Another “vigil” begins

Another “vigil” begins

So much for offering an olive branch. Archbishop Sean O’Malley had his extended hand of peace spit upon by disgruntled parishioners. A fourth parish has begun a 24-hour “prayer vigil” protesting plans to close it.

Last week, the archbishop said he was postponing yesterday’s planned closing for St. Bernard’s in Newton while, basically, the parishioners got used to the idea.  Of course, that wasn’t good enough. It’s either all or nothing. They want the archbishop to capitulate completely, because after all they’re a wealthy parish full of influential people and they should get their way.

On the one hand, the archbishop isn’t supposed to close redundant parishes that serve poor people because it would be unjust to treat that way the poor who can’t afford to take care of their property. But he can’t close redudant parishes that serve rich people because they are financially self-sufficient and, by the way, he’s just trying to get his hands on their valuable property. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

  • Yes they do (to my chagrin) and they need to get rid of Willingham….the West Coast offense isn’t working and he is unwilling to assent his will to the truth (his kid’s aren’t suited to the WCO)…hmmmmm, kinda like a priest mentioned on this thread.


  • The Legionary Facts offered in rebuttal to the Berry and Renner book consist of repeatedly saying that Fr. Maciel was not guilty, and little else.  They do address the matter of the charge of drug abuse from which Fr. Maciel was cleared and then claim that Berry and Renner lied about it. 

    If you have a copy of the book, turn to page 188-189 where this investigation in 1956-1959 is addressed.  I’m not going to post the whole portion of the book because it’s too long, but here’s is a short quote from page 189:

    An Irishman who had joined the Legion in 1960s, Kearns had a two-pronged defense.  The nine men were lying as “part of a coordinated campaign to smear Father Maciel,” “to teach him a lesson” and “punish him for his pride.”  Secondly, the Vatican had exonerated Maciel after a two-year investigation in 1958.  Having failed then, the old enemies were raising new allegations of sexual abuse.  Kearns conceded that Maciel had been accused in the 1950s of drug abuse—and cleared.

  • Since it appears here that some believe the 2 year live-in investigation by the Vatican missed something, I am curious to know what others know that I don’t.  Was there some other motivation for an accuser to recant his story and turn on the majority?  Pretty courageous or is this another circle of vendetta?  Just asking.

  • This is a classic negotiation.

    I think this more about a small motivated group confronting the Church (in the person of the bishop) and the Church backing down. 

    This is less about getting Masses offered in this church and more about getting the archbishop’s zuchetto nailed on the wall as a trophy.

  • “Protesters from St. Bernardjudgment, to washing the whole order with these supposed sins. That’s not fair, Fr. McBrien, after all we don’t think the whole Archdiocese of LA should be whitewashed by Cardinal Mahony’s Scandal coverups. Or for that matter that Notre Dame should be whitewashed with your heterodoxy.

    “The Tidings” is dangerously close to charges of hypocrisy.


    2004-10-22 14:13:14
    2004-10-22 18:13:14

    2004-10-22 19:01:25
    2004-10-22 23:01:25
    I hear you Dom – and McBrien is hardly the best 2004-10-24 19:10:35 2004-10-24 23:10:35 Why does Notre Dame continue to employ McBrien? Oh, it doesn’t matter, they have such a fine football team.
    (What does it profit a man……)