Archive for November, 2010

With the controversy still alive and kicking over the Pope’s recent comments about condom usage and contraception, we’re dipping a small toe in the water—not about the condom controversy–but just to share what we know of Fr. Hehir’s views on contraception.   That’s it—nothing about the Pope’s condoms comments (except a suggestion people might want to read this post from Veritatis: The Cartoon).

One of Fr. Hehir’s most famous comments you’ve probably known about for a while—that contraception should be a matter of private not public morality.  But most people probably don’t know how Bryan Hehir actually questioned the truth of the Church’s teaching on contraception a few years ago while defending  the now-disgraced gay Archbishop Rembert Weakland.

Here’s the “Cliff Notes” version.   Pope John Paul II held a “Synod on the Laity” in  October of 1987, and among the delegates representing the U.S. Bishops was Archbishop Rembert Weakland.  At a pre-Synod meeting In June of 1987 moral theologian, Germain Grisez, who supported the Church’s teaching on contraception, got into a public disagreement with Weakland, who was known to not accept Church teachings on a range of issues.  Hehir, being consistent with what we’ve documented here on the blog for 8 months, defended Weakland by questioning Grisez’s assumption that the Church’s teaching on contraception was true.  Yup, that’s right–Hehir, who has responsibility over the Archdiocese of Boston’s pro-life ministry, questioned the validity of the Church’s teaching on contraception.

If you stop here, you’ve got the gist of today’s post. But if you keep reading, grab a cup of coffee or tea first.  Then fast-forward 23 years to 2010, you’ll see the alarming extent to which some of these people are still influencing Church policies today.

First this on Weakland, then onto Hehir’s comment.

Rembert Weakland

Author and Culture Wars editor E. Michael Jones had this to say about Weakland:

The bishops who chose him as a delegate may or may not have known that Rembert Weakland was a homosexual; they may or may not have understood that homosexuals subvert the institutions they occupy, but they most certainly knew that he did not accept traditional Catholic teaching on issues like contraception, abortion, homosexuality and the ordination of women. That is, in fact, why they chose him as a delegate to the synod, to send precisely that message to Rome. Even if Weakland had never opened his mouth at the synod, that message would have been clear. That is why they chose him as a delegate.

We note that Archbishop Weakland’s having had an adult gay relationship from 1979-80 with Paul Marcoux only erupted into a full-blown public scandal in 2002, when it was revealed Weakland had paid Marcoux $450,000 in 1998 to keep quiet about the sordid affair.

Bryan Hehir Questions the Truth of Church Teaching on Contraception

In case those reading the blog are not familiar with the Synod on the Laity, during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II, every two or three years a select group of Roman Catholic bishops from around the world was invited to Rome to advise the Pope. At the 1987 synod, the month-long conference included 232 bishops from 92 countries summoned to discuss the role of the laity, joined by 51 official lay observers.

About a half-dozen meetings were arranged prior to the U.S. bishops’ trip to Rome so they could meet with selected individuals, lay and clerical, in order to prepare the agenda for their synodal presentation.  After these meetings, what was then a“secret” meeting took place at St. Mary’ s College at Notre Dame June 7-9, 1987.  It included members of the U.S.C.C. Laity Committee and the six bishops who would represent the U.S. Church at the Roman meeting: Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, Archbishop Rembert Weakland, Archbishop of St. Louis John May, Bishop of Baton Rouge Stanley Ott, Bishop of New Ulm Raymond Lucker, and Bishop of Las Cruces Ricardo Ramirez.

Besides the bishops, other invited participants included moral theologian, Germain Grisez, Lisa Sowle Cahill, Bishop of Joliet Joseph Imesch, (chaired committee that wrote bishops’ pastoral on women), Fr. Robert Kinast (American Theological Union), Doris Donnelly (St. Mary’s College Center for Spirituality), Dr. David Thomas, and USCC staffers including Fr. Bryan Hehir.  Grisez, perhaps the only orthodox theologian of this group, wrote a 14-page letter to a number of colleagues afterwards which he did not intend to be published. Many excerpts were published in The Wanderer referring to him anonymously as the “orthodox theologian” but it was clear that he was the author.  To get the full picture, read the Wanderer’s 1987 article “Letter Shows How U.S. Bishops Synod Agenda Rigged”.  Here are the highlights:

As to why an orthodox theologian was invited to the St. Mary’s consultation, it may be surmised that the meeting’s organizers and the Rome-bound bishops wished to be able to say, if ever challenged, that “conservatives” had been part of their consultative process.  They can point to the theologian.  It may also be conjectured that is exactly why he wrote his friends.  He wanted to be on record somewhere reporting that even as soon as he was sent the meeting’s schedule he saw that “it was clear” he would “not be allowed to present anything.”

Grisez recounts presentation after presentation that conveyed dissent from Church teachings by Fr. Bryan Hehir, Donnelly, Lisa Sowle Cahill, and David Thomas.  Some participants wanted women priests, and assuming that was not yet realistic, most of the participants wanted the bishops to go to the synod asking for female altar servers.  Read the Jones article or the Wanderer Article “Letter Shows How U.S. Bishops Synod Agenda Rigged” to get the whole picture.  Here are excerpts:

Fr. Hehir: “Though Americans may be perceived as imperialistic, they should not hesitate to push their program at the synod, and particularly to insist on the rightness of their idea of the Church in the world. The US experience is valid–certainly for the US–and the rest of the world should learn from it too” (cf. E. Michael Jones, “The Synod on the Laity Just says No to Altar Girls,” Fidelity, December 1987, p. 32ff). Father Hehir, who was then at the peak of his fame as the author of bishops’ statement on nuclear weapons, was not alone in promoting Americanism at the secret meeting. In fact he was articulating the fundamental consensus of the delegation of American bishops who were heading off to the synod.

All of those who attended the meeting (with the exception of Germain Grisez, who wrote the report exposing the machinations there) were united in the belief that America had something to teach the universal Church. Just what it had to teach became apparent in the course of the meeting. What America had to offer the Catholic Church was sexual liberation. The resentment of Church bureaucrats tied to what they perceived as an oppressive sexual code while living in liberated America was palpable, to Germain Grisez at least, at the secret meeting. Doris Donnelly, a feminist from St. Mary’s who gave the conference’s keynote address, claimed in Grisez’s words that the 1976 [Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith] declaration on the ordination of women holds that women are incapable of imitating Christ and thus departs radically from the whole Christian tradition about following Christ! She wants a canon law making rape and incest crimes if abortion is to remain a crime (obviously she resents the canonical provision on abortion). She thinks that the draft’s treatment of sexuality is okay but not very clear. Sexuality is one’s need to be in communion with others. God is not solitary. She doesn’t like anything on the roman working paper’s statement on women. She rejects its attempt to mark out distinguishing feminine and masculine characteristics, but she makes her own attempt: Men fear being tied down by relationships, whereas women fear the rupture of relationships.”

Theologian Lisa Sowle Cahill, one of the people at the conference who, unlike Grisez, had ready access to the microphone anytime she wanted to say something, attacked the Church’s position on contraception “as if the whole thing were a matter of terminology.”

Now you need to follow what Germain Grisez said, and then Weakland and Hehir’s responses.

Grisez: “I began by…suggesting that the bishops should go to the Synod and say: “In the U.S. dissent has been tried and we’ve tolerated it, and we’re here to tell you on the basis of experience that it’s a disaster. The initial promise was that contraception would solve all sorts of problems, help people cement their marriages, and also forestall abortion, but our Catholic divorce and abortion rates approximate those of the U.S. at large. Also. the new sex morality, was not supposed to open up sex, outside marriage, but in fact it has, with terrible results. I pointed out that experience does not interpret itself, but has to be understood in some sort of framework.  If one understands experience in the light of faith, one sees that traditional morality is sound. Naturally, if one interprets experience by some contemporary, non-believing framework, it provides evidence to getting rid of that morality.

Grisez: “I then recounted the story of a man who some years ago followed bad pastoral advice and tried to develop a lasting homosexual relationship, but soon gave in to unlimited promiscuity, and now is dying of AIDS. He has repented, but has had to learn by experience that if you live according to the flesh, you die.”

Cahill: countered by claiming that “the bad experience of people trying to live up to the Church’s teaching outweighs the odd case where things work out badly.”

Weakland: Came back to challenge Grisez by invoking the actual situation which has developed in the Church.  He holds that modern techniques have simply separated procreation from love-making, and there is no longer anything anybody can do about that.

Grisez: answered that the situation in the Church is the Bishops’ responsibility and it’s up to them to change it.

Bryan Hehir: moved to defend Weakland by saying that I (Grisez) was begging the question by assuming that the received teaching (on contraception) is true.

Grisez: replied that if the Bishops do not believe it, they could, at least, go to the Pope privately and tell him that, and urge him to get a process going which will face and resolve these issues.  I pointed out that the Pope is not a neurotic, that he is intelligent, and that it should be possible to get him to see the urgency of beginning to resolve the issues.

There’s a lot more about Hehir’s role in this session and his defense of dissent, but this should be enough for you to get the gist of the matter.

Incidentally, though Grisez is retired and no longer teaching, he is still active enough as a moral theologian that he was tapped for his views on last week’s condom controversy in a widely-distributed AP article by Rachel Zoll:

Germain Grisez, a prominent moral theologian who advises bishops, said that promoting condoms as protection against disease would be “pernicious” because it assumes a person does not have the capacity to make good, moral choices. He lamented that the pope’s comments “can be – and are being – misused to sow doubt about Catholic teaching.”

To summarize, as we covered on the blog, in 1974, Hehir wrote that the Church could

regard contraceptive practice as an issue of private morality that the church continues to teach for its members, but not an issue of public morality on which it seeks to affect public policy” (Theological Studies, March 1974)

In 1987 Hehir defended a bishop known to dissent from Church teachings (who later came out as gay) by criticizing an orthodox moral theologian for assuming that the Church’s teaching on contraception was true. In other words, Hehir felt it was wrong to assume the Church’s teaching on contraception was true.

Next time someone bumps into Bryan Hehir, do us a favor and ask him if he accepts and believes the Church’s teaching on contraception. If he says he does, ask him why he criticized Germain Grisez for his acceptance of the teaching?

And next time someone bumps into Cardinal O’Malley, could you ask him how Bryan Hehir, his trusted strategic advisor, could possible bring “fidelity to the work of the Church” when Hehir consistently makes statements that suggest he does not accept Church teachings?

Read Full Post »

As the dust settles on the election of Archbishop Dolan as the USCCB’s new President and the defeat of Bishop Kicanas, since the name of Cardinal Bernardin was resurrected in many of the media reports, we thought we’d just make sure everyone knew the ties that connect Fr. Hehir, the late Cardinal Bernardin, and Bishop Kicanas. 

In the course of writing this, we stumbled across some articles about Bernardin that were, er, rather controversial and disturbing as relates to the advancement of the gay agenda and sub-culture in the Catholic Church by Bernardin. Grab a good strong cup of coffee or tea.  You’ll need it today.

Kicanas Connection to Bernardin

USA Today said about Kicanas:

The expected choice: the Bishop of Tucson Gerald Kicanas, a Chicago-born and trained bishop mentored by the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin who was known as a voice for social justice in the era when the U.S.Conference of Catholic Bishops wrote major pastoral letters nuclear weapons, the economy and AIDS. In 2008, Kicanas won The Cardinal Bernardin Award for his commitment to finding common ground within the Catholic faith.

Bernardin’s pastoral letter on AIDS  talked about public education campaigns that could give out information about condoms, and it was later modified after objections by Cardinal Law, Cardinal O’Connor, and Cardinal Ratzinger becuase some of its passages went against Church teachings or appeared to condone immoral behavior.

Bernardin was mentioned as the model for a potential Kicanas USCCB presidency very frequently; just do a Google search on kicanas and bernardin and you’ll find 2700 results.

Kicanas Connection to Hehir

Since Kicanas was a protégé of Bernardin’s and Fr. Hehir was close to Bernardin too, it only makes sense that Kicanas would probably have some connection to Fr. Hehir.  Here is Bishop Kicanas speaking at the National Leadership Roundtable, where Fr. Bryan Hehir is on the Board of Directors along with Sr. Carol Keehan of the CHA, whom Hehir praised earlier for her leadership in supporting the abortion-funding ObamaCare.  (We wrote about that in Fr. Bryan Hehir “Wounds Catholic Unity” by Undermining U.S. Bishops on Healthcare).

Like most of the other organizations that Fr. Hehir is a member of, the National Leadership Roundtable is not without controversy:

“Bishops who might welcome the help offered by the Roundtable project in its early phases may later find that those who only wanted to be of assistance have effectively taken over a large part of the decision-making authority traditionally belonging to the episcopal office,” Fr. Richard Neuhaus, an influential New York archdiocesan priest wrote in First Things, the monthly journal he founded. “He who pays the piper, and all that,” wrote Neuhaus.  “An additional concern expressed by lay critics of the Roundtable project is that it would create a small elite of wealthy lay people and progressive activists falsely claiming to represent the millions of lay faithful,” continued Neuhaus. “In response to this concern, it is said that the Boisi group is only taking the initiative in a restructuring of the governance of the Catholic church that will, in its successive phases, expand to include democratically elected representation at every level of the church’s life.”

Practical assistance is just what the Roundtable offered the Tucson, Ariz., diocese, which is undergoing significant management challenges in the wake of bankruptcy proceedings that led to separate incorporation of the church’s 74 parishes.

Hehir Connection to Bernardin

As we told you in “Fr. Hehir and the Seamless Garment,”  Fr. Hehir and the late Cardinal Bernardin were close collaborators and friends.  From the 2001 book, “Religious Leaders and Faith-Based Politics” we hear:

Shortly after the pastoral on war and peace had been issued. and no doubt trying to take advantage of the momentum it bad generated within the hierarchy. Cardinal Bernardin undertook another major initiative intended to broaden the bishops’ pro-life agenda beyond abortion.

As one would expect, in undertaking this initiative Bernardin received the invaluable assistance of Bryan Hehir. Indeed it is fair to say that this initiative was chiefly the product of their long collaboration. After working together over the years, the two men had become close friends.

Bernardin Connection to Gay Agenda and Sub-Culture in the Catholic Church

If what’s documented in these various books and articles is accurate, our calling this Cardinal Bernardin’s “connection to gay agenda and sub-culture” is an understatement already. 

  • From Paul Melanson at Lasalette Journey, excerpting from Paul Likoudis’s “AmChurch Comes Out: The U.S. Bishops, Pedophile Scandals and the Homosexual Agenda”:

If the problem of a homosexual network in the Church is viewed in this larger perspective, one can understand more fully the remarkable role of Joseph Cardinal Bernardin in creating an ‘American Church’ that has become a trusted ally of all those various social, political and cultural forces promoting sexual libertinism…Bernardin, it must be recalled, at least briefly, was sponsored, tutored and promoted by a number of dubious characters, not only his clerical godfather and mentor, Archbishop Paul Hallinan of Atlanta, who served as a bishop in Bernardin’s hometown, Charleston. Bernardin’s other ‘godfather’ was Archbishop (later Cardinal) John Dearden, who would be responsible for the appointment of such notorious pro-homosexual bishops as Detroit Auxiliary Tom Gumbleton, Ken Untener of Saginaw, Joseph Imesch, of Joliet, and Springfield’s Daniel Ryan….His closest friend from his South Carolina days, Monsignor Frederick Hopwood, had been accused of abusing hundreds of boys dating back to the early 1950s, when he and Bernardin shared a residence at the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist in Charleston – where some of the alleged abuse took place….

To do real justice to Cardinal Bernardin and his entourage of clerical homosexuals and pederasts and ancillary hangers-on who made up the Chicago-Washington, D. C. Homosexual/Pederast Axis would require more than one full size book.

That Bernardin’s alleged sexual penchant for young men still remains an open issue even today, ten years after the cardinal’s death, is reflected in the remarks made by writer A. W. Richard Sipe in his keynote address, “View From the Eye of the Storm,” given on February 23, 2003 to the Linkup National Conference in Louisville, Ky.

According to Sipe, years before Bernardin was charged with sexual abuse by Steven Cook in 1993, “several priests who were associates of Bernardin prior to his move to Chicago revealed that they had ‘partied’ together; they talked about their visits to the Josephinum to socialize with seminarians.”

It is a fact that Bernardin’s accuser (Cook) did not ever retract his allegations of abuse by anyone’s account other than Bernardin’s,” said Sipe. He also told the audience that the Chicago Archdiocese’s pay off to Cook before he died of AIDS was in the $3 million range.

The massive reorganization of the old National Catholic Welfare Conference into the super bureaucracy of the NCCB/USCC proved to be an unbelievable boon to the Homosexual Collective within and without of the Church. It accelerated the rate of wholesale infiltration and colonization of dioceses throughout the United States and reached its zenith under the reign of Pope Paul VI.

One of Bishop Bernardin’s closest friends at the NCCB/USCC was fellow homosexual Father James S. Rausch whose background has been thoroughly covered in Chapter 11. In 1970, Bishop Bernardin appointed Father Rausch, Assistant General Secretary of the NCCB/USCC. After Bernardin was made Archbishop of Cincinnati in November 1972, Rausch succeeded him as General Secretary.

Rausch was consecrated an Auxiliary Bishop of St. Cloud, Minn. by Cardinal John Krol of Philadelphia on April 26, 1973. In January 1977, having served out his term of office at the NCCB/USCC, Rausch was made Bishop of the Diocese of Phoenix.

An up and coming prelate to whom Bernardin was especially attached was Auxiliary Bishop John Roach who later became the Archbishop of Saint Paul and Minneapolis. Roach served as President of the NCCB/USCC from 1980 to 1983.

Bernardin and Roach, who some AmChurch observers characterized as “conjoined twins,” dominated political life at the NCCB/USCC for decades, first directly, and later through the clerics they advanced to bishoprics and key positions within the American bishops’ bureaucracy. The two men were frequent traveling companions and cooperated on a number of important NCCB documents including the 1983 Pastoral Letter “The Challenge of Peace: God’s Promise and Our Response” that challenged the morality of nuclear deterrence.

“The Boys Club” Murder

On May 30, 1984, Frank Pellegrini, the organist and choir director for All Saints — St. Anthony of Padua Roman Catholic Church on Chicago’s Southside was found brutally murdered in his apartment. His hands had been tied with barbed wire and he had been stabbed more than 20 times. There was no sign of forced entry. Police officials investigating the case believed that the murder was committed either by a woman or a homosexual.

According to his girlfriend, Pellegrini had had a homosexual relationship with a Chicago priest and was part of a secret clerical “Boys Club” that not only included homosexual assignations, but also ritualistic, occult worship and the sexual abuse of young boys garnered from low income ethnic families in the city. Pellegrini’s girlfriend told the police that Frank had told her that he wanted out of the Club and had scheduled a meeting with Chancery officials on the matter shortly before his death.

Two young private Chicago investigators, Bill Callaghan and Hank Adema, were hired to look into the Pellegrini murder. They were able to confirm the existence of a clerical homosexual/pederast ring operating out of the Archdiocese of Chicago. It appeared that the alleged homosexual ring they had uncovered was the same one mentioned by Father Andrew Greeley in the paperback version of Furthermore! Memories of a Parish Priest written in 1999.

One of the puzzling mysteries surrounding the murder involved Cardinal Bernardin. According to the police who were present at the crime scene, shortly after Pellegrini’s body was discovered, Cardinal Bernardin arrived at the murdered man’s home to quiz the officers about the killing. The cardinal told police that he did not know the murdered man. This raises the obvious question of how he learned of the killing so quickly and of what special interest was Pellegrini to him since he did not know the victim. The Pellegrini case was reopened in the early 1990s, but to date, the crime remains unsolved and Father Greeley remains silent.

Bernardin and the Winona Seminary Scandal

Although the homosexual scandal at Immaculate Heart of Mary Seminary in Winona, Minn. has already been covered in the previous chapter in connection with Bishop Brom of San Diego, it may be helpful to recall the case again briefly as Archbishop Bernardin was implicated in both the scandal and the subsequent payoff, and because it ties into the well-publicized Cook Affair.

As reported earlier, the details of the Winona scandal did not come to public attention until 2002. However, it had its genesis in the 1980s when a small group of homosexual prelates decided to scout out fresh meat from candidates for the priesthood at Immaculate Heart Seminary in the Diocese of Winona.

According to reports based on an investigation by Roman Catholic Faithful, the bishops involved in the sordid affair were alleged to be Joseph Bernardin, John Roach, Robert Brom, and a fourth bishop whose identity is not known. (The Boston Globe briefly mentioned the scandal here)

At least two of the seminarians who were assaulted at Immaculate Heart Seminary took legal action, and it was through them that the existence of the predatory homosexual ring of bishops in Winona came to light.

One of the seminarians indicated that some of the homosexual activities at the seminary were connected to occult and Satanic rituals. He and other seminarians also mentioned that on occasion Archbishop Bernardin arrived at the seminary with a young traveling companion, Steven Cook. Years later, Cook gained worldwide notoriety as the man who accused Cardinal Bernardin of sex abuse in the late 1970s when Bernardin was Archbishop of Cincinnati.

Endnote 26:

Cardinal Bernardin’s “Seamless Garment” later renamed the “Consistent Life Ethic,” like “The Many Faces of AIDS,” is another illustration of how Bernardin helped to advance the agenda of the Homosexual Collective. The Seamless Garment strategy set out by Bernardin in the 1980s sought to broaden the pro-life tent by expanding the movement’s opposition to abortion, euthanasia, population control and school sex instruction to include other “social justice” issues such as war and peace, opposition to the death penalty, welfare reform and civil liberties. One of the immediate effects of the Seamless Garment ethic was the increase of power and financial resources of Social Justice offices at the diocesan level where the Homosexual Collective has always been strongly represented.

Since the Homosexual Collective has been extremely successful at framing the homosexual question in terms of a “civil rights” issue, the Bernardin strategy opened the NCCB/USCC and diocesan Social Justice Departments (and their considerable resources and manpower) to further exploitation by the Collective. At the same time the Collective benefited from the neutering effect the Seamless Garment strategy had on pro-life/pro-family forces within the Church that had become the backbone of public opposition to the political and social agenda of the Homosexual Collective. The Bernardin strategy served to breathe new life into the languishing Democratic Party and its pro-homosexual platform as well as promote the “big tent” inclusive policies of the Republican Party that sought to capitalize and exploit the political talents and financial wealth of the Homosexual Collective in America.

You may remember the name of Joseph Kellenyi. He figured in Michael S. Rose’s book Goodbye, Good Men, and in two of Rose’s articles in the NOR (Dec. 2002 and June 2003). Kellenyi, who was once a seminarian at Mundelein in the Chicago area, makes the following statement about a conversation he had with the Rev. John F. Canary, the Rector of Mundelein Seminary, in August 1999: “I told Rev. Canary that I had some problems with the Chicago Diocese. I told him that I perceived that while Cardinal Bernardin had probably lived a celibate life, and may not have abused Steven Cook, that he also was flamingly gay. I said that I perceived that under Bernardin’s regime, Chicago had become like Santa Rosa under Bishop Ziemann. I said that in Santa Rosa, those priests and seminarians not in the bishop’s gay clique were treated unjustly, and that the same was true of Chicago under Bernardin. I said that I perceived that Bernardin fostered and promoted a network of gay priests and bishops, and that they protected each other, covered up each other’s ‘mistakes,’ and promoted one another to positions of responsibility in Chicago and the church at large. I alluded to the fact that Bernardin had appointed Rev. Canary, and that he in turn had appointed the formation faculty. Rev. Canary’s response was ‘Your perception is accurate. The question is what are you going to do about it.’”

Do we have a smoking gun here? Kellenyi thinks so. In the same issue of AMDG, Kellenyi has an article detailing his story. Says he: “The polygraph results show that I discovered in 1999 that Cardinal Bernardin had fostered a network of gay priests and bishops who were covering up one another’s sexual indiscretions. The rector of Mundelein Seminary confirmed this fact.…Andrew Greeley has insinuated that Bernardin was gay. Will he now come out and simply admit that he knew it all along?”

In Paul Likoudis’s book Amchurch Comes Out: The U.S. Bishops, Pedophile Scandals and the Homosexual Agenda, Likoudis fingers Cardinal Berdanin as the “bishop-maker who…gave the American hierarchy its pronounced pro-gay orientation.…Bernardin acquired power rapidly. As his friends back in Charleston continued buggering little boys, Bernardin used his influence, starting in 1968, as General Secretary of the U.S. Catholic Conference, to select bishops (many of whom are still ordinaries) who would, to put it charitably, condone and promote homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle and tolerate the sexual abuse of children by priests.”

A telling aside: James Hitchcock reported that “the Windy City Gay Men’s Chorus was asked [by Bernardin, who knew he was dying] to sing at his wake in the Cathedral. The chorus’s director said that they regarded the invitation as a sign of approval by the Church…” (The Catholic World Report, Feb, 1997). Approval indeed! At least by Bernardin. The Gay Chorus performed six songs – in the sanctuary to the right of the altar.

Back to Kellenyi’s article. Says he: “I would urge the reader to search The New York Times archives for an article entitled ‘Can this Man Save the Catholic Church?’ The article is about Wilton Gregory [President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops], and in it he describes in detail how Bernardin mentored and handpicked him, grooming him from early on for a leadership position….One can reasonably presume that Bishop Gregory is well aware of the fact that he is where he is today because a gay Cardinal took a special interest in him at a young age. Bishop Gregory has benefited directly from the combination of homosexuality and power in the Church. This alone would explain his waffling over the gay priest problem.”

Well, yes it would. Meanwhile, we wait and wait to see if Rome will intervene and clean up the mess. (We’re not holding our breath.)

[Update: we have removed a link to an article from a source which we just learnd has been discredited.]

Bryan Hehir Exposed thought this would probaby be enough about all these guys for one post. Even beyond the issues of Kicanas’ judgment about seminarian Daniel McCormack documented in this post, since Bernardin was a mentor for Kicanas, and Kicanas was endorsed by the militant “Catholic” GLBT Rainbow Sash organization that disrupts Catholic Masses and thought Kicanas would be open and understanding to their views, we’re pretty pleased that Kicanas was defeated.

Lest we lose sight of the namesake of this blog in the midst of all of the Bernardin material, we remind you that this generally flattering chapter about Fr. Hehir in the book “Religious Leaders and Faith-Based Politics”–whose content drew from interviews with Fr. Hehir and many of his friends and collaborators–said about Hehir and Bernardin, “After working together over the years, the two men had become close friends.” (p. 214)

Hehir and Bernardin were long-time collaborators and close friends.  Hehir is viewed by Cardinal Sean O’Malley as a highly trusted “strategic advisor.”  Need we say more about the questionable judgement of the key people highlighted in this post when it comes to choosing their friends, collaborators, mentors, and advisors?

Read Full Post »

Yesterday’s defeat of Bishop Gerald Kicanas is a huge win for those of us who feel the time has come to finish unraveling the late Cardinal Bernadin’s and Fr. Bryan Hehir’s “seamless garment” principles.  This piece from George Neumayr at Catholic World Report said it well:

In the years following Roe v. Wade, the US bishops debated the place of abortion in their agenda. Cardinal John O’Connor of New York argued for giving primacy to the abortion issue, while Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago wanted abortion integrated into a long and dubious list of “threats to life.” The latter view prevailed in the USCCB, and became known as the “Seamless Garment.” The upset election of New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan to the USCCB presidency over Bishop Gerald Kicanas of Tucson, the media-described Bernardin “protégé,” is a posthumous victory of sorts for O’Connor.

Not that the Bernardin Left is now powerless in the Church in America. It retains plenty of influence in chanceries and Catholic classrooms across the country, not to mention—as evidenced by the close vote between Dolan and Kicanas—the episcopate itself. But the “Seamless Garment” bishops are running out of steam, stopped not only by their overtly political liberalism, which looks painfully passé in the light of the Democratic Party’s crack-up and the nation’s changing mood, but also by the moral fallout of their doctrinal liberalism.

Historians will likely note that what ultimately silenced and discredited the “Seamless Garment” bishops was not this or that silly political stance, but the sex abuse scandal. Before it erupted, bishops like Roger Mahony could command an audience on topics like amnesty; after it, their moral authority seemed shot. People were in no mood to be lectured on “justice” from bishops who hadn’t provided any to children in their own dioceses.

The irony of Bishop Kicanas’ defeat is that the fingerprints of dissenters are on the weapon that felled him: members of SNAP—who normally wouldn’t object to a politically liberal, doctrinally vague candidate like Kicanas—broadcast to the press his complicity in ordaining a priest who went on to molest minors. Kicanas’ explanation of the ordination to Tim Drake of the National Catholic Register managed to unite liberals and conservatives against him: SNAP found his refusal to apologize offensive, while his admission that he knew of the candidate’s homosexual experiences and ordained him anyway left conservatives dismayed.

The media casts Kicanas’ defeat and Dolan’s win as a “traditionalist” victory. But that is overstating it. For one thing, Dolan—though he sees himself walking in the footsteps of John O’Connor—is far from a confrontational conservative. According to the media’s telling, the “moderate” lost and the “conservative” won. But it is more accurate to say that the moderate won and the liberal lost. In reality, the immediate outcome of the USCCB election has to do primarily with the slow unraveling of the “Seamless Garment” and the aftershocks of the abuse scandal. Bernardin’s dream of the USCCB as a Vatican-resistant body of progressive political opinions was simply overtaken by the nightmare of clerical corruption.

Do re-read our “Seamless Garment”  post that documents Bryan Hehir’s influence on Bernadin’s “seamless garment” if you have forgotten it, including some of the comments like this one from David:

His “seamless garment” approach has not contributed anything positive to the political process. Its’ legacy is that politicians who support abortion might invoke it to rationalize their support of the culture of death.  By rejecting the notion that Catholics should adopt a single-issue approach to politics – even when that issue hapens to be abortion – Bernadin effectively undermined the pro-life movement in the United States.

Frankly, Bryan Hehir really has no meaningful job working for the Archdiocese of Boston any more, and we encourage him to take off to Harvard where he can work free from criticism by this blog.  He was originally brought here by Cardinal O’Malley to be Secretary of Social Services, which meant, running Catholic Charities of Boston.  (That’s what his predecessor, Dr. Joseph Doolin did).  Hehir brought in Tiziana Dearing and now he has Debbie Rambo running Catholic Charities, so there is no job there.  The Caritas Christi hospitals that he served as the liaison to have been sold off, so he has no work there either.  For Hehir to be over the pro-life ministries adds no value and in fact is a scandal.

Fr. Hehir, with all of your speaking engagements around the country, think-tank board memberships, contributions to the left-leaning National Leadership Roundtable on Church Management, teaching responsibilities for 3 classes at Harvard, and who knows what else you are doing, why don’t you stop pretending that you are doing work to build the body of Christ for the Archdiocese of Boston, and instead  just head off to Harvard full-time?  With the “seamless garment” unraveling at a national level, now would be a perfect time for you to free yourself from criticism by this blog, keep teaching and doing all the other stuff you do, and keep collecting your six-figure salary and vesting in your Harvard pension as you’re doing anyway.

What would it take for you to leave voluntarily?

Read Full Post »

The Boston Catholic Insider blog has launched a Red Alert” campaign asking the U.S. bishops who meet in Baltimore this weekend to NOT elect the lead candidate for the new national leader (current USCCB Vice President Bishop Gerald Kicanas, since he is known to have enabled a priest convicted of child sexual abuse who is now defrocked and jailed.

Boston Catholic Insider asked us for help with quickly staging their campaign, so we shared the approach and Web technology we used in the past.  Here is their blog post. 

In short, the lead candidate, Bishop Gerald Kicanas of Tuscon, was rector of a seminary in the 1990′s where he approved ordaining a seminarian even after receiving 3 allegations of sexual improprieties, including abuse of a minor.  After that ordained priest went on to abuse as many as 23 boys and was jailed and defrocked, in 2007 Bishop Kicanas looked back in hindsight and was quoted in the Chicago Sun Times as saying “It would have been grossly unfair not to have ordained him…There was a sense that his activity was part of the developmental process…I was more concerned about his drinking.”

Here is the letter they have posted at the website www.usccbelection.com

Your Excellency,

I am writing to respectfully ask that you vote for a candidate other than Bishop Gerald Kicanas for the new president of the USCCB.

Many bishops may not be aware that Bishop Kicanas was rector of Mundelein Seminary in 1992 when he approved ordaining a seminarian, Daniel McCormack, despite knowing about three cases of homosexual “sexual improprieties” including one with a minor. Fr. McCormack went on to abuse 23 children and was defrocked and jailed.

After McCormack’s history of child sexual abuse was known, in 2007 Bishop Kicanas was quoted in the Chicago Sun Times saying, “It would have been grossly unfair not to have ordained him. There was a sense that his activity was part of the developmental process and that he had learned from the experience. I was more concerned about his drinking. We sent him to counseling for that.”

In view of this information, I feel his comments and actions represent a moral, spiritual and pastoral disaster for souls under his care, people affected by sexual abuse, and the whole Catholic Church. Beyond that grave scandal, electing Bishop Kicanas as USCCB president would also seriously harm the credibility and fund-raising ability of the U.S. bishops and Catholic Church.

I respectfully request that you vote for as president a candidate who will be first and foremost a shepherd of souls in imitation of Christ, and that Bishop Kicanas also voluntarily withdraw his name from consideration.

Yours in Christ

According to this article, Bishop Kicanas was aware that McCormack abused 23 children–including the homosexual rape of a boy who he ordered to undress, take a shower and then bend over–and his observation in 2007 when he looked back retrospectively was that this was “part of the developmental process”!    This is scandalous!  If this is the judgment of Bishop Kicanas in 2007, five years into the sexual abuse crisis, then he should not be in charge of even a diocese, or a parish, let alone president of the U.S. Bishops Conference.

If you’ve been reading this blog, you know what you have to do.  Click on the graphic to the right to get to the campaign web page, fill in the blanks with your name and contact information, click “send the letter,” confirm your information is correct, and then click submit.  It will take less than one minute.  For more information, see this Boston Catholic Insider post from yesterday or today.

Boston Catholic Insider urges you to also please forward this to friends and relatives, and also contact your local bishop and leave a message saying you want them to NOT vote for Bishop Kicanas. If  you do not know how to reach your local diocese, click here for a map and contact info.

Read Full Post »

One of the latest short Vortex videos from Michael Voris at RealCatholicTV could come straight out of the Bryan Hehir Exposed vs Archdiocese of Boston/Fr. Bryan Hehir playbook.  It’s called, “Unity?” 

You may recall that after the Boston Globe reported on the situation with the Boston Catholic blogs critical of Fr. Hehir and archdiocesan leadership, the archdioese came out with this statement:

Cardinal O’Malley and his staff are dedicated to building unity in Christ and Christian community within the Archdiocese. Toward that end, we have reached out to bloggers on numerous occasions to ask them to enter into a professional and Christ-centered conversation with us. We are concerned about the harm caused to individuals and to the community by anonymous and unfounded claims on blogs.”

They never identified a single “unfounded claim” on this blog, nor did they explain how the sort of dissent from Church teachings they tolerate and keep propagating helps building unity.

Anyway, with that as a backdrop, you can skip the advertisement about coming programs in this short video clip, and jump right to around the 40-second point.

For those who prefer to read instead of view, here are some of the highpoints:

“One of the non-stop criticisms that faithful Catholics hear for pointing out problems in the Church–serious and soul threatening problems–is that they are causing disunity. [Sound familiar?] This charge is getting so old it is starting to grow hair, as it is as old as it is baseless and false.” 

There can be no unity unless those who claim to be united are united in the truth.

What is passed off as Catholic truth is quite often a grab bag of politically correct water-downed half-truths.  In the absence of truth, there can be no charity.  All love, all charity must be rooted in truth.  If not rooted in truth, then as our Holy Father has said, it is false charity.  Unity must be around truth. Those who unite around a lie are neither truthful nor charitable.

This is why hurling invective at people about potential loss of souls says much more about the bomb-throwers than the target.

Too many progressives and heretics have been allowed to run wild spreading their errors.  [Recognize anyone with this comment?]

The way you counter an error is with the truth. To do so is an act of charity.  That is wwhat unifies us.  To speak falsely or in an unclear manner—regardless of your intention—opens the door for the spiritual collapse of the faithful.

You can’t talk  about being charitable or having unity if you first don’t speak the truth.

Speaking of the truth and unity, we couldn’t help but notice that the infamous policy about children of gay and lesbian parents being admitted to Catholic schools that Fr. Bryan Hehir spoke about in mid-May is starting to get out.  Our initial read of the draft policy is that it’s laden with deception and mistruths, but we need to look it over more carefully.  The situation which drove the writing of a formal policy brought about one of our most popular blog posts, The Big Picture on Catholic Education for Children of Gay Parents

From what we’ve just read, it looks like the Archdiocese of Boston totally ignored our input.  When we complain this time, who much you wanna bet we’ll be the ones accused of upsetting unity once again?  More on that topic another time.

Read Full Post »

A week ago we posted about the murky message from the Massachusetts Catholic bishops on the mid-term elections.  The murky message never clearly stated Catholics should vote against pro-abortion politicians, and what happened?  A state that just 20 years ago counted 54% of the population as being Catholic and now is 38% Catholic voted largely for pro-abortion candidates for nearly every open office.   That’s why we feel the search for the new Exec. Director of the Mass Catholic Conference is so important.

Even as little as 3 years ago, Cardinal O’Malley spoke much more clearly on the issue of voting for pro-abortion politicians.  In this Globe article from November 2007, “O’Malley draws line with Democrats: backing abortion rights borders on scandal” he was quoted as saying:

“I think the Democratic Party, which has been in many parts of the country traditionally the party which Catholics have supported, has been extremely insensitive to the church’s position, on the gospel of life in particular, and on other moral issues.”

Acknowledging that Catholic voters in Massachusetts generally support Democratic candidates who are in favor of abortion rights, O’Malley said, “I think that, at times, it borders on scandal as far as I’m concerned.”

“However, when I challenge people about this, they say, ‘Well, bishop, we’re not supporting [abortion rights],’ ” he said. “I think there’s a need for people to very actively dissociate themselves from those unacceptable positions, and I think if they did that, then the party would have to change.”

With the Mass Catholic Conference’s Boston archdiocesan line of reporting under the control of Fr. Bryan Hehir now, there was zero mention about it being scandalous for Catholics to vote for pro-abortion politicians.  Here is what the statement said:

Certain moral and social issues are fundamentally important, since human rights are at stake and must be protected to help democracy to flourish in a way that benefits every citizen.  These include the defense of the sanctity of life, the family based on marriage between a man and a woman, religious freedom, and the well-being of the poor.  As shifts in societal challenges are inevitable, it is also vital to determine from election to election which human rights face the greatest threat at the time of voting.

Go to the polls on Election Day and, through your choices at the ballot, act on your vision of a better society.”

So, according to the Massachusetts biships, if your vision of a better society is built primarily on care for the poor, then it was perfectly OK for you to vote for a candidate who would take care of the today’s poor people, even as he or she supports aborting millions of the unborn each year who would be the next generation of society. 

This article talks about how “Catholic Voters Swung Election.”   Unfortunately, the problem in Massachusetts is that they swung it against Church teachings.  If the 38% of citizens who identify themselves as “Catholic” in Massachusetts had voted for pro-life candidates, we think it’s safe to say that a lot more pro-life candidates would have won and a lot more of pro-abortion politicians in office would be updating their resumes looking for new jobs.

Here’s a letter sent by a faithful Catholic to Vicar General Fr. Erikson right after the election:

Dear Fr. Erikson,
Yesterday the voters of Massachusetts went to the polls and in keeping with the Massachusetts Bishop’s Statement to Catholic voters they “…acted on their vision of a better society.” 
Unfortunately that vision was to elect staunchly pro-abortion Catholic politicians – even in those cases when a strong pro-life alternative was available.  As a result, each and every pro-life politician in Massachusetts was defeated.
I am extremely disappointed that the Massachusetts Bishops opted to draft such an ambiguous and cowardly statement to Catholic voters. 



As described by Operation Rescue, pro-lifers in MA who lost include State Senate candidates Sandi Martinez (3rd Middlesex) and Neal Heeren (Worcester-Middlesex); House candidates James Dixon (10th Middlesex), Dennis Gianatassio (28th Middlesex), and Paul Franco (13th Worcester). Mike Franco lost his race for the Governor’s Council (8th District). Pro-abortion and pro-gay pols like Martha Coakley and Barney Frank handily defeated Catholic candidates who were much more aligned with Catholic teachings on the life and family issues.

Thankfully, on a national level pro-life candidates fared well.  Shortly we will have a pro-life Catholic Speaker of the House and there were pro-life gains in the U.S. Senate. National Right to Life says there  were “very, very substantial” improvements in about 65 House seats.

“Either a hardcore pro-abortion candidate was defeated by a pro-life challenger, or someone with a mixed record, like on the health care bill, was replaced.”  The bulk of the candidates, about 40, were “hardcore pro-abortion people” who voted for pro-life legislation “seldom if ever.”

But here in Massachusetts it remains another story, with the executive, legislative, and judicial branches dominated by those who support agendas that include abortion on demand and gay rights. 
The Massachusetts bishops and and faithful Catholics need a new head of the Massachusetts Catholic Conference who believes what the Church believes on abortion, marriage, and other sanctity of life issues and who is committed to clearly putting the Church’s pro-life positions out in the public square.  That we still have 2 people on the search committee who have supported both pro-abortion politicians and others who publicly oppose Church teachings is scandalous!
If you are FedUp by what is happening in Massachusetts and have not yet signed our letter to the Massachusetts bishops and the Holy See to ask for the controversial committee members to be replaced, just click on our FedUp button and sign the letter.

Read Full Post »

This is our first year blogging, and though it would be a bit presumptuous of us to assume that people will listen to everything we say, there’s a lot of confusion about who to vote for and how to vote on the ballot questions, so we thought we would share how we are viewing a number of candidates as well as the ballot questions.

As you will see below, we are highly influenced by both Bill Cotter at Operation Rescue and MassResistance.

Attorney General: Martha Coakley (D) vs Jim Mckenna (R)

We are voting for Jim McKenna.

There has been some confusion about Jim in recent days, the guy running against pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage Attorney General Martha Coakley.  McKenna was reported to have made statements in Bay Windows that he was opposed to DOMA, but MassResistance reports that they personally  spoke with McKenna over the weekend–he never spoke with the homosexual newspaper Bay Windows and the allegations that he’ll work to strike down DOMA aren’t true.

Governor: Deval Patrick (D) vs Charles Baker (R)

Either leave it blank, or consider writing in Lively and Davis. MassResistance says they have been asked to encourage people to write in “Scott Lively and Keith Davis” (without the quotes) for Governor / Lt. Governor on your Mass. ballot if you can’t deal with any of the official candidates and you want to vote for someone. As we’ve reported, both Scott Lively and Keith Davis are first class individuals that you can be proud to vote for. (Just the names as indicated above are probably sufficient, without addresses.)

Secretary of State: William Galvin (D) v. William Campbell (R)

We are voting for William Campbell

Operation Rescue reports, “Galvin is pro-life by reputation.”  Mass. Resistance reports that Campbell is, “to the best of our knowledge, pro-life and pro-traditional marriage.” He is also for the very important principle of requiring voter ID on Election Day.

Auditor: Suzanne Bump (D) v. Mary Connaughton (R)

We are voting for Mary Connaughton

Mass. Resistance: “Suzanne Bump proudly marches in the Gay Pride parade and is proud of her support of same-sex ‘marriage.’ Besides that, she’s basically another hack Democrat politician.” Mary Connaughton is actually an auditor and “has a record of fiercely defending the taxpayers interests against fraud when she was on the Mass. Turnpike Board, and she also goes to Tea Parties!” Also, Mary gave pro-life answers to MCFL’s questionnaire. Operation Rescue and Mass Resistance concur on voting for Mary.

Ballot Questions

We are voting YES on all 3, following the suggestions/advice of MassResistance and Operation Rescue.  By the way, NARAL  urges a “No” vote on questions 1 and 3.  NARAL says a “Yes” vote (which will cut taxes) could have a devastating impact on access to reproductive health services in the Commonwealth.  Bummer.  Though we are concerned about cuts in aid to the poor, we agree with the positions of MassResistance described below.

Question 1: Repeal the sales tax on alcoholic beverages, recently passed by the Legislature.

Our vote: YES:

Last year the Legislature passed a 6.25% sales tax on beer, wine, and liquor. But it’s a “double tax” imposed on citizens. And it puts Massachusetts businesses at a disadvantage over businesses across the border in neighboring states. Massachusetts consumers already pay a substantial excise tax on alcoholic beverages, and this tax is on top of that one! It’s just another way to pad the state budget. They should either do one tax or the other, but not both.

This is being opposed by special interest groups claiming that the money is needed for alcohol treatment programs. But in fact, as we found with the cigarette taxes, that money rarely goes where it’s supposed to. It just goes into the general fund. This wasn’t passed to fund treatment of alcoholics. It was passed to get more money for the budget.

Question 2: Repeal the 40B law regarding permits for low-income housing.

Our vote: YES

This terrible law allows speculators to buy up land in any community and easily build subsidized, high-density housing — without regard to local zoning regulations. It adversely affects the communities, costs taxpayers extra money to support, and the towns have no control over it while the developers make lots of money.  The Massachusetts Inspector General has called this law a “pig fest” that “represents one of the biggest abuses in state history.”

The truth is that the biggest impediments to normal low-income housing are the state and local governments — with their overbearing regulations and oppressive housing laws, and general hostile attitude toward landlords. In other parts of the country the private market creates an ample supply of low-income housing.

Sadly, this is being opposed by a number of misguided religious groups on both the left and the right, as well as the usual left-wing special interests.

Question 3: Reduce the sales tax to 3%

Our vote: YES

Recently the Legislature RAISED the sales tax from 5% to 6.25%. Anyone who actually reads the huge annual Massachusetts state budget would be outraged at the enormous special-interest pork, pet projects, special-interest programs, pensions (sometimes at early retirement ages), union demands, and general waste of hard-earned taxpayer money.  We’re not exaggerating. One tiny example: This month the Boston Herald reports that the state pays $6.4 million hiring less than 100 people for “PR services” for government agencies. Overall, the state budget grows each year faster than inflation (often double the rate of inflation).

The usual pro-tax groups and labor unions are claiming that “essential services” would be immediately cut if this were to pass and that cities and towns would not get their state aid. The truth is that the Legislature has never been forced to say “no” to the special interests. It’s about time they started.

It’s been estimated that approximately 30,000 jobs would be created in the private sector (mostly in small businesses) if the measure passes.

Recently a business group headed by the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce announced it was opposing this tax rollback. However, news reports also reveal that it’s a group of big businesses that use state-funded services. “It goes too far. It’s extreme,” they say.  That’s always the mantra: Every time taxes are raised, it’s to cover needs, but every tax rollback “goes too far.”

Governors Council

See here for the MassResistance choices (green are preferred, red are not preferred).

U.S. Congressional Seats

See here for the MassResistance choices (green are preferred, red are not preferred).  This is pretty simple to explain. In Massachusetts’ Congressional delegation all of the incumbents are horrible, arrogant pro-Obama liberals who need to be thrown out. (The tenth district is an open seat, and the Democrat candidate is just as bad as the other incumbents.)  All of the Republican candidates are worth voting for (although Golnik in the 5th is not 100% pro-life).  Those in bold below are preferred.


D -*JOHN OLVER, Amherst


I – MICHAEL ENGEL, Southampton

Columnist Howie Carr often compares John Olver to an oak door. That’s about right.


D -*RICHARD NEAL, Springfield

R – TOM WESLEY, Hopedale

We’ve liked Tom Wesley since the beginning — solid on all the issues.


D -*JAMES McGOVERN, Worcester

R – MARTY LAMB, Holliston


Marty Lamb is aggressive and is certainly working hard. He’s had more press releases, more events, more emails, and more endorsements than anyone, it seems. James McGovern is not well known but trust us on this: He’s worse than anyone in the delegation except Barney Frank.



R – SEAN BIELAT, Brookline

I – SUSAN ALLEN, Brookline


Barney Frank needs no introduction to anyone in America, and is our first choice to be thrown out of office. Bielat looks like he’s poised to do it.

<!–Sean Bielat has an impressive political team, and is successful at triangulating when necessary, telling the press he’s not a Tea Party candidate but getting big Tea Party support anyway. Good practice for being in Congress, we suppose.



R – JON GOLNIK, Carlisle

L – DALE BROWN, Chelmsford


Golnik is pro-choice but supports traditional marriage. He’s still a thousand percent better than Tsongas, who’s behind every nutty left-wing cause there is. Dale Brown is pro-life and good on most other issues but supports gay rights.



R – BILL HUDAK, Boxford

Hudak can’t shake the wrath of the Boston liberal media because he once had an anti-Obama yard sign, and also asked about Obama’s birth certificate. All the more reason to vote for him.




Gerry Dembrowski has the best campaign YouTube video of the year: “Ed Markey: The Undocumented Congressman” where Gerry goes to Markey’s neighborhood and asks his neighbors if they’ve ever actually seen him.



Capuano is an obnoxious hard-core leftist, but in Somerville he fits right in.  It’s still too bad he has no opposition.





Vernon Harrison is the real thing. He’s a passionate social conservative and is 100% pro-life. He came out nowhere and won the primary and has the momentum to possibly pull it off, given the dynamics this year. As we’ve said before, Stephen Lynch started out many years ago as a pro-family  state rep. Now he prides himself on being among the homosexual movement’s best friends in Congress.





B – JOE VAN NES, West Tisbury


This is about as conservative a district as there is in Massachusetts, so on paper Jeffrey Perry should take it, even though the polls show it’s a tight race now. Let’s hope so. Marianne Lewis is a former Democrat state rep who decided to run for Congress at pretty much the last minute. Most people have no idea who she is.

This week the Democrats have begun a vicious and obviously well-funded attack-ad campaign against Perry in the Boston media. Let’s hope he has the resources to fight back and win!

Massachusetts House

Click here for the MassResistance guide.

Massachusetts Senate

Click here for the MassResistance guide


Read Full Post »