Cuenin speaks

Cuenin speaks

I’m going to keep writing on the situation of Fr. Walter Cuenin because this is a big deal in the Archdiocese of Boston and even beyond because Cuenin, as I said before, is the guy who is the central organizing figure behind many of the dissident groups that had their start in Boston and spread throughout the country. (See previous entries here: 1, 2, 3)

Anyway, Fr. Cuenin preached at his parish this weekend for the last time. He didn’t celebrate the Saturday evening Mass, but did give a short statement during the homily outlining why he had resigned. He explained that he had been receiving a living expense stipend and car lease and insurance payments from the parish over and above what the rules and regulations of the archdiocese lay out. We’re not talking small change here. He has been in the parish for a dozen years and the car expenses alone must be a minimum of $400 per month. We’re talking tens of thousands of dollars. He also has to pay the money back.

Now Cuenin admits to this, but what is his defense? He claims that the parish finance council approved these payments and that audits by the archdiocese over the years never red-flagged it. This is a very lame defense. For one thing, a parish finance council has no authority to set compensation for a pastor. They are purely advisory. Canon law is very clear about this. The bishop sets the remuneration scales for priests. Otherwise, what’s to prevent a pastor from stacking the financial council with people who favor him and asking them to give him 15% of the collection every month?

The situation is similar to that of the Tyco International CEO, Dennis Kozlowski, who just got up to 25 years in prison for granting himself raises and benefits he wasn’t entitled to. Kozlowski claimed that the SEC had investigated in 2001 and gave Tyco a clean bill of health, so why should they be arresting him now? After all, the bonuses and zero-interest loans were approved by a committee of execs at the company, right? Doesn’t matter because the shareholders were the ones being hurt and Kozlowski and the execs didn’t have the right to do what they did.

So just for what Cuenin admits, he’s clearly wrong. He works for the archbishop and only the archbishop can set his compensation.

What’s ironic is that liberals have been pointing to Kozlowski’s antics at Tyco as another example of conservative corporate greed at the expense of the little guy. But here we have this liberal icon doing the same thing. I wonder if all the liberal deep-pockets in Newton will pony up to help Cuenin pay off his tens of thousands of debt when he’s apparently done the very same thing that liberals have condemned in others.

Another point to keep in mind is that we’ve only heard what Cuenin has chosen to tell us. Is this the only reason he’s been asked to resign? If this is what he’s willing to admit to in public, is there more he’s leaving out? We’ll have to wait and see.

It should also be interesting to see how Cuenin’s buddies at the Boston Globe handle this tomorrow and Monday. Stay tuned.

Written by
Domenico Bettinelli
  • My first impulse is to take this cynically: doctrinal dissent doesn’t get you sacked, nor does promoting “gay pride” events in your parish bulletin; but financial irregularities bring down swift and definitive action.

    However, since I confessed my sins today and am trying to avoid lengthening my future Purgatory with new faults, I’ll try to put a favorable interpretation on other people’s actions, especially the actions of our bishops.  Let’s hope that the Archdiocese really wanted to remove Fr. Cuenin from his position for other reasons, but merely used the financial problems to provide non-controversial cover.  Without it, removing him would arouse liberals’ complaints and give Fr. Cuenin some martyr status.

  • I expect the spin will be how priests are undercompensated, can’t perform their essential functions (which the media will describe as social services), that this is the fault of the hierarchy (the scandal, and all those treasures they refuse to sell) and can only be addressed by allowing priests to marry so that their wives can work full-time to support the both of them.  The hierarchy will be attacked for being “anti-labor”.  And, oh yes, perhaps the Church should first make sure its employees get paid well before bothering to tell gay people that they shouldn’t marry.

    Now the Globe will steal my idea and fail to credit me.

  • Let me put in a kind word for Fr. Cuenin (in case nobody else does). I attended weekly mass at Our Lady’s for four years with my Catholic wife and children (I myself am more or less an Evangelical Christian), and I came to know the pastor moderately well. He baptized two of our children. Walter Cuenin is a superb and passionate preacher, an evangelist who preaches the gospel (almost always) straightforwardly and clearly. Unlike a lot of “progressive” Catholics that I have run across, his gospel interests range far beyond those of the issue of “inclusiveness” to include the mainstream teachings of the Master from which many who have heard him have undoubtedly profited.

    Unquestionably, he has major issues with the Roman Catholic form of Christianity (or, as he would probably have it, the form which the present leadership gives to it), issues which led him to withdraw from active ministry before and may well do so again. Of course, these issues have a personal resonance with me which most here probably do not share.

    It is unfortunate – no, very unfortunate – that his dismissal from the pulpit at Our Lady’s should be ascribed to some type of financial impropriety. The Archbishops of Boston have no doubt had good cause (within their own frame of reference) to discipline him for many years, and it would be both responsible and reasonable of the current Archbishop to own up to this.

    If Walter Cuenin has ever taken a nickel to which he was not entitled, I would be amazed. If every pastor preached the gospel with his talent and passion, and I mean both Protestants and Catholics, the church would be in much better condition than it is.

  • Now the Globe will steal my idea and fail to credit me.

    Seamole, you forgot the most obvious spin:  once again, here’s the heirarchy treating the laity like children!  Why, if we want to throw beaucoup bucks at our progressive padre, why should that rigid and inflexible ol’ canon law prevent us?  Waaaaaahhh!

  • If Walter Cuenin has ever taken a nickel to which he was not entitled, I would be amazed.

    Jim, we’re well past that.  He’s already acknowledged taking money to which he was not entitled.

    If every pastor preached the gospel with his talent and passion, and I mean both Protestants and Catholics, the church would be in much better condition than it is.

    Ah, yes, if only every Catholic priest preached with the talent and passion of one who “unquestionably has major issues with the Roman Catholic form of Christianity,” then we’d all profit so immensely. Yes, yes!  Then, perhaps, we simpleminded papists outside the rarified environs of Newton could profit from widespread clerical dissent and disobedience! 

  • I have heard rumors about things from reliable sources about a b-day clebration on the outer end of my diocese (Fall River Diocese).  Regardless, any good Catholic in Newton should sing the Te Deum this morning.

    Wow! To have your parish lease a car for you.  That is nice.  I would never do that.  The idea of the parish finance council is to advise the pastor.  But many liberal pastors allow the the councils (pastoral and finance councils) to make all the decisions.  The best policy is to follow Canon Law and the particular laws of the diocese.  No council can just decide to do what they want.

    In regards to the stipends.  You are only allowed to collect a stipend for one of the Masses you celebrate each day and if the stipend is $5, then you can only pocket $5 for that day.  If you do not say Mass that day, you don’t get a stipend.  There are many priests that ignore that rule.

  • “The outer end of [the Fall River] diocese.”

    Hmmmmm.  I wonder if Fr. Ethan means that the birthday celebration was held in Attleboro?

    Oh, the OTHER end of the diocese?

  • “Ah, yes, if only every Catholic priest preached with the talent and passion of one who 2002 after revelations he had transferred known child molesters from parish to parish. Several other priests who called for Law’s resignation, including the Rev. Robert Bowers of St. Catherine of Sienna in Charlestown and the Rev. Ronald Coyne of St. Albert the Great in Weymouth, have since resigned to try to spare their parishes from being closed by O’Malley.

    Calling for Cdl. Law’s resignation is the very least of the things this gang has in common.  Slowly but surely, a long overdue housecleaning is underway.

    And the next name that should be on that list has the honor of being the first to play host to Fr. Cuenin tmw night on his heirarchical martyr victory tour:

  • Hmmm. My initial reaction to this news was: mment_author_email>
    2005-09-25 15:50:40
    2005-09-25 19:50:40
    Anyone who experienced Fr. Cuenin’s efforts to lead Catholic parents and their children into the same-sex lifestyle and support for PFLAG through his work in developing the Companions program back in 1999 knows what a devious person he is.
    In developing this Companions program he worked with Fr. Richard Lewandowski,pastor of St. Camilla’s Church,Fitchburg where he held PFLAG meetings, Fr. John J. White, who was the business partner with Fr. Paul Shanley in the gay bed and breakfast Inn in CA, Charles Connors,president of Boston PFLAG at that time, Fr. Phillip Earley,pastor of St. Thomas of Villanova,Wilmington, and a representative of Catholic Charities, Dr. Joseph Doolin, who was director of Catholic Charities at the time,Vivian Soper, Pat Dunn,  all representing Catholic Charities, Jean Proria, representing New Ways Ministry and Catholic Parent Network, plus a few more
    people who all supported same-sex ‘partners’ and PFLAG activities. Fr. Cuenin knew exactly what he was doing by fully supporting the Companions program and holding the Mass and some of the events at his parish church,Our Lady Help of Christians. I have written to Archbishop O’Malley to ask if the Companions program is still in existence through Catholic Charities but have not had an answer. The intent of the Companions program was certainly to deceive Catholic parents and their children to support the way of PFLAG and to denigrate the way of Courage!

  • “This is not the Weston School of Theology.”

    Clearly. At Weston JESUIT School of Theology, we are taught the message of Christ, one of those messages being that the law was made for humankind and not the other way around. And when the law gets in the way of faith, hope, and love, then it is our duty as children of God and as followers of Christ to question it.

    Try taking this whole thread and substituting “sinners and tax collectors” for “homosexuals.” Look familiar?

  • Alan—the Lord asked for repentance, not acceptance.  He didn’t tell Matthew to continue his thievery as He appointed him as an apostle; rather, Christ motivated Matthew’s conversion first.

    You’re right, Christ said, “The Law is made for Man, not Man for the Law.”  While Church discipline is not on an equal par with Torah, is it in you to consider that the “law” regarding pastors not stealing from their parishes, and the “law” regarding teaching from the Church’s pulpit that which the Church herself asks her pastors to teach . . . is a “law” that the Church considers to be good for Man?

    Or is it the case that you know better than the Church?  After all, you do attend Weston JESUIT school of theology. . .

  • Kelly, thanks.

    “I agree with you on many points regarding Father Cuenin, particularly his superb speaking ability. The problem, as Iions, but they are extremely important ones, and ones that Walter’s enemies are blithely refusing to make.

  • I’m not really familar with a church’s organizational structure. Besides a finance committee, wouldn’t there be an accountant or business person who would have signed off on this practice? Who’s signing these checks to him. Does the pastor do that himself? Unless the person was new and has only been at that church for a few months I would think they are equally as culpable as this priest.

  • “Remember they never got Al (‘Call me Capo’) Capone for any of his nefarious Mob doings. He was finally brought down for tax evasion.”

    I had a similar thought, GOR.  Cuenin’s actionable dissident words and deeds are legion, and this is what they get him for.  Seems to me like they let him rob the bank (both financially and, much more importantly, spiritually) with impunity and now they give him a (relative) traffic ticket for double-parking the getaway car. 

    For those (including myself) who hope that this is the start of a long-awaited housecleaning:  I’m quite confident that we will be disappointed.

  • Furthermore, ity of Catholics, in this country, at least, believe that abortion is a-ok, would you go along with such a “cloud?”

    One thing you wrote did strike a chord with me:

    And even if he were guilty of some financial impropriety, doesnwp:comment_content>William,

    Actually, according to the AP story, the Boston Archdiocese pays its priests about $1800/month, which comes out to about $21,600 per year.  While that may not sound like a lot, in addition to that, his housing is covered, he likely has his food covered, health insurance, too.  Add to that, as he is a very popular priest among his parishioners, he likely gets many offers to dine out (or invited to parishioners homes to dine).  Who knows what else others legitimately do for him? (round of golf, plays/symphonies/concerts, ballgames, etc.)  Now, if I had all that and only had to be concerned about supporting myself, I’d think I was doing well, or at least comfortable.  As it is, I probably make no more than $10 – $15k more per year, but have the responsibility of caring for six people, with none of the housing/food perks, let alone being treated all the time by my friends.  So, I think with his salary from the archdiocese, the perks, and gifts, in addition to the $5/Mass/day canon law, I think he could probably live quite well on that alone.  This extra “grab” from the parish finances certainly doesn’t seem like living a life of simplicity.  But then, that’s just me, as one who has no choice but to live such a life.

  • Does anyone know where Father Cuenin is going? 

    I mean, won’t he just do the same pro-gay, disobedient stuff somewhere else? 

  • David, another source of income for priests I haven’t seen mentioned is, there is typically a stipend or donation for funeral masses, wedding masses, baptisms, etc.  At least here is STL, and the amount runs the gamut I’m sure, but would be a minimum of twenty dollars and often times much more. 

  • With the sacking of Fr. Cuenin, the ranks of the priests who signed the letter seeking Cardinal Law’s resignation continues to grow, as he joins other pastors who fall in the camp Dom and others have described as heterodox, such as Fr. Coyne, late of St. Albert the Great, and Fr. Bower, formerly of St. Catherine of Sienna.  These and others who signed the letter have not been reassigned to other parishes.  Should they be?  At a time when the archdiocese is suffering a shortage of priests, is there a role for these men, some of whom have shown considerable talents?  What process, if any, could rehabilitate them adequately to make them appropriate for pastoral postings or have they become tainted beyond redemption?  And, if so, what are the criteria for such decisions?  How can a church that allowed sexual predators to be shuffled from parish to parish without addressing their perversions justify sidelining priests who never hurt another human being?  I’m not suggesting that there are not good answers to these questions, but that they have not been offered by the archdiocese and that, in the absence of such explanations, many observers in and out of the Catholic Church, will consider the actions taken against these clergy as little more than petty vengeance for their failure to be, as the Mob might put it, “stand-up” guys.

  • I’m lost here.

    If I think a Priest is doing a good job (not referring specifically to Fr. Cuenin here) can’t I just give him $500? How does the archdiocese play into this?  Aren’t stipends that are separate from the collection plates (such as Christmas Collections) fair game for Priests to use personally?


  • Zita,

    He may end up on the “emergency response team” like Fr. Ron Coyne, the priest who denies the existence of hell, which means he will sit at home waiting for a call to fill in—a call he’s not guaranteed to get.


    Excellent points. Let’s do the math.

    Start with the $21,600.

    Now add in the cost of rent for an apartment in Newton, at say $1,500 per month (conservatively and we’re not talking the quality of where he’s living now). That’s another $18,000 per year.

    Add in the cost of food. We’ll say a conservative $150 per month (and that’s nothing fancy at all, a very simple diet.) That’s another $1,800 per year.

    Add in the typical health insurance employee payment for a single guy at about $200 per month (again conservative): $2,400 per year.

    Add it all up and you get a salary in the range of $43,800. And as you say, that doesn’t include all the extra perks. And it doesn’t take into account the tax implications if they don’t pay taxes on some of this, but I think they do have to figure in room and board as income, just not at market rates.

    Also, priests do have to pay their own Social Security taxes, which the rest of us don’t.

    But the bottom line is that for men who’ve supposedly entered a lifestyle of dedication to God and espousing a Gospel simplicity, this isn’t a bad deal.

    I know plenty of priests and few of them are actually suffering financially, especially since they have the security of knowing that, as long as they keep their noses clean, the Church will always care for them and they don’t have families to provide for as well.

    Don’t get me wrong: Our priests deserve every penny they’re entitled. But all of them deserve the same. No special treatment for the privileged few.

    The parish as pastor’s benefice is one of the pre-Vatican II customs that we’re much better off without.

  • JBP,

    You can give a priest a gift. What you can’t do is elect to give him a gift out of the parish’s money. There is also a canon law limit placed on stipends apart from the collection (i.e. money as a gift for doing priestly duties) to prevent abuses.


    I’ll try to answer some of your questions:

    These and others who signed the letter have not been reassigned to other parishes.  Should they be?

    To clarify, Bowers took a voluntary leave of absense, so he doesn’t qualify. The reality is that few of those priests have been removed from pastorships and remain without pastorships. If they were hunting them down, why has Fr. Steve Josoma remained in place in Dedham?

    At a time when the archdiocese is suffering a shortage of priests, is there a role for these men, some of whom have shown considerable talents?

    Not as long as they continue to actively spout heresy and encourage dissent from the Church’s teachings. If a doctor were found to be incompetent and causing harm to patients, but you had a shortage of doctors at the hospital such that the remainder had to work longer hours, would it be okay to bring that doctor in so the burden would be less on the other doctors? Is the potential harm to patients worth it?

    What process, if any, could rehabilitate them adequately to make them appropriate for pastoral postings or have they become tainted beyond redemption?

    Public recanting of their previous heterodoxy, some demonstrable evidence that they’re not just saying what’s expected of them, and in Cuenin’s case, restitution for what he took would probablybe a good start.

    How can a church that allowed sexual predators to be shuffled from parish to parish without addressing their perversions justify sidelining priests who never hurt another human being?

    First, just because the archdiocese was lax in the past doesn’t mean that they should be lax now. Second, the preaching of heresy such that it leads people into sin does harm other human beings, spiritually if not physicially.

  • What process, if any, could rehabilitate them adequately to make them appropriate for pastoral postings or have they become tainted beyond redemption?

    It’ll be a sad day indeed if any of that gang is ever named pastor again.  Anywhere.  It’s not that they’re beyond redemption, of course.  It’s that they’re beyond pastoral assignment.

    See, it’s tough to be a Catholic pastor when you’re post-Catholic. 

  • “A Jesuit scholastic at Weston Jesuit School of Theology defending the most well-known defender of liberal heterodoxy and homosexual activism in Boston? Iwhen, exactly, was Manichianism, Arianism, Nestorianism and Pelagianism declared orthodox by the Church?”

    And when exactly did Walter preach any of those heresies? Obviously none of those heresies have been accepted by the Church. (Or are you deliberately being obtuse?) Which is precisely my point. If people are going to accuse Walter of preaching heresy, then decide what you mean by it. If you’re going to limit it to those 4 you listed, or even any of the traditionally accepted ones that have names, then my case it made. (Thank you, BTW) But people here are using the word “heresy” to mean anything they don’t agree with. It doesn’t even necessarily refer to anything the Church doesn’t agree with. It reminds me of the way that the word witchcraft was used a few centuries ago. Or communist a few decades ago. People consider those terms so vile that they are afraid even to question the misuse of the terms, for fear of being accused themselves.

    So, to get back to my original point, ever heard of Thomas Aquinas? He, among others, was considered heretical by one age, and orthodox a couple of decades later. Then not long after, he was consider the official theologian of the Roman Catholic Church and a Doctor of the Church. A little historical perspective never hurts.

  • Here’s the problem with claiming the Aquinas mantle—it rarely fits the claimant, who usually espouses something entirely at odds with a core truth of Catholicism.  Aquinas was attempting to integrate a new philosophy within the theological structure of Catholicism.  Nowhere did he, say, deny the inerrancy of scripture or attempt to undermine the understanding of one of the sacraments.

    Here’s a less trivial criticism of WJ:

    Until recently, Weston Jesuit proudly featured Roger Haight, S.J., amongst its ranks of professors.

    The same Roger Haight who said the Resurrection did not require an empty tomb, for starters.  Then there’s the matter of Jesus not being essential to the salvation of non-Christians, and other liberating insights.

    Yes, quite a gospel cutting-edge Jesuits and their wide-eyed studentry have to offer these days.  If that’s where “orthodoxy” is headed, I’ll sleep in on Sundays, thanks.

  • Alan,

    Regarding St. Thomas Aquinas, while he put forth what were speculative ideas for his time (using Aristotlean logic and philosophy as an underpinning of the reasonableness of the Catholic faith), he was committed to something deeper than his own ideas: Christ and the Church which is the Body of Christ on earth. He knew that if his ideas and insights were correct, they would prevail in God’s good time. 

    Like most true Saints,  he truly believed that God was truly God.  Consequntly, he never resorted to uncharitable, discordant, or illicit human actions to bring about God’s will. He accepted the judgement of the Church authorities regarding his work. Thomas like a true saint did not have to contradict the teachings of Jesus by actions that would be contrary to Jesus last and most fervent prayer that we remain one in Him as He is one in the Father.  Jesus entrusted his Church to a very human group of apostles full of frailities.  Thomas understood that God is bigger than those human frailities and that God could work through all things including the frail humans in charge of His Church.

    Thomas also understood the Biblical injunction to “test the spirits.”  Just because he thought something was right, did not make it so. He was willing to submit his work for review. How many modern scholars and “progressives” have that much faith in God when putting forth their latest “bright ideas?” 

    Regarding your comment about Jesus and his tolerance for sinners: one must remember, while he dined with sinners (whether they be the rich tax collectors or the poor prostitutes), he never allowed any sinner to part his company thinking that his or her sin was inconsequential or ok or not a sin. Instead everyone left with the knowledge of another, better, sinless, holy way. Yes, Jesus was merciful, but with forgiveness came the quick rejoiner “Go and sin no more.”  Sin hurts.  There is no way Jesus could allow anyone to think that sin is “ok.” That would be acting against that person’s greatest God. And as Thomas would tell us, that would be contrary to the nature of God. So Jesus dined with the sinners but they never left his company thinking that their sin was OK or good.

  • “If that Fr. Cuenin’s resignation on the grounds of fiscal impropriety rather than defiance of doctrine and authority will play i the long run.  Isn’t there a danger that the charge against Cuenin will simply add to the momentum on Beacon Hill for Senator Marian Walsh’s bill seeking to require the Church and other religious organizations to make much fuller financial disclosures?  Especially in view that the payments and perks to Cuenin are smal beer in comparison to the millions involved in the admitted and alleged mismanagement of funds by the chancery, isn’t possible that in selecting this manner to rusticate a “troublesome priest,” (sorry for any offense given by this Becketian allusion but I was searching for an objective term given that Cuenin has not actually been charged or judged hetrodox) that the Archdiocese has actually invited the prying nose of the state into its financial affairs when it didn’t have to?

  • Alan, it’s probably just as well to drop it at this point.  Neither one of us wants to admit it, but in reality this is an exercise in interfaith dialogue, and without an acknowledgement of this it is futile.

    However, I am genuinely heartened by it, though not for reasons which will please you or your mentors.  It convinces me that El Cid Christologies and the pluralist gospel as defined by Haight are dead ends.  Even in the loosey-goosey theological world of the American church, the refusal of Haight or his disciples to admit any error pretty much guarantees the steady death of what he expounds.  To refuse to answer the criticisms of an O’Collins or to snidely dismiss a Cavadini as a sound-biter goes a long way toward explaining why the hammer fell as hard on Haight as it did (very much unlike Dupuis). 

    As little as they liked it at times, Aquinas, de Lubac, Congar and Curran acknowledged the authority and discipline of the Church and honed their propositions accordingly.  Haight stubbornly radiates infallibility and flees to a Protestant theology school at crunch time.  This is a telling and decisive distinction denying him the mantle his disciples want to clothe himself with.

    Or:  in the extreme unlikelihood Haight is remotely orthodox, he is the worst communicator American Catholic theology has ever produced, a poor standard bearer for his position and his own worst enemy.  Either way, I join Fr. O’Collins in prayers for him and add further prayers for those who find him a prophetic voice.

  • I thought you agreed to end this. I can’t possibly let this slide.

    “To refuse to answer the criticisms of an Oely approach Christian perfection.

    Unless you argue that Fr. Cuenin was not obsinate in his promotion of his error I don’t see how you can say that this is not technically heresy.  And contrary to your statement that today’s heresy is tomorrows orthodoxy, the historical cases of that being true involved a clarification of the definitions surrounding a teaching not a 180 degree change in the Churches position which a change on its teachings on the gift of human sexuality would entain.

          In Christ,


    Crux Sacra Sit Mihi Lux

  • Alan:

    Indeed, I was too ascerbic in parts and apologize for that. 

    However, I cannot, and do not, apologize for the content.  The core of Christianity is at stake, and the yawning chasm between Haightian pluralism and what Christians across the centuries (including creedal Protestantism and Orthodoxy) have always held cannot be shrugged off as de gustibus.

    May God be with you and yours.

  • And when exactly did Walter preach any of those heresies?

    I never said Fr. Cuenin did.

    You stated: And even if Walter were teaching author_url>
    2005-09-24 19:46:48
    2005-09-24 23:46:48
    Take a look at the Globe’s “breaking news” !
    It claims that Fr. Cuenin will “step down” because he violated an archdiocesan policy by accepting a monthly stipend from the parish to pay for the automobile lease for his own use and the use of visiting priests.
    He claims that his ouster has nothing to do with his support of lesbians and gays. In fact there is no mention of the fact that he testified before the Mass. State Legislature in favor of same-sex marriage back in 2002 when the first Marriage petition was supposed to be voted on by the Legislators.
    Nor does the Globe say anything about Fr. Cuenin inviting his parishioners to go to the events, including the religious service honoring Bp. Gene Robinson for his efforts to further same-sex marriage and to march in the Gay Pride Parade for the past 2 years together with Fr. Convertino’s group from Arch St., The Paulist Center group and the Jesuit Urban Center group who support same-sex sex. Maybe Michael Paulson will have a full-fledged description of what has really been happening with these dissident priests in one of his articles in the Globe. But don’t hold your breath
    since Paulson has for years been pretending these are the authentic voices of the Catholic Church here in Boston and it would be hard for him to acknowledge the truth!