Saturday, August 11, 2018

I THINK THE C-9 CARDINAL OF BOSTON IS SENDING A VERY CLEAR MESSAGE TO THE C-9 CARDINAL OF HONDURAS

Cardinal of Boston to Cardinal of Honduras: This is how you handle accusations of sexual immorality/impropriety at your seminary! 



St. John Seminary is a conservative seminary. Dr. Janet Hunt, an expert in Gregorian Chant is the music director there. In Augusta in the late 90’s I hired her as The Church of the Most Holy Trinity,s organist and choir director. She began a men’s scola for our once a month Ordinary Form Latin Mass.

She is the one who introduced me to the Latin Propers for this Mass which at the time I did not know existed in Latin or English for the new Mass!

The rector who isn’t implicated in this article was placed on sabbatical by the Cardinal because allegations occurred on his watch. I hope he was oblivious to all of this. He was instrumental in developing the new English translation of the Mass and severely berated by Benedictine Fr. Anthony Ruff on his blog for some of the more indelicate translations. In fact he, Ruff, created a sort of immature blog feud in this regard.

You can read the article by pressing the title:

Cardinal O’Malley calls for investigation at Boston seminary

23 comments:

TJM said...

If he is anti-Ruff, he has my vote! My former bishop, John Darcy) taught at St. John's. He blew the whistle to the Archdiocese on sex abuses there. Although a Boston native, he was "rewarded" by being shipped to Fort-Wayne- South Bend. While he was bishop there he weeded out sexual predator priests (I knew one of the errant priests whom the former uber liberal bishop allowed to remain active in ministry) and hence our diocese didn't suffer like others. BIshop Darcy was orthodox and no nonsense, a real credit to our diocese

Anonymous said...

I haven’t trusted O’Malley since that scandalous funeral for Kennedy. Ted Kennedy. A man who arguably did more than any other Catholic to promote abortion. Kennedy, who caused such PUBLIC scandal and never recanted it or asked for forgiveness before he died. And I also remember seeing an interview with O’Malley brushing away concerns of faithful Catholic with a smirk on his face.

It’s been proven that O’Malley received/was made aware of accusations about McCarrick. He knew, and did nothing. They all knew. They all knew. Just like they all know who is doing the exact same things right now. I don’t believe for one minute he gives a dam what is happening in the seminary. But I think he cares very much in saving his chance to be the next humblest pope ever.

ByzRC said...


"They all knew. They all knew. Just like they all know who is doing the exact same things right now. I don’t believe for one minute he gives a dam what is happening in the seminary."

Credibility eliminated.

After all these enhanced screening procedures, policies etc., seminaries still attract those - who aren't filtered out - who want to turn them into a gay Club Med. Then, after ordination, continue the party in a more low key way.

We can discuss this till our Lord comes again however, nothing, NOTHING will change until THIS is eliminated on the front-end. And, like a small town, they all know or, have heard via the whisperer's rumormongering. For the bad actors in the seminaries/priesthood, like that same small town, where are you going to run when EVERYONE knows your business?

ByzRC said...

The audacity of many in the Roman Episcopacy astounds me (many excludes those like Burke, Corlileone, Sample, Benedict XVI etc.). They think the laity just climbed out of the pumpkin patch. Perhaps some have, like those at the parish attended by MT with their applause at the priest's dismissive commentary but, most have not in this modern technology/information age. These bishops would do well to put aside their "experts", review boards and enhanced policies and procedures. To fix the problem, they need to decide once and for all what they would like the priesthood and consecrated life to be. It would appear that the FSSP, Mother Angelica's order, that order in the midwest that records the cd's (their name escapes me) and the SSPX, among others, have made this decision and, despite the negative effects of secularism as mentioned by Gene, appear to be succeeding. I do not understand why the commandments and gospels cannot simply and solely be the guide. It seems to work in the Eastern Church that while not perfect, seems to suffer is a much lesser way than the Western Church.

ByzRC said...

Despite all that I have said, MAKE SURE everyone, MAKE SURE that when the next diocesan Capital Campaign is introduced, with its promises of a solid future and the almighty "Vibrancy", that you get off your wallets and donate to this money grab for of the three "T's", your treasure seems to be the most important.

DJR said...

Blogger ByzRC said... "Credibility eliminated."

Indeed.

So, the cardinal archbishop of Boston, who has been there since 2003, is just now going to look into the seminaries.

In the meantime, this is what the parishes in Boston, places like Boston U., et cetera, experience:

https://thejesuitpost.org/2017/07/bridging-truth-and-love-an-interview-with-james-martin-sj/

This issue is so far gone, it is not possible for it to be cleaned up by the bishops. The only thing that will do it is divine chastisement. The Old Testament tells us this time and time again, and Our Lady reinforced it at Fatima.

ByzRC said...

I know.....Cordileone NOT Corlileone. Like the VII progressives, progressive lens have failed me again!

Anonymous said...

"So, the cardinal archbishop of Boston, who has been there since 2003, is just now going to look into the seminaries."

You do not know this to be true. I suspect it is entirely false and a calumny against Cardinal O'Malley.

ByzRC said...

Calm yourself, Anonymous @ 2:46. While we do not know that it is true; at the same time, you do not know that it is false. Going back to my small town analogy, it seems plausible that perhaps not this exact scenario was known but, similar behavior cannot be a new revelation for His Eminence. I seems difficult to believe that anyone at his level could be that out of touch privately. Obviously and publically, recent reactionary measures could lead one to a different conclusion.

DJR said...

Anonymous said..."So, the cardinal archbishop of Boston, who has been there since 2003, is just now going to look into the seminaries."

You do not know this to be true. I suspect it is entirely false and a calumny against Cardinal O'Malley.


It wasn't meant to be stated as a fact.

I will change the punctuation at the end of the sentence: So, the cardinal archbishop of Boston, who has been there since 2003, is just now going to look into the seminaries?

There. How's that?

Do you know the answer to the question? What evidence is there that he has actually done so? Any?

As for the idea that he has already looked into the seminaries, that's even more damning for him, isn't it?

We have two eyewitnesses who have had the courage to now come forward and disclose that homosexual activity has been taking place there and that those who run/ran the seminary don't/didn't seem to care.

God is love said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

No, I don't know the answer. But DJR has ZERO evidence to support his claim that Cardinal O`Malley "is just now looking into the seminaries." It is a statement, it is not a question.

And is is an accusation that the cardinal has been ignoring his responsibilities.

TJM said...

Anonymous Kavanaugh,

Perhaps the Cardinal (who put on quite a show for Abortion King Kennedy) did ignore his responsibilies. As for your statement: studies, links, proof, etc.

Anonymous said...

"Perhaps the Cardinal (who put on quite a show for Abortion King Kennedy) did ignore his responsibilies."

Perhaps, but I made no assertion one way or the other.

DJR did, with no knowledge of the facts in the case whatsoever. If DJR has those facts, now is the time to reveal them.

DJR "reacted," which is one of the great tragedies of our day. People mistake "reactions" for helpful responses. They're generally not.

In this case DJR's reaction is an accusation that, without supporting evidence, is calumny.

Anonymous said...

"Angry People Think They’re Smarter Than They Are"

By Kimberly Hickok, Staff Writer | August 6, 2018 03:25pm ET

"If you know someone who's generally ill-tempered, it might please you to know that they're probably not as smart as they think they are. That's because, unlike other negative emotions, anger seems to make people overconfident about their intelligence, a new study suggests."

More: https://www.livescience.com/63266-angry-people-overestimate-intelligence.html

And: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289618300102

Anonymous said...

Wise words from Bishop Robert Barron:

"Before I broach the subject of how to do this, permit me to say a few words about unhelpful strategies being bandied about. A first one is indiscriminate scapegoating. The great philosopher René Girard taught us that when communities enter into crisis, people typically commence desperately to cast about for someone or some group to blame. In the catharsis of this indiscriminate accusation, they find a kind of release, an ersatz peace. “All the bishops should resign!” “The priesthood is a cesspool of immorality!” “The seminaries are all corrupt!” As I say, these assertions might be emotionally satisfying at some level, but they are deeply unjust and conduce toward greater and not less dysfunction. The second negative strategy is the riding of ideological hobby horses. So lots of commentators—left, center, and right—have chimed in to say that the real cause of the McCarrick disaster is, take your pick, the ignoring of Humanae vitae, priestly celibacy, rampant homosexuality in the Church, the mistreatment of homosexuals, the sexual revolution, etc. Mind you, I’m not saying for a moment that these aren’t important considerations and that some of the suggestions might not have real merit. But I am saying that launching into a consideration of these matters that we have been debating for decades and that will certainly not admit of an easy adjudication amounts right now to a distraction."

More: https://www.wordonfire.org/resources/article/the-mccarrick-mess/5873/

DJR said...

Anonymous said... "In this case DJR's reaction is an accusation that, without supporting evidence, is calumny."

Ummmm.... first, it was not meant to be a statement of fact.

Second, if you have no knowledge of whether the cardinal has investigated his seminaries, you have no ability to state one way or the other.

If something is true, it's not calumny.

And what that means is that your statement is calumny.

You have stated that someone else has committed calumny, and you have no idea whether that person has done so or not.

Anonymous said...

"Ummmm.... first, it was not meant to be a statement of fact."

"So, the cardinal archbishop of Boston, who has been there since 2003, is just now going to look into the seminaries."

See that little period at the end of the sentence? That makes it a statement of fact.

I'm glad you changed it after you were called out.

I made no assertion regarding whether Cardinal O'Malley HAD or HAD not visited the seminary in his archdiocese. You did.




DJR said...

Anonymous said..."See that little period at the end of the sentence? That makes it a statement of fact.

Sorry, you're wrong. Common English usage allows for exactly what I wrote.

Example: So, it's a statement of fact.

The above sentence refers to your assertion. It in no way agrees with the assertion.

Anonymous said...I'm glad you changed it after you were called out.

I wasn't "called out." Your prior assertion was wrong. The change did not change what I wrote, nor did it change my intent.

Anonymous said...I made no assertion regarding whether Cardinal O'Malley HAD or HAD not visited the seminary in his archdiocese. You did.

Indeed, you made no assertion regarding the cardinal. You did, however, make the assertion that what I wrote prior was calumny.

What evidence do you have that it was calumny? None.

If you have no knowledge of whether the cardinal has ever investigated his seminary, that means you have no knowledge of whether what I wrote (assuming arguendo it was meant to be a statement) is calumny.

Therefore, an assertion that something is calumny, without evidence that something is calumny, suffers from the same defect you complain about in the prior entry.

In other words, to accuse someone of calumny, without knowing whether that person has actually committed calumny, is itself calumny.

Pot/kettle.

Anonymous said...

Yes, you made an assertion with no evidence whatsoever.

Common English usage "A period is a small dot-shaped punctuation mark that is used at the end of any sentence that is intended to make a statement."

You made a statement that has no evidence to support it regarding what Cardinal O'Malley had not done.

Your assertion clearly assumes O'Malley had not overseen his seminary properly. What is your wvidence?

DJR said...

Anonymous said..."What is your evidence?"

I'll answer your question when you answer my previous question. I asked my question first.

You have yet to answer it.

What evidence do you have that it was calumny?

Anonymous said...

No, DJR, your accusation, sans evidence, was posted first.

The "produce the evidence ball" is in your court.


ByzRC said...


Anonymous @ 10:45 from his end of the playground by the monkey bars:

https://tenor.com/view/itmovie-nope-do-not-want-gif-8608504