No Benedict in Boston

12 comments

• Do you think this is a comment about the scandal in the Archdiocese, or was it a matter of logistics (i.e., limited time, overlap with Marathon, etc.)?

• I think a little of both. Primarily, I think there are those who are very guarded about the pope’s health and don’t want any long stressful trips. But I’m sure there are those who don’t want to put the pope at the center of what undoubtedly be a firestorm over the scandal.

• Maybe His Holiness would reconsider if they offered to stage a “rolling rally,” for him, complete with “duck boats?”

• Hmmmmmmm, I wonder what to make of the Pope’s visit to Yankee Stadium and spurning of . . . oh, well, never mind.

• No offense, but is there something so excruciatingly special about Boston that it’s an ommission on B16’s part?  (Don’t get me wrong—I love Boston.  Met my love in Boston.  Got married in Boston.) 

  From my perspective, the headline could read, “No Benedict in San Francisco.”  And while we’re at it—Chicago?  Houston?  St. Louis?

• And folks could write such a headline from any of those other cities. Since, I didn’t write as a news headline, I don’t see why I shouldn’t focus on him not coming to my city.

  Of course, the archbishops of those other cities did not personally or publicly invite the Pope to their archdioceses during this trip like Cardinal O’Malley did, so I guess it is newsworthy to say that the Pope isn’t coming to Boston.

• Well, I think there is something special about Boston (not sure I’d use the word “excrutiatingly,” though).

  It’s one of the largest Archdiocese in the United States, in one of the most Catholic states. 

  It is also kind of a natural part of an East Coast visit, probably no more than Philadelphia or Baltimore. 

  Given the recent scandals, a visit here would have been tinged with a great deal of symbolism, but also would have invited more controversy than a visit to D.C. or N.Y. 

  Wasn’t it the first part of the U.S. visited by Pope John Paul II on his first papal visit here in 1979?

  And we New Englanders do fancy ourselves somewhat different from the rest of the country.

• I agree with many of you that it’s probably because of the pope’s health and that he isn’t coming to Boston for much the same reason he is skipping out on a visit to Baltimore and Philadelphia.  What concerns me about his not coming to Boston, is that I fear some Catholics will perceive it as an unwillingness on the pope’s part to confront the sexual abuse crisis.  Granted, I don’t think it’s neccesary, but if he did come to Boston it would be hugely symbolic and if he came and prayed for healing for the victims, their families, and others affected by the scandals, he might instill a great deal of hope to many disaffected by the scandals.

• From the itinerary that Dom pointed to, it doesn’t look like the Pope will be visiting Yankee Stadium,  a Mass is being held in St. Patrick’s Cathedral.  He is having a Mass in the new stadium in Washington, D.C.  I hope those rowdy Catholics don’t tear up the field (maybe they won’t let anyone on the field   The Pope will be there just at the same time as the start of the new season and the stadium will be brand new for baseball – let’s hope there isn’t a big controversy over this field as there is for the Australian field that is holding the WYD.

• Other news reports today say he will say Mass in Yankee Stadium.

• Won’t 2008 be the last season for Yankee Stadium? 

  So, in a sense, he’ll be inaugurating the opening season of the D.C. stadium and the final season of the one in N.Y.

• Well, he won’t be coming to New Jersey, either! I suspect that JPII’s visit will be the ONLY visit of a Pope to NJ. The rumour is that McCarrick and O’Connor had quite a row over it