Skip to comments.Once welcomed, Boston archbishop now sees goodwill evaporate with parish closings
Posted on 09/27/2004 7:08:14 PM PDT by Land of the Irish
BOSTON - Charged with cleaning up after the clergy sex abuse scandal, Boston Archbishop Sean O'Malley took a low-key approach. He asked to be called ``Archbishop Sean,'' shunned the trappings that go with his rank, and settled lawsuits quickly - winning over many parishioners in the process.
A little over a year later, things have changed. Whether it's fair or not, some Boston-area Roman Catholics now are calling O'Malley ``The Iceman'' as he pushes ahead with plans to close almost a quarter of the parishes in the nation's fourth-largest archdiocese.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bostonherald.com ...
So much for the "great springtime of Vatican 2".
Sadly even the sorry state of affairs in Boston is better than at the other side of the Atlantic...
As I said on the other thread, these bishops are supposed to be on our side???
O'Malley could tell the parishoners since the diocese has no money to support the parish, if the parishoners can pay for expenses they can keep their church open. That seems fair and wouldn't cost him anything. If people are sufficiently motivated they can keep their parishes.
Independent chapels survive this way. I don't see why the diocese can't loosely do the same.
Independent chapels offer their worshipers sanctuary and strengthen their faith. This forsaken sinking ship offers scandal and degradation, from it's schools through it's clergy.
"Conservative" O'Malley's latest bright idea is force parents against their will to have the obscene "Talk about Touching" (which was concocted by a letist group that advocates legalized prostitution) taught to their children.
Our Church has allowed the left to do what it does best... ruin things.
The article says that renovations to some of these churches would cost, combined, $100 million just to keep them from being condemned, to say nothing of continuing upkeep.
Catholics of all stripes are notorious skinflints. The only way I would consent to something like this is to assess each family, in a parish, a specific amount of money, amounting to a tithe. That's what the Baptists do.
Or, if a group of laymen in the parish want to put their names on a note to cover the shortfall, fine. But, it would be their obligation to pay the note, not the dioceses'.
I'd wager most of these alternatives were looked at, and judged unrealistic.
Any of you SSPXers want to pick up a parish in Boston? I'm sure you could get it at a discount, but you might have to pony up a couple of million to get up to code.
If they would allow us into any of their buildings, upkeep and funding would not be an issue.
I'm not arguing with you, but many of our chapels post their accounting in their bulletins. Despite our many sorrows, paying our way isn't one of them at the moment.
The land underneath is more valuable than the building itself.
Go make an offer. At this point, O'Malley would probably consider it.
If I was wealthy I would buy up the churches in an instant.
The main problem is the dioceses will not sell to SSPX or any traditional Catholic no matter how desperate they are for money. They would rather sell to secular institutions or government who wants the land.
I'd imagine they'd sell to whoever gives them the highest bid.
Can the SSPX outbid a developer?
I don't know the SSPX's resources but I do know traditionalists have approached bishops for purchases and been flat out denied because of their beliefs.
Let's look at how they got there.
This particular entity has paid millions upon millions to settle lawsuits because of its unsavory business practices. It's lost millions more due to huge numbers of customers receiving poor management and service. The shareholders that are left are not inspired to put good money after bad, causing more cash flow problems.
Not to mention they've taken the esteemed founder's portrait out of the lobby.
Cheap Catholics and code enforcement are not what plagues diocese' such as these.
If these churches are that old they could qualify for historic landmark status and receive funds for restoration.
I know that is a touchy subject for many bishops but it works for us in CA.
But, code enforcement is non-negotiable, and bringing these churches up to code merely gets you to status-quo.
As I see it, O'Malley simply has no choice.
Since some of these churches now for sale have already been desecrated by modernists, they may need to be re-consecrated (and possibly exorcized) before a valid traditional Latin Mass is once again offered at the altar.
"I know that is a touchy subject for many bishops"
Historic landmark status prevents bishops from spending millions on modernist wreckovations, after which venerable cathedrals have been known to resemble aircraft hangers.
Are you sure you don't want to figure out a way to work sodomy into your post? You do it on every other thread.
I'm starting to wonder about you, Phil.
I would say you're correct, he walked into a disaster underway.
Boston was a once a vibrant Catholic center, to watch it fall so far so fast is tragic.
"Are you sure you don't want to figure out a way to work sodomy into your post?"
Sodomy is one of the main reasons all these churches are up for sale. It doesn't take much understanding to figure that out.
This same sell-out of our sacred heritage is being repeated by bishops and cardinals from coast to coast - and those guilty remain at large - cemented in their positions of power...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.