Friday, September 4, 2009

Boston Globe: Catholic Leaders Defend O'Malley

Say decision is being overblown

Overblown?

Really?

This I've got to see.

What notorious Catholics are defending the birdbrained decision to let Obama hold a public canonization?

Anyone with a reputation for faithfulness to the tenets of the Catholic Church?



“To emphasize these criticisms as much as the press does, it’s not a reflection of the reality of the church, and to me it’s noise,’’ said the Rev. Michael C. McFarland, president of the College of the Holy Cross.

“When all is said and done, the cardinal deserves great credit for not paying attention to the critics, and doing what his gut told him to do for the whole church,’’ said Thomas P. O’Neill III,

And Sister Janet Eisner, president of Emmanuel College, said she was drafting a note to thank O’Malley for attending the funeral.

Janet Eisner had John Kerry speak at my daughter's commencement in 2004. The others are also notorious dissenters of the Catholic religion.

There was one individual who claims he's very, very, very prolife - I've never heard of the guy - somewhat amazing for one of the most prominent prolife leaders in Massachusetts - but I'll have to do some diligence on seeing whether he's in the prolife movement and/or what he's had to say defending life. Near as I know, the Vagina Monologues were played out at the school this year and every year - but I'll do some fact checking.

The Rev. Mark T. Cregan, president of Stonehill College, called himself “very, very, very prolife,’’ but also supported the cardinal, saying he was right to attend the funeral, despite the predictable controversy that ensued.

Not a very convincing line up.

One is left to conclude that the calls Michael Paulson made to actual people who are well-known for faithfulness to the teachings of the Church in the public square wouldn't get on board defending the decision.

3 comments:

Roamin Catholic said...

As a very unprominent Boston Catholic, I'm scandalized by the Cardinal's handling of the funeral. Certainly Sen. Kennedy should have had a Mass celebrated for his soul. However, he was nearly canonized by the speakers, and there was no mention of his years of very public opposition to the Church on the major issues of sanctity of life and of marriage. The senator never indicated any public repentance of his serious public opposition to issues vital to the Catholic Church. Those Catholics who objected to this scandal were then further insulted by having the Cardinal claim on his blog that they "do irreparable damage to the communion of the Church." So much for people taking seriously the Church's opposition to abortion and redefining marriage. I'm afraid the Cardinal has insulated himself from justifiable criticism coming from his own flock - who have an obligation under canon law to speak up against wrongs. He's surrounded by advisors and other prominent beings who seem to be just talking the talk and not walking the walk.

Faith said...

It was a pastoral decision.

From the beautiful City of Boston said...

Pastoral?

That's like saying a mother who joins her alcoholic husband boozing it up at the bar in front of her children is a pastoral decision.

He pastored the sheep into the hands of the devil himself.

It isn't politically correct to say this - but it seems people don't know the difference between pastoring and ambition or cowardice.

Certainly I believed Ted had every right to a Catholic Funeral. A private, Catholic funeral without giving a pulpit to Obama and a canonization service.