Yesterday’s Boston Herald also had an inaccurate and slanted article about the resignation of Fr. Walter Cuenin. Just like the Globe, the Herald fails to consider that this is just Cuenin’s side of the story or to ask the obvious question: If this is what Cuenin is willing to admit to, what is he failing to disclose?
Once again we are treated to the delightful argument that it’s not a violation of the rules if (a) a body that has no right to give the money decides to give him the money and (b) the archdiocese didn’t notice the problem in previous audits. Incompetence of the auditor does not get the wrongdoer off the hook. Someone in a previous thread tried to argue that Cuenin’s case is more like Enron than Tyco since it was the Arthur Anderson accountants who missed the problem and who paid the price with their existence. Okay, but does that excuse the Enron executives? Is it really in Cuenin’s and the finance council’s best interests to compare them to Enron execs?
Another inaccuracy in the story is “the parish had paid priests a stipend before Cuenin even arrived in 1993.” Yes, all priests get paid by their parishes. It’s not the existence of a stipend, but the excessive amount that is at issue.
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.
How would resigning save their parishes? The parishes weren’t slated for closure because those pastors were there. After all, the archbishop has the power to transfer them for good cause (and believe me, there’s plenty of cause). Bowers resigned to take an open-ended leave of absence from the priesthood in a snit over his parish being selected for closing. Coyne resigned from the pastorship of his parish because the parish ceased to exist, canonically. He’s still a priest in good standing (bizarrely enough) and serves on the archdiocese’s “emergency response team” from which priests are called to fill in for parish priests who are on vacation or sick or what not.
Many others in the nearly standing-room-only congregation lashed out at O’Malley for pressuring another beloved, outspoken priest to resign in what they called a growing pattern of intimidation to quell dissent.
Can anyone point out to me any “pattern of intimidation” growing or not? I’m not seeing one. Apart from Cuenin’s resignation name one heterodox priest who has been forced out of office, even on a pretext.
That’s okay, I’ll wait while you search up the list of the poor, oppressed liberals in Boston.
I particularly liked the phrase “nearly standing room only.” Is that the same as “everyone had a seat”?
It’s stuff like that, in supposedly “news” and not “opinion” pieces, that drives people away from today’s MSM.
On the other side, though, I think you may overstate the ability of the archbishop to “transfer [pastors] for good cause.” The Code of Canon Law is pretty precise about this, and it by and large protects pastors from being pulled out of their parish, except for willful malfeasance.
In fact, the reason that pastors are appointed for specific terms (at least here in Boston) is so that the archbishop will have the ability to remove them canonically at least when their term (six years) expires; otherwise, it’s darn near impossible under Canon Law.
That’s why I think that Fr. Cuenin’s departure without a lot of struggle is notable. As much as anyone, he knows his rights as a pastor under Canon Law, yet he seems to leave almost voluntarily at the “request” of the archbishop. I may be wrong, but I’m guessing there’s more to the picture than meets the eye.
Additionally, as ironies go, Fr. Cuenin’s parting request that his former parishioners not fight the bishop but cooperate with him struck me as one of the highest forms of that art. Who, after all, spent the better part of his assignment in that parish teaching (by his behavior) that cooperation with the bishop was optional at best, and usually not in the best interests of his parish?
Dom,
When the Archdiocese acts in silence and secrecy and with a reputation of half-honesty, it’s natural for those within it and observers to assume that we’re not being told the whole truth. What’s suspicious about the ousting of Fr. Cuenin is that we KNOW this Diocese has punished priests guilty of MUCH WORSE, in much sighter ways. My first response was “wow, molest a kid, change parishes- speak out against the Bishop and you pay with your ministry and reputation.” Why weren’t these big financial deals dealt with in visitations and audits? Why not make the finance council right whatever wrong has been done? What it looks like to me, is that the Archdiocese waited for Cardinal Law to be safely away for a while, let things die down so that it wouldn’t look like what it is (a silencing of a mouthy priest) and search for a small, fixable situation to use as a tool to get him out of there. If Fr. Cuenin were doing something actually against the Magesterium, they could have ousted him legitimately- instead, since they just don’t like what he says, they had to find something to use against him.
There was a time when I instinctively poo-pooed the press of Boston as out to get the Archdiocese, but those days are gone. Maybe the scenario you spell out will turn out to be true, but I just can’t leap to the conclusion that the Archdiocese is being honest with us.
-another Boston Catholic
I’m not privy to Archbishop O’Malley’s inner circle, but my guess is that if they had removed Cuenin for heterodoxy then you would have given the friendly press a field day and created a martyr. If you think their lionizing of him now is bad, imagine what it would have been like if they could paint him as being punished for standing up to law and for “progressive” Catholicism.
I’m not buying the “they didn’t punish molesters so why should they punish me for something less” argument. A failure to enforce rules in the past under different leadership doesn’t mean that this leadership should also fail to enforce the rules. O’Malley is not Law.
And as I point out, the salary and car are only what Cuenin is admitting to. The archdiocese hasn’t said a word. Is that really all that this is about or is there a whole lot more?
Look at this way, the archdiocese is neither being honest or dishonest since the archdiocese has said nothing about the matter. All we’ve heard is Cuenin’s side.
Fair comments, Dom.
Although, it should be common sense that if a priest dissents from Catholic teaching, he should be sacked.
Hi Dom,
Marie Szaniszlo is also the reporter who’s byline sat above an article about about Fr. Bob Bowers party about a month ago. The article looked like a VOTF press release. I called her and she confirmed that it was. Actually she subtracted information from original press release, such as the fact that the newly gay wed Jared Barrios was at the party as well.
It might be worthy of a call to Ms Szaniszlo to find out if this article was a VOTF press release as well.
I wonder if the Archdiocese will release any information when the Pilot comes out on Thursday night? I agree with you, Dom, that there is more involved then what we have been hearing about since the only side we hear is Father Cuenin’s side.
Good dialog on this topic.
So far we’ve only heard from Fr. Cuenin. Is it typical for the heirarchy not to provide an explanation when removing a priest?
If this is really about a violation of fiduciary duty to the parish, when will the parish be notified?
Is it typical for the heirarchy not to provide an explanation when removing a priest?
As the archdiocese insists: “We do not comment on personnel matters.” I think that’s a mistake, but it’s an old one. The Church has historically been very bad about proactively framing public discussions and then loses control of them and ends up having to be reactionary.
If this is really about a violation of fiduciary duty to the parish, when will the parish be notified?
I suppose when the new pastor shows up.
Fr. Jim Clark: “I particularly liked the phrase ‘nearly standing room only.’ Is that the same as ‘everyone had a seat’?”
I was at the Mass. It was full, just like every Sunday. How many other churches in the Archdiocese are adding pews, or need ushers to fit seven in a row designed for five? Where else do you have to show up fifteen minutes early to find a parking lot? Certainly not at the dying “orthodox” parishes throughout the Archdiocese.
“I may be wrong, but I09%2Fgee-wally-if-dad-finds-out-youre-gonna.html”>“Gee, Wally, if Dad finds out, you’re gonna get creamed!”
If Mr Jasmin thinks he has proof for his claims, he is welcome to present them in my forum. While he will be shown every consideration, such claims are easily refutable.
Surely you are aware that the Churchhaven’t actually read St. Thomas, only heard about him from others (Dan Brown, again? or maybe Fr. Cuenin?)
“Openly gay popes”? Gee, thought the term “gay” was only co-opted thirty-five years or so ago.
Hear this, would ya? The fact of someone’s aberrant behavior whilst in a public position in no wise equals the institutional “sanction” of said aberration.
Otherwise, we’d have to say that the United States sanctions presidential sodomy.
David, I think you are confusing me with Bob. I am in favor of Fr. Cuenin resigning and am in agreement with the teachings of the Magisterium(following those teachings…well that’s a different story
)
This reminds me of a conversation I had this morning. Another father who I see dropping off his son at my daughters’ school says, “A guy I work with was trying to tell me that Tom Brady is not that good. That you could throw any QB on the team and they would win.” I said in reply, “Some statements are so ridiculous that they don’t even deserve an argument.” The same applies to Bob’s statements.
Sorry, Dan. I will then extend the invitatio n to Bob.
I’ll also add, not only that these claims have been made before in print, but that I have written about them. What happens is not so much a case of the claim being wrong, so much as misleading. Someone takes something that can be interpreted more than one way, and does so the wrong way, publicly.
Yes, women have borne the title “presbytera”—literally, “priestess.” But the term is for the wife of a priest, which is still true among Greek Orthodox Christians today.
Yes, women have in the early centuries of the Church attempted to perform priestly rites. One example is the Priscillians—I believe from the fourth century. But they and others like them were consistently refuted by the Church.
What’s more, not even a casual student of Church history will state that all popes have led exemplary lives. The claim that the Church once blessed same-sex unions was the subject of a book by a sports writer named Boswell. He should have stuck to baseball, as presently even those who would defend same-sex unions do not defend the arguments in Boswell’s book.
And that’s not even the good stuff, Bob.
Honestly, when people on this forum(such as MaggieOh) say that Fr. Cuenin’s parishioners are headed for “damnation” because they dare question any of the Church’s teachings, then I know I’m in the wrong place. So I’ll bid you adieu, and leave you to your orthodox echo chamber.
For the record: I don’t agree with all of Fr. Cuenin’s “heterodox” teachings, nor do most of his parishioners.
And yet—we can ask questions and challenge authority, seeking to understand whether the rules were made by God or by fallible men—guided by a faith in the teachings of Christ (who had very, very little to say about most of these issues).
Apparently you have no such questions, nor the intellectual curiosity to ask them.
If the men in the robes say it’s so, it’s so. Keep believing that.
Before I leave: David, I suspect you were kidding about Thomas Boswell (the fine sportswriter for the Washington Post) and John Boswell (author of at Catholic Charities? Does he think that Fr. Cuenin had good intentions by involving Fr. John J. White, the priest who opened 2 gay bed and breakfast resorts in CA, one of them co-owned with Fr. Paul Shanley, as well as Charles Connor, the president of Boston PFLAG, Paul Merullo,( Pastoral Assoc.under Fr. Phillip Earley at St. Thomas of Villanova,Willmington), who shortly afterwards was convicted and sentenced to 2 1/2 years in jail for “soliciting sex from a teenage boy at his home in Woburn…in return for sex toys and alcohol”(Globe,“Church worker is sentenced”,3/12/02,p.B3), Fr. Richard Lewandowski,pastor of St. Camilla’s Church,Fitchburg where he held meetings for PFLAG, and was ordered to take a leave of absence from the Worcester Diocese last year, to name a few of the leaders whom Fr. Cuenin decided would be his cohorts in developing the Companions program in 1999 and 2000? Were his intentions those of a holy priest who wished to help Catholic families? Does Fr. Cuenin intend to help or hurt Catholic families by going to the Newton High School Gay Pride week events and acting as if the practice of same-sex sex is good,healthy and holy by approving these acts in front of the students? Does he speak up when any of these students who were engaging in same-sex sex acts with their ‘role models’ who volunteer to help them be “comfortable” with their sexuality, become infected with the HIV/AIDS infection and the HIV/AIDS Bureau rule that the minor child’s parents are not to be told that their child is infected nor is any report of sexual abuse reported to the legal authorities because the HIV/AIDS Bureau has mandated this secrecy policy? Is Fr. Cuenin truly concerned aboout these Catholic families?
I hope that Robert Bettinelli will answer these questions honestly.
Good God……
I get mad for reducing myself to contributing to this blog but I can’t hold back from telling Ethan and Jim, I mean Fathers, to get a life and get on with your own business of the day. To sit, speculate, blog and seemingly quietly pray for the demise of Fr. Walter Cuenin is what you are all about. Ethan….your caddiness about where Walter might celebrate his birthday pseaks volumes about the person who seem to be!
Here’s a guy willing to challenge the church, all the while respecting it and openly welcoms everyone, sinner or saint.
If the Catholic church tells all those who are divorced and not sought annulments to leave who would be left? If the church tells all those practicing any type of birth control, who would be left? If the church tells all those who are pro-choice to leave, who would be left? It the church tells all those who are gay, in a relationship or not to leave, who would be left? If the church tells all those who have committed or are in the act of adultery to leave, who would be left? If the church tells all those that if you simply aren’t the perfect catholic and in perfect alignment with all the teachings of the church to leave, then who is left? And when priests like Fr. Walter leave the church, who is left?
Ethan and Jim…..I mean Fr. Ethan and Fr. Jim, build a parish like Our Lady’s and be a pastor and leader like Walter has been then feel free to talk!
JDH – The Church does not desire those in sin to leave the Church – the Church seeks their repentance and salvation. Denying that certain actions are sinful or condoning them through silence does not lead to repentance. Do the words “Go and sin no more” ring a bell ?
BTW, Father Jom Clark is one of the holiest and most orthodox priests you will find anywhere, simply because he dares to speak the truth IN LOVE. He follows the teachings of the Church and works to teach the flock entrusted to his care the same, and yes – lead them to heaven.
Bob, are you the same “Bob” from over at the news.bostonherald.com blog who emphatically claimed the late Pope John Paul II had visited Our Ladys, and then when corrected, couldn’t even spell Mother Teresa’s name correctly? Are you the same one who has drank the Kool-Aid and thinks a church is “vibrant” only because they offer a welcoming presence and get lots of people coming every week, even if the theology is corrupt? I apologize for sounding inhospitable, but why don’t you and JDH just head back over to the Herald or elsewhere, where you can post along with all of your other “Cafeteria Catholic” friends and leave the faithful folks alone here? If you watch baseball, you know that all of the players abide by the rules of the Major League, and there are rules for good reason. If they don’t abide by them, they are penalized or kicked out. If you as a fan don’t like the rules or the game, you can just not watch. No one’s forcing you to be a part of the Catholic Church. (You treat it like you’ve been invited to a birthday party and you’re entitled to your cupcake, as well as input on what flavor cupcake is being served) If you or Walter Cuenin and others don’t like the rules and doctrines of the Catholic Church as defined by the Magisterium of the Church, then just leave and go join another church. But please do us all a favor and stop criticizing those of us who are faithful Catholics. Also, is there something specific we might do to encourage you to NOT post your voice of dissent against Catholic teachings on this blog?
FYI, the Voice of the Fickle, (Motto: Change the faith, wreck the Church) have evidently weighed in on this matter. (Given VOTF’s passion for financial transparency, I wonder why they don’t just ask the Finance Council at Our Ladys to disclose the amount of the stipend payments and an accounting of how all of the $120K+ in funds were spent over 12 years, but I digress). This email was posted on news.bostonherald.com by VOTF telling about the proposed actions to help save Father Walter. There’s nothing on the VOTF website, but I assume this is what was sent:
Plan of action in response to the forced resignation of Walter Cuenin as our pastor.
Our Lady’s Voice will be joined by the other affiliates in Newton in making a statement demanding that Walter be immediately reinstated as Pastor and that he and the members of Our Lady’s finance council be cleared of any financial wrongdoing by the Archdiocese. We will also call for an independent investigation of the actions of the Archdiocese. This statement will be released at a “Watch and Pray” candlelight vigil which will begin in front of our Lady’s at 7 PM tomorrow (Monday, September 26th). The vigil will continue through the night until dawn. It will an opportunity to stand with Walter all during his last night as our pastor, and to pray for justice to be done for him and for all priests of integrity in the Archdiocese.
This action is not against our new pastor. It is in solidarity with Walter and with all the priests of courage and conviction who have spoken out against injustice and who are now being purged from their positions aspastors in the Archdiocese as a result.
We also plan a protest march from Our Lady’s to the Chancery after the 10 AMMass next week. More details on this march will be available in the next few days. I hope to see you all at the vigil tomorrow at 7 PM.
Now, now, if people want to discuss the topics, even if they disagree, they’re welcome here. I’m the host of this place and I’ll decide who’s welcome and who’s not.
MaryJane: No, I am not that Bob, nor have I read my namesake’s posts on the Herald so I can’t comment on them.
Re-read my posts, MaryJane. Please note that not once on this blog—not once—have I shared my views on orthodox Catholic teachings, other than to say that I don’t agree with all of Fr. Cuenin’s beliefs, and the fact that Church teachings should be questioned and studied by intellectually curious Catholics. [I have stated my beliefs on Church history, yes, but not any theological conclusions based on that history.]
I did play baseball in high school, however, and would be happy to discuss.
Thanks for your kind wishes. I shall pray for you to be less hateful.
Wow!! Stay off this blog for a day, and you miss alot!!!
Any sullen teenager can question authority. It takes no intellectual rigor to do so.
But it’s a mature adult who understands that authority exists for a reason and endeavors to understand why it does.
First off, if any of the Cuenin critics had actually attended Mass at Our Lady’s, you would have heard him say that the Church needs to “consider” allowing priests to Marry and allowing the ordination of women. He also welcomed Gay and Divorced Catholic, in keeping with the teachings of that noted heretic, Jesus Christ. His parish, in the spirit of Jesus, has been a place of welcome for ALL, not just the self-righteous spouting man-made doctrine.
Walter Cuenin is a man of God, who also fills the seats and makes the trains run on time. The parish works on every level, financially, spiritually, ecumenically. Our Lady’s works in ways that few if any RC parishes work today.
As a 46 year old lifetime Catholic, product of the Sisters of Saint Joseph and the Jesuits, I can say that I, and many others along a wide spectrum of belief, have found a home unlike any other at Our Lady’s.
That the Church has changed its teaching over the years is beyond dispute. Priest could once marry, now they can’t. Walter did not call on us to deny the resurrection, or even the final authority of the Archdiocese and the Vatican. His eulogy of the Pope was a moving and beautiful tribute to a great man and leader with whom Walter shared much more in agreement than disagreement.
Reactionaries aside, even the IRS allows people to pay back any amounts deemed to be 8220;Father” or what? I’m just curious.
Again, showing a clear disconnect from the actual goings on at the parish, Walter made it clear to all that he preferred to be called Walter, in his words to remove the barrier created by the title ‘Father’. I have to admit it took some doing to get over that hump. I still call my Father-in-law ‘Mr Long’ after 17 years of marriage and 3 kids. But, like almost every aspect of Our Lady’s it worked. Don’t like it, don’t do it.
I/>
I remember reading back in the late 90s about a priest and nun who started one of the big “liberal” “ministries” to homosexuals—it may have even been Dignity. Their case had been investigated by the CDF for 15 years, and the CDF finally found them guilty, and said, “Stop or your faculties will be removed.” Not “Your faculties are removed,” but “You’ve got a second chance to renounce your heresy.”
Heresy is hard to investigate and prove. Financial misdeeds are easy. It’s like getting Al Capone on tax evasion.
My former pastor—whom I never liked for his public teachings regarding Confession and other matters (namely, he’d complain about people going to Confession too often)—resigned in a pornography scandal. One of his final homilies, just before the scandal broke, was a scathing condemnation of the Church and the Code of Canon Law.
If “orthodox” parishes in Massachusetts are “empty,” it’s only because Massachusetts is full of so many liberals. I’d challenge that poster to look around the rest of the country and see the pews.