A Significant Defeat For The Pro-Life Movement Inflicted By The Catholic Church In Boston

  • Thread starter Thread starter djeter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CAF requires that it’s members be charitable in their postings. This includes anything said to or about another member, politicians, and our Church hierarchy. There have been some very uncharitable remarks made about the cardinal and this thread is closed because of them.
 
In the interest of complying with the guidelines of the host, I would like to post the following excerpt from the statement of the American Life League, which I think conveys with a maximum of fact and a minimum of rhetoric, the precise nature of the emergency the Church faces in Boston at this moment:

"Most concerning of all is the following quote from Mr. Ralph de la Torre, president of Caritas Christi: 'When a patient seeks such a procedure,[nota bene: ‘such a procedure’ refers to **abortion]*Caritas health care professionals will be clear that (a) the hospital does not perform them and (b) the patient must turn to his or her insurance for further guidance’.

"Boston Catholic commentator Carol McKinley responded well to this statement:
When the patient ‘turns to his or her insurance company,’ they are ‘turning’ to the ‘HMO’ [of] which the Cardinal and Caritas are co-owners, [CeltiCare]. Therefore, the Cardinal and Caritas are providing these services…

With the exception of removing family planning, abortion, sterilization, embryonic stem cell research and other moral evils covered under the HMO the Cardinal has an ownership interest in, there is no conceivable modification to the arrangement that could ever be in compliance with Catholic moral teaching.

“Incrementally separating the Boston archdiocese from committing an abortion or from the provision of contraception, sterilization and other such ‘services’ does not negate the fact that, through this agreement, Catholic hospitals will ultimately be referring mothers to abortion and/or contraception facilities such as Planned Parenthood, if the deal between Caritas Christi and CeltiCare remains as it is now written.”*

That sums it up perfectly. The Cardinal must not allow this to stand, please God. It would bring yet another devastating scandal upon the faithful.
 
In the interest of complying with the guidelines of the host, I would like to post the following excerpt from the statement of the American Life League, which I think conveys with a maximum of fact and a minimum of rhetoric, the precise nature of the emergency the Church faces in Boston at this moment:

"Boston Catholic commentator Carol McKinley responded well to this statement:
When the patient ‘turns to his or her insurance company,’ they are ‘turning’ to the ‘HMO’ [of] which the Cardinal and Caritas are co-owners, [CeltiCare]. Therefore, the Cardinal and Caritas are providing these services…


With the exception of removing family planning, abortion, sterilization, embryonic stem cell research and other moral evils covered under the HMO the Cardinal has an ownership interest in, there is no conceivable modification to the arrangement that could ever be in compliance with Catholic moral teaching.

That sums it up perfectly. The Cardinal must not allow this to stand, please God. It would bring yet another devastating scandal upon the faithful.
Ms. McKinley’s information is flawed. Unfortunately, most people, including Catholics don’t always know this little, but important peace of information.

Cardinal Sean O’Malley is a solemnly professed Capuchin Franciscan Brother. Religious in solemn vows cannot own anything, nor can they make use of money without the permission of their superiors.

The night before a Franciscan makes solemn vows, he signs a legal document where he legally gives up the right to own property, to make money, to posess money without permission, to spend money without permission, to receive any kind of retirement money, to receive an inheritence from any souce including family, to receive a salary for his services, to keep any money or property that he owns. Included in this document, he must surrender any money and property that he has. He has to name someone, who is not in the order, as the new owner of anything he owns and as the beneficiary of any inheritence that he may receive at any time in his life. The order many not receive any money through any Franciscan other than the stipend that a diocese pays to the order for the services of the religious.

When a Franciscan Friar becomes a bishop, he may use any of the property belonging to the diocese that he runs, but he may not own any of it nor may his order. He may sell and buy property for the diocese as its legal representative. In most dioceses these financial transactions are not handled by the Ordinaries of the diocese. Most large dioceses have a CFO and employ the services of people who are experts in these matters. Ordinaries are not business people and they usually do not manage the financial affairs of their dioceses. They are kept informed of them by the CFO.

If you look carefully, Cardinal O’Malley signs OFM Cap after his name. The letters are Latin for Order of Lesser Brothers Capuchin. This is one of the four obediences of the Franciscan Order.

As a Franciscan myself, I can testify that none of us owns porperty or can legally be partners in any HMO or other corporation. Neither can our communities. The only property that our order is allowed to own are religious houses, schools, colleges, hospitals or other facilities that offer some kind of service to the order or the faithful. To own these properties the order must get permission from the local bishop to establish it in his diocese, from the Superior General to open it, and from the Holy Father who is the legal owner of everything that the Francsicans own.

This has been the rule since our holy Father Francis founded the order in 1209. The rule cannot be changed by anyone, except a pope. To date, the rule has never been changed by any pope since Pope Honorius put a papal seal on it in 1221.

There is no legal way in civil law that the Cardinal can own any part of an HMO, nor is there a canonical way, nor a constitutional way in the constitution and rule of the Franciscan Order.

Sean O’Malley continues to be a Capuchin Franciscan Brother in good standing with our order and with the Church. When he retires as bishop, he returns to the order as another brother and may not bring anything with him from his years of service as a bishop. Any gifts that people made to him during the years must become the property of his last diocese or a charity. These gifts cannot include stocks in a company. We’re talking about the usual gifts that people give to prelates.

I hope this clarifies the comments made by this person. Someone should tell her that she should become better acqainted with the way of life of her subjects. Cardinal O’Malley was not allowed to move into the Archbishop’s resident in Boston. His order would not allow him to live in it, because it was too lavish for a Franciscan. The house was sold and the money given to the Archdiocese of Boston to which the house belonged. The Cardinal lived in a rented dwelling before the pastoral center was built.

Some of these people should carefully check their subject, before they make a public statement. Such statements are not only untrue, they are impossible.

I hope this helps others who may have read this and thought that such a thing was even possible for a Franciscan or any religious in solemn vows. It is not possible, civilly or canonically.

I am reporting this post to CAF. It is slanderous and proposes that the Cardinal is involved in a violation of his solemn vows, of the Rule of St. Francis, of the Constitutions of the Friars Minor Capuchin, of canon law, and of a civil contract that he made when he made solemn vows.

How could anyone have posted this without asking another Franciscan or religious is this is even possible?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
I hope this clarifies the comments made by this person. Someone should tell her that she should become better acqainted with the way of life of her subjects. Cardinal O’Malley was not allowed to move into the Archbishop’s resident in Boston. His order would not allow him to live in it, because it was too lavish for a Franciscan. The house was sold and the money given to the Archdiocese of Boston to which the house belonged. The Cardinal lived in a rented dwelling before the pastoral center was built.

Some of these people should carefully check their subject, before they make a public statement. Such statements are not only untrue, they are impossible.

I hope this helps others who may have read this and thought that such a thing was even possible for a Franciscan or any religious in solemn vows. It is not possible, civilly or canonically.

I am reporting this post to CAF. It is slanderous and proposes that the Cardinal is involved in a violation of his solemn vows, of the Rule of St. Francis, of the Constitutions of the Friars Minor Capuchin, of canon law, and of a civil contract that he made when he made solemn vows.

How could anyone have posted this without asking another Franciscan or religious is this is even possible?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Sorry but you need to get your facts right.

Cardinal Sean O’Malley did not see the Brighton property which included the Cardinal’s residence and the St. John’s Seminary because it was too opulent but because he needed the money “$100milion” to settle with abuse victims. It had nothing to do with not being able to live there because of vows of poverty.

Cardinal O’Malley does not live at the Braintree complex but has always lived since coming to Boston at 75 Union Park, the rectory of the Cathedral of the Holy Cross, Boston, South End. He lives there with his 2 secretary’s, Fr. Jonathan Gasper and Fr. Robert Kickham as well as the Rector of the Cathedral, Fr. Kevin O’Leary and Parochial Vicar, Fr. Carlos Lopez

I am a parishioner of the Cathedral of the Holy Cross. I am a member of the Latin Mass community and am very involved in the Cathedral Parish life. I know both the Cardinal’s sectary’s very well (I drag Fr. Kickham over frequently to hear confessions on Sunday morning) as well as having a good relationship with the Rector, Fr. O’Leary.

Your information about the Cardinal in Boston is incorrect. Simply because you are a fellow Franciscan does not make you right, it also seems to make you very defensive.

Kathleen
 
Sorry but you need to get your facts right.

Cardinal Sean O’Malley did not see the Brighton property which included the Cardinal’s residence and the St. John’s Seminary because it was too opulent but because he needed the money “$100milion” to settle with abuse victims. It had nothing to do with not being able to live there because of vows of poverty.
It may have been true that the money was used to settle the law suits. But there was already an understanding that he would not live there. No one said that he did not use the money for this purpose. The property did belong to the Archdioces. It’s only fair that it be used by the Archdiocese for this purpose or any other that they need.
Cardinal O’Malley does not live at the Braintree complex
I never mentioned this complex. I do not know where it is. All I have heard is that he did not live at the traditional residence. The original plan was to rent something.
but has always lived since coming to Boston at 75 Union Park, the rectory of the Cathedral of the Holy Cross, Boston, South End. He lives there with his 2 secretary’s, Fr. Jonathan Gasper and Fr. Robert Kickham as well as the Rector of the Cathedral, Fr. Kevin O’Leary and Parochial Vicar, Fr. Carlos Lopez
There is nothing wrong with living in the rectory of the Cathedral parish. The point is that he does not own the residence or any other property.
I am a parishioner of the Cathedral of the Holy Cross. I am a member of the Latin Mass community and am very involved in the Cathedral Parish life. I know both the Cardinal’s sectary’s very well (I drag Fr. Kickham over frequently to hear confessions on Sunday morning) as well as having a good relationship with the Rector, Fr. O’Leary.
You have one up on me, because I have never met his secretary. But his secretary may be able to shed some truth on the allegation that he personally is a co-owner of the HMO.
Your information about the Cardinal in Boston is incorrect.
The only information in which I am mistaken is his place of residence. His vows and his canonical obligations, as well as his legal commitment not to own any property is a fact. This is a fact for all religious in solemn vows.

To allege that the Cardinal owns an HMO is ludicrous. It is not possible because:
  1. It is forbidden by the rule of St. Francis
  2. It is forbidden by canon law for religious in solemn vows to have personal property or personal assets
  3. There is a legal commitment that all religious in solemn vows make never to acquire assets. Therefore, he cannot do so, even if he wanted to. He does not have the legal power to acqurie assets in his name.
  4. If this were true, he would be recalled by his major superior and called to task.
This allegation not only implies that the Cardinal is in violation of his solemn vows, but that he would financially profit from abortion. That is a very grave allegation. It is an immoral one at best.
Simply because you are a fellow Franciscan does not make you right, it also seems to make you very defensive.
I have every right to defend my brothers and the obligation to do so. As our rule plainly says, “If a mother loves her children according to the flesh, so much more must the friars love their brothers in the order.” Our holy Father’s last concern before he died were his brothers. He spent his dying days caring for his brothers and ensuring that they would be well after his death.

This is not defensive. This is family loving and caring for family, especially when they are unjustly accused. We are not just a group of religious men. We are a brotherhood and our first ministry is to pray and our second is to care for our brothers. This is the vocation of the Franciscan and the highest service that he offers to God and Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Kathleen
 
There is no one on this forum that is more knowledgeable or with more integrity than our own Br JR…It is shameful that he is forced to defend himself and his order against this type of calumny

I don’t believe half of what is posted unless I know it comes from an impeccable source, and there are not any sources on this forum with more knowledge and wisdom than Br JR

He has forgotten more than most people know…He lives a holy and and a devout life serving God and neighbor in a way that would make St Francis proud…His word is his bond…

JR I am sorry you have to defend people against this type of outright lie…thank God you have the courage to do it

I have reported this thread and I hope it is locked or deleted…it is a shameful post
 
JReducation You did claim you knew all the specifics of his residence and reasons why he sold the property. No Cardinal personally owned the Residence or O’Connell’s Palace, it belonged to the Archdiocese of Boston to be passed down to the next Bishop and so on. You said he lived in a rented dwelling.
“I hope this clarifies the comments made by this person. Someone should tell her that she should become better acqainted with the way of life of her subjects. Cardinal O’Malley was not allowed to move into the Archbishop’s resident in Boston. His order would not allow him to live in it, because it was too lavish for a Franciscan. The house was sold and the money given to the Archdiocese of Boston to which the house belonged. The Cardinal lived in a rented dwelling before the pastoral center was built.”
The Pastoral Center is the new “Chancery” as we used to call it. It is not a residence. You really can’t take being wrong.

You will not place any responsibility on the Cardinal for decisions that are his alone. He is the top man and everyone works at his pleasure. All the boards of Hospital, Schools, etc are his appointments.

Carol McKinley is not a reliable source. I know who she is and would steer clear of her. But she is right that the Cardinal owns Caritas and the HMO CeltiCare because of Corporation Sole. As Cardinal of the Archdiocese he is the sole owner of all the property of the Archdiocese and can sell them or retain them as he wants. This is the whole principle behind the Church closures. It is argued that the property is held in trust. So far the courts have ruled he is sole owner per say as the Cardinal. It is not Cardinal O’Malley’s personal property for his personal use but as Cardinal it is the Bishop of Boston’s property. Cardinal O’Malley is Bishop of Boston therefore he owns the property while he retains the title. The next Bishop will then be owner of all property he hasn’t sold off per Corporation Sole.

Kathleen
 
JReducation You did claim you knew all the specifics of his residence and reasons why he sold the property. No Cardinal personally owned the Residence or O’Connell’s Palace, it belonged to the Archdiocese of Boston to be passed down to the next Bishop and so on. You said he lived in a rented dwelling.
“I hope this clarifies the comments made by this person. Someone should tell her that she should become better acqainted with the way of life of her subjects. Cardinal O’Malley was not allowed to move into the Archbishop’s resident in Boston. His order would not allow him to live in it, because it was too lavish for a Franciscan. The house was sold and the money given to the Archdiocese of Boston to which the house belonged. The Cardinal lived in a rented dwelling before the pastoral center was built.”
The Pastoral Center is the new “Chancery” as we used to call it. It is not a residence. You really can’t take being wrong.

You will not place any responsibility on the Cardinal for decisions that are his alone. He is the top man and everyone works at his pleasure. All the boards of Hospital, Schools, etc are his appointments.

Carol McKinley is not a reliable source. I know who she is and would steer clear of her. But she is right that the Cardinal owns Caritas and the HMO CeltiCare because of Corporation Sole. As Cardinal of the Archdiocese he is the sole owner of all the property of the Archdiocese and can sell them or retain them as he wants. This is the whole principle behind the Church closures. It is argued that the property is held in trust. So far the courts have ruled he is sole owner per say as the Cardinal. It is not Cardinal O’Malley’s personal property for his personal use but as Cardinal it is the Bishop of Boston’s property. Cardinal O’Malley is Bishop of Boston therefore he owns the property while he retains the title. The next Bishop will then be owner of all property he hasn’t sold off per Corporation Sole.

Kathleen
What you are saying about the HMO and the rest of the properties is very different from what the article says. Everyone knows that the Ordinary of the diocese, any diocese, is the legal representative of that jurisdiction. Only he can authorize the purchase and sale of diocesan property.

To imply that he personally owns the HMO and that he will profit from abortions is wrong. That’s the point here. I fail to understand why that’s not being clarified. The impression that this citation gives to the rest of the world who reads it is that the Cardinal, personally, will profit from abortion and personally profits from the HMO.

If one wants to argue with the Ordinary of any diocese or argue about the decisions of any Ordinary, one must always state the facts very clearly.

The citation places the Cardinal in a situation that is not true. He no more owns these properties than the Pope owns the Vatican.

In addition, this is a man who has an impeccable record as a religious, a priest and a bishop. That people disagree with his decisions is part of the job description. That we allow anyone to damage his reputation is unjust.

I believe that the people of the Archdiocese of Boston may argue for and against his administrative decision. But I have never heard it said, within our order or from people in his dioceses that he is an immoral person and much less that he is supports abortion for his profit.

The faithful can disagree, but they may never damage the reputation of any person, especially a person who is a very holy man. This man has done a great deal of good for the Church where ever he has served.

Please tell me if I’m mistaken, but I get the impression that you have not posted to defend his good name. I feel as if you simply picked the most insignificant statement that I made and ran with it and you failed to stand up for the truth about the abortion situation and his personal profit or gain in it, which is what this citation suggests and what I find most disturbing about it.

You live in his parish. You are probably more aware than many other people here of his character. I’m glad that you said that the source is less than credible. That’s what I would have expected of anyone from the Boston area, Falls River Diocese, Palm Beach Diocese, the Virgin Islands and the Archdiocese of Washington, where he has served all his life.

Those who know him always say the same thing about him. “This is a holy man and a holy religious.”

As I said before, he is our brother, and unless he does something that is truly sinful and scandalous, we will protect his reputation. That’s what it means to be Franciscan brothers. We do not allow our brothers to be hurt. Sometimes people do things that bring on painful consequences and we can’t protect them from that. But in every family, religious or secular, we must protect each other from being hurt unjustly.

Again, the legal labels that the laws of the state may want to give him, such as the owner of this or that, are for the expedience of the state. What is valid to us Catholics is what the religious rule says, what canon law says and what the constitutions of the order say. They all say that he does not own any personal property, much less derive profit or other satisfaction from them.

Catholics should be making this statement. If they want to disagree with the management of the hospital situation, they can. Those are other issues. But don’t allow anyone to misrepresent an individual in such a way that he looks like a currupt man when he’s not. That’s not fair. If we are to be truly one family, we must protect each other from unjust representations.

That’s the exception that I’m taking with this citation.

Hope this clears things up.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Here is the text of an article in this week’s Pilot, the newspaper of the Archdiocese of Boston. The headline, Caritas discussing changes to healthcare agreement, reaffirms commitment to Catholic teaching, appears to say it all. Obviously the current agreement in place is unacceptable; the showdown, such as it is,continues.

I don’t get how they sign an agreement that violates Catholic Teachings and now are forced to “request changes” – until some transparency occurs between the Archdiocese, Caritas Christi and the National Catholic Bioethics Center (a nationally known institution that provides guidance for Catholic health systems across the country and whom Cardinal O’Malley requested such advice), this might be difficult to figure out.

Since we don’t really know that much, some of the conclusions voiced on this forum seem very premature.

In any event all details here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/06/14/caritas-christi-update/

and please contact the Archdiocese here and ask why the need to change the agreement and tell them of your support for Caritas Christi to strictly follow the teachings to the Church.

bostoncatholic.org/ContactUs.aspx

I would point out, BTW, that if you followed the whole story from the beginning (payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/06/08/a-significant-defeat-for-the-pro-life-movement-inflicted-by-the-catholic-church-in-boston/) it was Cardinal O’Malley who back in 2004, faced with rising costs and some shaky management made the first dramatic changes at Caritas Christi, a network of six hospitals that were owned and managed by the Archdiocese of Boston. He dismissed its president, Dr. Michael Collins, for no particular reason other than the fact he was “dissatisfied with the doctor’s management style.” On hindsight that move seems more than justified and should lend some credence to Cardinal O’Malley’s initial leadership on this matter.

I think the more questions are raised the more the Archdiocese will be forthcoming. You get to do that above.

DJ
 
There is much uncharitable speculation in this thread, much of it not supported by links to news articles as is required. To let the obvious passions cool, I’m closing the thread until the next chapter plays out and is reported in the news. When it does, please PM me a link to the news article and I will consider reopening the thread at that time.

Note: I will be on vacation from now until July 4, so the thread will not reopen before then.

Thanks for your understanding and cooperation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top