference

In view of it being Holy Week, I debated whether to post.  But the betrayal of Jesus brought to mind the betrayal of Catholic moral values that seem to have been encouraged by many of the speakers and sponsors Fr. Bryan Hehir recruits for his recent Social Justice Conferences so I thought I should share highlights. 

These conferences have been officially sponsored by the Archdiocese of Boston—with Fr. Hehir, of course, as keynote speaker and primary driver behind the scene.  The conference is called, “Moving Towards the Light” and their have been two in recent years.  In the same way that moths are attracted to light, these conferences seem to be magnets that draw an array of speakers and sponsors with controversial backgrounds and histories of supporting those who work against the Church.    

2006 Social Justice Conference .  This took place on March 19, 2006 and was funded by the Campaign for Human Development.  That would be the same USCCB-affliliated “Catholic” Campaign for Human Development (CCHD) which the American Life League reported on March 5^th had a “scandalous relationship” with groups advocating for abortion and same-sex marriage.  The American Life League identified 15 organizations supported by CCHD who were promoting abortion and same-sex marriage, and another 31 who are partnered with the pro-abortion Center for Community Change.  For others not familiar with CCHD, its also the same organization that collects money from Catholics in the pews every year claiming it goes towards anti-poverty programs, while they were funding ACORN and a range of Saul Allinsky-modeled radical, left-wing political organizations. CCHD would be a series of columns all there own.  I refer you to the following excellent coverage.

     US Bishops Anti-Poverty Arm Defunds Accused Group (March 25, 2010)

     CCHD Pushes Pro-Abort Groups in Lent Stations of the Cross (March 2010)

     Green Bay bishop questions Catholic charities (March 2010)

     Time to Start Answering Questions about Catholic Campaign for Human Development (Feb. 2010)

     More Proof the Catholic Campaign for Human Development Should Be Eliminated (Sept 2009)

    The Bigger Scandal: Catholic Church Funding of ACORN (Sept 2009)

     Catholic Campaign for Human Development and ACORN – Rotten to the Core (Oct 2008)

Notice the flyer for the event (page 15-16), distributed to all parishes, was included in the handout/package for a quarterly meeting of the Cardinal Sean O’Malleys Archdiocesan Pastoral Council.  The first two sponsors listed—The Labor Guild and Catholic Charities—fell under Fr. Hehirs direct responsibility at the time.

Lest this post run too long, let’s just take a look at just the first presenter listed, Kate Carter.  TKate’s topic and area of expertise was Parish Social Justice Committees because she was running the social justice committee at Our Lady Help of Christians in Newton, MA.  (Credit to blog reader Diane from Newton for passing along this info!). By the way, for those not familiar with Our Ladys and their social justice committee, that would be the same group that sponsored Our Ladys’ participation in the annual Boston Gay Pride Parade.   The parish bulletin listing from May 25, 2005 reads in part:

One way to show your support is to join the Gay & Lesbian Faith Sharing Group and the Justice and Peace Committee in the Gay Pride Parade and Pride Interfaith Service on Saturday, June 11th. To participate and/or for further details, please contact Kate Carter at ext. 232”

I hate to be digging up what for many readers is no doubt old news (so please don’t complain in the comments you didn’t learn something new), but I mention this because Fr. Hehir was clearly well aware of this background when he put together his social justice event in early 2006.  Heres the Boston Globe’s coverage of the 2005 Gay Pride event, featuring a write-up about “newlywed” Rosa Buffone, who proudly marched in the parade as a member of Our Ladys Parish Council.  Why would the Archdiocese and Cardinal archbishop want to still have today as a senior cabinet secretary advising the archbishop, the man who as Cabinet Secretary for Social Services in 2006 was responsible for and who key-noted an official archdiocesan conference funded by the CCHD and featuring this speaker talking about how to form and run a parish social justice committee—a speaker coming from a parish where the pastor advocated for gay marriage to the parish and in written testimony to the Massachusetts legislature? 

Did Fr. Hehir somehow “not know” about the background described above and years of controvery about the organizations CCHD was funding?  Hehir’s  history, political acumen, connections, intellect, and well-documented Marxist leanings would  suggest otherwise.  Can someone in the Archdiocese or the Roman Catholic hierarchy explain via comments or email what Im missing and why Fr. Hehirs still around?

Lest this post get too lengthy, I’ll continue coverage by highliting detials of the 2009 Archdiocesan Social Justice Conference in a separate post.

Read Full Post »

Wolves, Sheep, and Fr. Bryan Hehir

The psalm from today’s Mass struck me this morning.  “The Lord will guard us, as a shepherd guards his flock.” (Jeremiah 31:10, 11-12).  I love praying on that image of the shepherd guarding his flock, but the current situation in the Archdiocese of Boston feels more like the wolves have come and the shepherd has run off.  Two examples are what’s happening with Fr. Bryan Hehir’s involvement in Catholic hospitals (Caritas Christi) and his push to reorganize the Archdiocese’s cabinet leadership.

Catholic hospitals.  We learned this past Thursday that Caritas Christi is to be sold.  It may be that it’s a good arrangement financially for the hospitals, and we all hope that the Catholic identity and ethics can be maintained.  But, it also looks like wolves are involved in the decision-making and no shepherd in sight, as Fr. Bryan Hehir and business leaders with histories of supporting pro-abortion poiticians are on the Caritas board.

Cardinal Sean O’Malley’s delegate to the board of Caritas Christi is Fr. Hehir.  Supposedly 3 Board members represent the Catholic Church responsible for maintaining Catholic identity, and there’s little doubt that Fr. Hehir had a key role recommending Caritas Board members like past Chair of Catholic Charities of Boston, Neal F. Finnegan–who, by the way, has also given $19,000 to pro-abortion political candidates in recent years.

Finnegan was Chair of the Boston Catholic Charities board in 2003 when they rejected the request by then-apostolic administrator Bishop Lennon to turn down funds raised by the dissident group “Voice of the Faithful”  and he was still  board Chair when Fr. Hehir named president of Catholic Charities of Boston later that year.  In 2005 Fr. Hehir and Catholic Charities honored Finnegan for  his “commitment to our mission…the values which should animate our ministry every day — respect for the dignity of each person, the quest for greater social and economic justice  and a belief that meaning in life flows from service to others.”  I don’t quite understand how you can respect the dignity of each person while giving $$ to politicians who support taking the lives of the unborn but perhaps I’m missing something.

There’s more.  Chair of the Caritas Board, James Karam, quoted in Thursday’s Globe article, contributed more than $19,000 among the campaigns of President Barrack Obama; Hillary Clinton; US Sen. John Kerry; Gov. Deval Patrick; Congresmen Barney Frank, and others.  In total, 5 Caritas Board members have given $58,000 to pro-abortion political candidates.  (Thanks to  Catholic Action League for their research).

By the way, it was Finnegan, Karam and John Kaneb, who picked the President of Caritas Christi, Dr. Ralph de la Torre.  Mr. Kaneb is vice chair of the Archdiocesan Finance Council and came out in support of Notre Dame’s decision to honor pro-abortion President Obama at their 2009 commencement, referring to  Notre Dame as, “a beacon of adherence to its Catholic character.”   (Not!)  Turns out that it was Jack Connors who introduced Dr. de la Torre to the archdiocese search committee, so it all comes full circle.

But wait, there’s one more thing.  Today we learn that de la Torre, his wife and Caritas colleagues gave more than $34,000 to the pro-abortion U.S. Senate candidate, Martha Coakley.  Caritas president even hosted Coakely at a fund-raiser at his Newton home.  For those who forgot, Coakley said on the campaign trail that devout Catholics “probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room.”

How can we preserve Catholic identity in decision-making when the Catholic Church-appointed delegates to the Board (including the likes of Fr. Hehir) have records of dissent and/or a history of making significant financial contributions to politicians who fervently oppose the Church?  The businessmen involved may be capable administrators or dealmakers, but in terms of adhernce to Catholic moral teachings, it feels like  a pack of wolves guarding the sheep. My open request to the Cardinal  is this: In the new arrangement for Caritas, can we immediately replace Fr. Hehir and the other so-called ‘Catholic’ board members of Caritas with people who are known to be faithful to Church teachings?

Plans to reorganize the Archdiocese’s cabinet leadership. I don’t know where this stands today, but reports at ThrowTheBumsOutIn2010 and persistent chatter suggest Fr. Hehir, Jack Connors, and others including Chancellor James P. McDonough are angling to push aside or push out the one orthodox person in the cabinet, who has been driving successful programs in fund-raisng and evangelization.  This latest scandal for the archdiocese is  happening as we speak and may already be beyond remedy.  I know something about Fr. Hehir and Jack Connors, but don’t know much about Chancellor McDonough.

We do know that the chair of the search committee that chose Chancellor McDonough is none other than Neal Finnegan.  Not that I’m trying to draw any parallels here or rush to judgement, as he may be very good in business matters unrelated to Church teachings.  That committee included “clergy from the archbishop’s administrative cabinet” (which, given the cabinet in 2006, can only mean you-know-who.  UPDATE/CORRECTION: Members of the search committee are named below by sully in the Comments section).  Anyway, if the guy responsible for assembling a committee to pick the chancellor feels good spending $19,000 of his own money to support pro-abortion candidates who actively oppose Church teachings, how much effort do we think he put into understanding if the Chancellor’s ideology was consistent with Church teachings? 

So, where are we at right now? Well, instead of the shepherd guarding the flock from the wolf, the current situation feels more like this passage from the Gospel of John:

A hired man, who is not a shepherd and whose sheep are not his own, sees a wolf coming and leaves the sheep and runs away, and the wolf catches and scatters them.  This is because he works for pay and has no concern for the sheep.”  (John 10:12)

It’s pretty clear to me who represents the wolf in this picture.  Can anyone get the shepherd to come back, exercise leadership for a change, and chase the wolf away before it’s too late and the sheep all scatter?

Read Full Post »

Homily about St. Patrick and the Snakes

I read Cardinal Sean’s excellent short blog post critical of the current healthcare legislation this morning and if you scroll 2/3 of the page down, you can  see a painting of St. Patrick and listen to his homily of St. Patrick’s Day that gave the inspiration for today’s post.  I was struck by the Cardinal’s comment in the blog and homily about the painting of St. Patrick–depicted with the symbols of the bishop and the symbol of snakes. The symbolism of the snakes is especially the reason for me writing this post, which I have also sent via email to the Cardinal, Fr. Hehir,  and Papal Nuncio, in the interest of full transparency and openness.

I see where Fr. Hehir, one of the key advisors for important decisions in the Archdiocese of Boston, is on the Board of some organizations who sponsor speakers that dissent from Catholic Church teachings.  I remain confused.  Why would the Archdiocese of Boston, which should maintain adherence to the faith, trust decision-making advice and input by someone who is has a long history of dissent in the Church and who is still today sponsoring and supporting speakers who dissent from Church teachings?  This priest may be viewed by some people as a bright person in other matters, but this does not make sense to me and my wife.

Here are just two examples:

Fr. Hehir is on the Advisory Board of the Boisi Center at Boston College:

From their website, they say, “The Boisi Center does not seek to advance any ideological agenda…While based in a Jesuit university, it will not take sides in competing groups of Catholic theologians, nor will it defend a specifically Catholic viewpoint against non-Catholic ones.”

Hmm.  What’s wrong with this picture?  Why would the Archdiocese want one of it’s most senior and apparently influential cabinet members using the credibility of his Archdiocesan official status to advance an agenda that specifically does not defend Catholic viewpoints?

This April 8, they are sponsoring a talk by Fr. James Keenan on “What Has HIV/AIDS Led Us To Understand about Global Ethical Challenges?” This is the same notorious Fr. Keenan who testified to the Massachusetts Legislature in 2002 against a measure to ban gay marriage  “because it is contrary to Catholic teaching on social justice”.  His testimony is posted on the website of gay rights organization, Mass Equality.

The Mass Catholic Conference promptly rebuked him for his erroneous testimony.

They said he and others had “mischaracterized the teaching of the Catholic Church” and neglected to share the following statement from the U.S. Bishops:

we [the Bishops] wish to make it clear that the institution of marriage, as the union of one man and one woman, must be preserved, protected, and promoted in both private and public realms [our emphasis]. . . .Thus, we oppose attempts to grant the legal status of marriage to a relationship between persons of the same sex. No same-sex union can realize the unique and full potential which the marital relationship expresses.   For this reason, our opposition to “same-sex marriage” is not an instance of unjust discrimination or animosity toward homosexual persons.

In April of 2004, in the midst of the heated “gay marriage” debate in Massachusetts, Fr. Hehir was on the Boisi Center Boarrd that approved Fr. Keenan talking on the subject of “Virtuous Sexual Ethics.”  A report on the event says “He critiqued the current discourse on sexual ethics as focusing too narrowly on specific issues such as abortion, gene therapy, or abuse” and said it was a problem that “chastity is often raised in this discussion as a chief virtue.”

It feels scandalous (isn’t it?) that an Archdiocesan official is today on the Board of any  institution currently backing and putting forward this speaker.  Why do we feel it is OK having Fr. Hehir on the senior leadership team of the Boston Catholic Archdiocese giving advice and making recommendations on public policy decisions, matters of archdiocesan leadership, education/schools, parish closings, fund-raising, hiring and staffing, and communications when at the same time, he sits on the Board of a think-tank and supports presentations by people who have  viewpoints totally against Church teachings–on something as fundamental as the definition of marriage, as just one example?

Fr. Hehir also sits on the Board of Trustees of the Institute of Catholic Studies at the Univ. of Southern California

They sponsored a talk by Peter Steinfels last October 21, 2009 titled, “A Catholic Approach to American Public Life.”  Steinfels is known for a long time for his criticism of Church teachings as well, so the talk must have been interesting.  Let’s see, where do I start? Here are just two examples:

He has argued on a PBS program in favor of the ordination of women as priests and deacons, and has suggested that this could eventually lead to the creation of female Cardinals

Steinfels has questioned basic teachings and beliefs about abortion in “Abortion, Religion, and the Constitution”:

Both positions reflect a sad fact about our culture–the belief among too many that our deepest values cannot be challenged and reformed and affirmed by reasonable discussion.

He acknowledged “scientific fact about conception marking the beginning of a genetically distinct individual” but then said this position reflects “a sad fact about the state of our culture” and he criticized pro-lifers (or anti-abortionists) for refusing “to perceive that the question of fetal life is simply not so clear, particularly in its earlier stages.”

Maybe I’m totally wrong with my thinking.  But, that Fr. Hehir sits on the boards of these organizations and endorses them having such speakers present strongly indicates that he shares and supports their viewpoints, and/or that hes’ supportive of having people who publicly dissent from Church teachings present their dissident and critical viewspoints at  Catholic institutions to Catholic students.  Is this OK?  Isn’t that kind of a scandal for the Boston Archdiocese, to have that situation?

I forgot something. My wife just reminded me that Fr. Hehir himself said at a 2003 BC forum with Mr. Steinfels that we have to work through doctrinal issues and consider women priests in the future.

“The ordination of women embraces doctrinal questions that have to be worked through in a Church that takes doctrine seriously.”

So, given Fr. Hehir’s history and these facts above (and in my last post), does anyone feel I am wrong in thinking that his opinions should not be accepted and valued in important decisions in this Archdiocese?  I know he is viewed by some people in the archdiocese to be a very smart man from Harvard and all, but why would we listen to what he has to say about people, organization of the leadership of the archdiocese, education, public policy, and other important areas and push aside orthodox Catholics doing good work in the Archdiocese in favor of Fr. Hehir’s agendia and recommendations?

This situation of an influential person having one foot in an Archdiocesan Cabinet role and another foot as Board member and sponsor of dissident Catholics as speakers  reminds me of Luke 16:12-14.  “No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.”

I thank you, Cardinal Sean, for your comments on the terrible healthcare legislation and also for the example of St. Patrick with the snakes.  It is powerful symbolism–the bishop and snakes. By the way, what did St. Patrick end up doing with the snakes?

Read Full Post »

Open Letter to Cardinal Regarding Fr. Bryan Hehir

I am blogging for the first time and want to make this an open blog/letter to Cardinal Sean O’Malley of Boston regarding the situation with Fr. Bryan Hehir.

After hearing the pitch for the 2010 Catholic Appeal last weekend, my wife said something about Fr. Hehir trying to influence the direction or organization of the Mens and Womens Conferences and also something about the structure or responsibilities of the cabinet.  Posts to this blog and elsewhere confirmed what the wife heard so I feel people should say and do something.  I would ask Cardinal Sean if I could speak with him the following question: After all of the scandal Fr. Hehir has helped bring upon the Church through his words and actions, is he still really in a position of responsibility and providing advice you listen to?

Cardinal Sean, I invite you to look at this article from Catholic Culture about Fr. Hehir from several years ago. Here are just a few highlights from the article and also what we have observed over time.  I have decided I will blog more details about these that I have researched and learned more about:

• Fr. Hehir advocated that the Church be silent in the public square regarding contraception
• His writings on contraception have been used by Catholics for a Free Choice to oppose a conscience clause for employees of Catholic  hospitals  that would exempt them from having to provide contraceptive products and services
• His positions on communism, nuclear disarmament, and U.S. policy in Nicaragua have all proven to be wrong
• He hired the current head of the Mass Catholic Conference, despite the person’s history of personal donations to politicians who rabidly opposed the Church on key issues
• He honored the pro-abortion Mayor Tom Menino at a Catholic Charities fundraiser dinner.  I think you, Cardinal Sean, pulled out from the scandal and controversy if my memory serves me correct
• His Social Justice conferences have featured speakers or representatives of organizations who publicly dissent from Church teachings, including a woman who led a Catholic church’s participation in Boston’s Gay Pride parade
• He defended gay adoptions by Catholic Charities as a part of a need to “balance various goods”.  As we all know, the Vatican later ruled him wrong.
• As your liaison to Caritas Christi to maintain the hospitals Catholic identity, he neglected to head-off the Centene fiasco and scandal last year over referring patients for abortions before it exploded publicly. He also helped pick many of the Caritas Board members who contributed to the scandalous decision in the first place.
• He serves today as a Board member of several prominent University centers that sponsor speakers who publicly dissent from Church teaching.  He has also accepted honors and awards from organizations that publicly dissent from Church teachings
• His speaking engagements include being keynote speaker with an advocate for gay priests, and featured talks with a lesbian feminist who advocates for women priests and at a gay-friendly church in a series with a gay activist who published a graphic guide to safe gay sex

The author of the Catholic Culture article wrote in conclusion, “the Church cannot regain her health until churchmen stop promoting those who are uncommitted to her teachings and values. When someone with questionable antecedents is finally identified as complicit in an intolerable evil, the chain of advancement needs to be traced back to those who had every reason to know better. Their records too must be regarded as blemished so that their future recommendations will be ignored. This is the first step to untangling the web of ecclesiastical promotion, which is also the key to straightening out nearly everything else.”

My wife and I have to ask the question: Cardinal Sean, are you accepting or are you ignoring Fr. Hehir’s recommendations today?  If you are still accepting his advice and recommendations, I humble ask and pray that you reconsider.

I feel the future of the Catholic Church in Boston hinges on your answer to the question.

Read Full Post »

Bryan Hehir Doctrinal Juxtapositions date back to 1968

A 1996 book, Changing Witness: Catholic Bishops And Public Policy, 1917-1994 by Michael Warner (with forward by George Weigel) has broad implications for what is currently happening in the Archdiocese of Boston.

The book details history of the “intellectual changes that have rippled through Catholicism in America over the past two generations” and how the U.S. Catholic Church and bishops have  “jettisoned some of the traditional theological equipment while adopting many of the social, economic and political tenets of secularist humanism.”

Excerpts from the book can be found in this 1996 Wanderer article, Social Teachings At Risk In The American Catholic Church, which specifically chronicles J. Bryan Hehir’s involvement in the doctrinal juxtapositions at the USCCB.

The article explains how Hehir’s career was intertwined with 1960’s USCCB General Secretary Cardinal Bernadin and his successor, Bishop James S. Rausch’s attempts at “modernization” of the Catholic Church.

Bishop Bernardin “believed that the Church and its teachings urgently needed modernization” and told the National Catholic Reporter (April 17, 1968) that the “current national crisis” was such that “statements and pastorals were no longer sufficient. We must come up with specific programs which we will fund.”

Bernadin warned “that conservative fear of the unknown threatened to halt renewal in the Church” and accurately predicted ” tension and conflict”  if  “the movement for change” lost “momentum” because of “traditional Catholic skepticism”.

In those formative years under Bernardin as General Secretary and his successor, Bishop James S. Rausch, there was a certain amount of turnover, but one who retained his influence through the years (to this day) is Fr. J. Bryan Hehir, appointed in 1973 as director of the Office of International Justice and Peace.

“This new approach,” Warner states, “downplays the traditional principle of subsidiarity…USCC officials became boosters of dramatically expanded federal power, claiming that the federal government was the most reliable and sometimes the only engine of change-a conclusion the staff eventually applied to other social questions as well.”

In 1970, the NCCB approved a resolution establishing the Campaign for Human Development “to teach the poor to help themselves while educating the ‘non-poor’ and instilling in them a new sensitivity to the problems of poverty.” (Ed. Note: For over 25 years, U.S. Catholics have contributed millions to the annual CHD collection; ¾ of the monies are distributed at the discretion of USCC to left-wing politically oriented groups-not to the poor as this resolution suggests.)

Hehir’s “social justice” advice  at the USCCB coincided with nefarious activities at the CCHD:

By the 1970s, “USCC leaders and staff became the new elite of the American Church setting the agenda and defining social doctrine more and more for the Bishops so that the concerns and ideology of the USCC secretariat became indistinguishable from that of the American hierarchy.”

During these years, its liberal leadership under Bishops Bernardin and Rausch with their new advisor Fr. Bryan Hehir, endorsed a ‘new social ethic’ which “regarded all inequalities of wealth and power that were not immediately tied to some greater service for the common good, as oppressive….This new conception of justice banished the traditional notion of a natural social order and consequently, the older distinction between justice and charity.”

Doctrinal confusion that persuaded Catholics to vote for proabortion politicians seems to have been the brainchild of J. Bryan Hehir:

As the concept of social sin took hold, “some USCC statements implied that citizens participated in social sin without even knowing it.” Fr. Hehir “defined social sin as an organization or structure that systematically works to the detriment of groups or individuals….”

On the concept of ‘clerical activism,’ the USCC “called for political activism at all levels of the institutional Church.” Fr. Hehir “formally defended clerical activism in an article in the New Catholic Encyclopedia.” He held that “the weakness of pre-conciliar Catholic social teachings stemmed from its sketchy understanding of the distinction between the Church’s nature (or mission) and its social ministry.”

“Father Hehir publicly suggested that actions which would be sinful for the faithful could be publicly tolerated…if committed by non-Catholics. He advanced the argument that Paul VI’s ban on contraception in Humanae Vitae applied to personal morality not public policy and that the traditional natural law teaching had maintained a distinction between the two realms.” Although Fr. Hehir’s recommendations were not always implemented, Warner notes, “his concern that a strict application of Catholic sexual mores in matters of public policy would cost the Church valuable allies was echoed by the secretariat’s quiet efforts to ‘broaden’ the Bishops’ opposition to legalized abortion.” These efforts produced so much controversy in the Bishops’ Conferences, the “weary” leadership gradually “demoted abortion from its place as the most pressing public policy matter affecting American life.

Once the climate evolved to this position, Hehir and his allies in the USCCB began to redirect the Church’s opposition to abortion into class warfare and socioeconomic battles:

While “the secretariat succeeded in formulating social policies agreeable to mainstream liberalism, a challenge to Catholic activism had emerged with the legalization of abortion. The Supreme Court Roe v Wade decision entrenched in constitutional law the secularist argument that religion (or indeed, any conception of ultimate truth) is tangential to democratic government and potentially dangerous to it. Many Catholics…wanted the Church to discipline Catholic officials who supported legalized abortion…but most bishops and their advisors in the secretariat believed this course too drastic; they feared the loss of all influence and credibility in Washington…”

Warner continues, “USCC’s liberal leadership tried to minimize the friction with its secular allies by muting its own statements on what Fr. Hehir called ‘personal’ morality.” The USCC leadership in the 1970s tried “to convince influential prelates (such as NCCB president, Joseph Bernardin) that inequality and injustice…were the root of the problems like abortion and thus the real threat to life in the modern world.”

The “consistent ethic of life” with which Cardinal Bernardin “attempted to codify the internal logic of the new social teaching of the American Catholic Church” during the Reagan era had its origin in 1973 with Bishop Rausch. “Discomfited” by the intensity of the developing anti-abortion movement, Rausch introduced the notion of a “consistent theory of rights.” He stated “concern for the right to life of the unborn must be linked to…concern for the quality of life of the very poor, the aged, and the minority members of the American community.”
During the Jimmy Carter/Gerald Ford election, political strategy was rolled out.

After this quarrel abortion was effectively de-emphasized either by omission or as one among other issues.”

The NCCB 1976 pastoral letter, To Live In Christ Jesus, “called abortion an ‘unspeakable crime’ and mentioned it with seven other concerns, including housing, employment and discrimination.” This issue was not only downplayed in subsequent Bishops’ statements, they failed to “offer any concerned reaction when the Democrat Party reiterated and strengthened its pro-abortion platform plank in 1980.

Hehir’s social justice ideas and strategies that elected 40 years of  proabortion politicians has ended the lives of 50 million children and has resurrected Karl Marx.

What was it about Hehir’s history, discretion and outcomes that attract Cardinal O’Malley to his ideas?

Read Full Post »