May 13, 2010

Call Cardinal O'Malley

To support Fr. James Rafferty of St. Paul's parish in Hingham, MA, who defends Church teaching on the disordered nature of homosexual relations, denying admission to a student who's parents are openly homosexual. This good priest is going to be hung out to dry by secular and pseudo-Catholics such as the Catholic School Foundation (call 617-778-5981 to complain), which is agitating for acceptance of homosexuality within Catholic schools.

Call Cardinal Sean O'Mally's office at 617-254-0100 to support Fr. Rafferty.

As you can see below in this craven letter from the group that's subsidizing/secularizing Archdiocesan schools, they're disowning any part of Fr. Rafferty's decision. God help us. (HT Gail Besse)
Subject: From the Catholic School Foundation

Dear School Administrators:
You may be aware from recent publicity about an exclusionary admissions practice at St. Paul School in Hingham, which does not receive support from the Catholic Schools Foundation. In light of those media reports, we thought it important to clarify the position of the Catholic Schools Foundation - - namely, that no school that promotes an exclusionary admissions policy or practice will be considered for support.
We believe a policy or practice that denies admission to students in such a manner as occurred at St. Paul’s is at odds with our values as a Foundation, the intentions of our donors, and ultimately with Gospel teaching. Our concern is the education of young people. We will not fund any school that treats students and families in such a manner. This policy has been unchanged since our founding in 1983.
We are proud that Catholic schools are known for being welcoming communities for all students. So although this incident is disturbing, we know that it is isolated, not a policy of the Archdiocese, or indicative generally of the Catholic schools of the Archdiocese. Know that we appreciate all you do to make your schools places where all feel welcome.
Please contact me at 617-778-5981 if you have any questions or if I can be of any assistance to you.
With hope for the students we serve and the future of Catholic education, I am
Sincerely yours,

Michael B, Reardon
Executive Director


Anonymous said...

The child has done nothing wrong to deserve being excluded from going to school and being raised with Catholic values. Although I agree with most of what you say I have to disagree with this Jay. We can't be so afraid of homosexuals that we end up doing the wrong thing.

Mike Casey said...

Hi Jay I'm very perplexed by all this in regards to Fathers unacceptance of the boy because of his parents. Theyr'e life as two women living together is sinful and immoral but I truley don't no what to say because he is hopefully not gay and if he is accepting of their life style which he must be he would probobly expose other children to that as well. I thought about it and was going to respond with a do not let the boy in school but I also realize that has to come from a higher authority within the Diocese of Boston. I prayed right away for Cardinal Shawn to follow Gods will and make the right discision and I pray he does because he is the hightest authority in the Dioceses in Boston. Please Holy Spirit guide him so that his discision will be our discision united in our faith with you.

God Bless

JayG said...

I have to wonder the motivation of the two women. I admit I had some second thoughts about this situation, but I do not believe that Fr. Rafferty should be forced into accepting a student that in his judgment would become a distraction for the school and the other students.

I also believe that Religious schools should not have to hire anyone who publicly flaunts their disobedience to Church teachings. In this case a same-sex married couple would be akin to an employee of Planned Parenthood. I fear this young boy could become a wedge issue, and not simply a young boy in need of an education. My point was that Fr. Rafferty should not be painted as unChristian. He is after all responsible to God for the souls of all his charges.

JayG said...


Dependant Rational Animal said...

A letter sent today to Dr. O'Neill
Dear Dr. O'Neill,

I thought the Archdiocese had determined in 2003 that "allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full development."

If this is true, don't you think that subjecting a child who has already been harmed by this act of violence to constant psychological strain of being in one environment that teaches the Gospel truth and another environment (his "home") that teaches secular hedonism, would be akin to emotional child abuse, adding literally insult to injury? Or do you propose that as Catholic priests, educators, and faithful we should avoid the inevitable question of homosexuality when Bobby comes to the school play with two mommies? I assume you have been in a class room before and you realize that this is question #1 on every 8 year olds mind. Do you propose we use one of those homosexual propaganda story books to explain how little Bobby's family is just different? As a Catholic priest I found your comments and actions, undermining a pastor of the Church, offensive and naive to the extreme. We priests, and indeed we faithful Catholics, can not shrink from the truth. And while I always try to respect the latency period, when social engineers violate that sacred innocence I am forced to speak the truth to little children, granted as delicately as I can. Little Jonny's cohabiting parents might be able to pass themselves off as married, even to "Jonny" himself, but mommy 1 and mommy 2 (or daddy 1 and 2 if you prefer) can't, and so any faithful catholic is placed in a position in which they must either lie to the child to protect his feelings or tell him, and all the other children, that little Bobby's family is objectively disordered and that his mommies may very well be living in mortal sin and doing "grave evil" to him. Emotionally the first option seems kinder, but I am reminded that "the Truth will set you free."

You might not agree with the teachings of the Church as clearly stated in the Catechism and in every document on the topic in the last 50 years, but as an employee of the Church, you are bound by simply honesty to teach it, or if you can't not to pretend to. I notice how quick you were to use the name of the CATHOLIC Archdiocese in issuing your statement, I wonder if you will be so quick to personally offer the Catholic answers to the children's questions? Maybe I am wrong, I would be very interest in hearing how you propose to teach the truth about the intrinsic disorder of homosexuality when this poor boy's "parent's" place him, with your assistance, in another Catholic school. Maybe you will just find a "Catholic" school that doesn't teach the Catholic faith? Sincerely disappointed,

Paul Anthony Melanson said...

Fr. Rafferty is right. The same decision has been made by other dioceses in fact. See here:

Even Christian parents have a special duty, according to Canon Law, to care for the Christian education of their children "according to the teaching handed on by the Church." (Canon 226). Lesbian parents are not living a life in accordance with "the teaching handed on by the Church." Their very "marriage," which is not recognized by the Church, itself constitutes a danger to their children because it is a lived dissent from the Magisterial teaching of the Church.

Like most dissenters, the lesbian "couple" in question expect others (in this case, Catholic school officials) to treat their dissent as an acceptable difference of opinion which would provide them with a sense of being justified.

But this school officials, and most especially Father Rafferty as Pastor, are bound in conscience not to do. Love for others and the demands of truth requires each and every Catholic to challenge dissent as often as those who are dissenting confront us with it.

Bravo Fr. Rafferty. God love you.

Anonymous said...

I have a few points to make so bear with me. First, the child has done nothing wrong and denying him a Catholic education punishes him for sins his guardians have made, and I believe this to be wrong.

Perhaps the women see the error of their ways and are contemplating a return to normalcy. That would explain why they have sent the child to a proper Catholic school where he can learn moral values that they themselves lack.

Lastly, we shouldn't expect to cocoon our children in ignorance by shielding their eyes from what we disapprove of. All that will do is prolong their ignorance and leave them less able to cope with the real world. I think it is better to teach our kids how our morality is a better way and why so they can be prepared for the false teachings they will undoubtedly hear later on.

JayG said...

I do not believe the action of Fr. Rafferty is primarily or even secondarily with the intention of punishing the 8-year old boy. I believe Fr. Rafferty is first thinking of the other students.

And while I understand that a parent, or a Father, cannot shield their children or charges from the world; from adultery, drugs, or the fact that people do not adhere to God's word, I certainly would not invite adulterers or drug addicts or even those I found to be ignoring God's word into my house or my school.

Your premise is that refusing to accept this child into a Catholic school is the wrong thing. I disagree. Reaching out to sinners is predicated on the acceptance of the need for repentance. And Fr. Rafferty's first priority is the students already in the school.

FriendofBen said...

It amazes me how many Catholics don't know or want to know their faith. Either that, or they can't connect the dots. People who think Fr. Rafferty is punishing the child are missing the whole point.
Please look at these 3 excellent articles below on this issue: one from Archbishop Chaput, who backed his priest when a similar situation arose in Denver; one from the priest himself; and one from Dale O'Leary, author of The Gender Agenda and One Man, One Woman.
They connect the dots.


Mike Casey said...

I hope Cardinal O'Malley does whats right and sets the perfect example for all of us faithfull. I have over the last year been doing work for lesbian couples. I was getting so anxious about it that I spoke to my priest and some others. I was asking them should I be doing this work and should I be saying something to them about their life styles. The answer was do not enter into debate about their life style and do not stop working for them but these jobs keep coming. A job I just rec'd from an old customer which is coming up soon is also I believe a lesbian. Thats three this year alone. I even in confesion asked about this great feeling of anxiety about admonishing people in sin but the priest said do you think you can convert the whole world. I know this gets off the main subject but I just wanted to share my feelings about it all. I'm struggling now to reprove the things that are going on in my own home that are not good. So many tests I keep thinking that Jesus is trying to make me stronger in the area of being merciful and reproving souls. God give me the strenght.

JayG said...

Amen to that FOB

JayG said...

Good Letter in Globe explaining pastoral concerns of Fr. Rafferty.

Mike Casey said...

The article in the Globe is the best thing I've seen about this crisis. The fact is it has to come from Cardinal O'Malley because if it does in this same manner ar similer it strengthens all of us in our faith.

Paul Anthony Melanson said...

Cardinal Sean wrote, "We need to present the Church's teachings courageously and yet in a way that is compassionate and persuasive." This sounds attractive on the surface. Until you dig a little deeper.

As I said in a previous post dealing with the Rainbow Sash Movement, "..while it is true that everything must be done to help sinners, this cannot include helping them to sin or to remain in sin. Because of human frailty, every sinner deserves both pity and compassion. However, vice and sin must be excluded from this compassion. This because sin can never be the proper object of compassion. (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 30, a.1, ad 1).

It is a false compassion which supplies the sinner with the means to remain attached to sin. Such 'compassion' provides an assistance (whether material or moral) which actually enables the sinner to remain firmly attached to his evil ways. By contrast, true compassion leads the sinner away from vice and back to virtue. As Thomas Aquinas explains:

"We love sinners out of charity, not so as to will what they will, or to rejoice in what gives them joy, but so as to make them will what we will, and rejoice in what rejoices us. Hence it is written: 'They shall be turned to thee, and thou shalt not be turned to them.'" (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 25, a.6, ad 4, citing Jeremiah 15:19).

St. Thomas Aquinas teaches us that the sentiment of compassion only becomes a virtue when it is guided by reason, since "it is essential to human virtue that the movements of the soul should be regulated by reason." (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 30, c.3). Without such regulation, compassion is merely a passion. A false compassion is a compassion not regulated and tempered by reason and is, therefore, a potentially dangerous inclination. This because it is subject to favoring not only that which is good but also that which is evil (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 30, a.1, ad 3).

An authentic compassion always stems from charity. True compassion is an effect of charity (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 30, a.3, ad 3). But it must be remembered that the object of this virtue is God, whose love extends to His creatures. (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 25, a.3). Therefore, the virtue of compassion seeks to bring God to the one who suffers so that he may thereby participate in the infinite love of God. As St. Augustine explains:

"'Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.' Now, you love yourself suitably when you love God better than yourself. What, then, you aim at in yourself you must aim at in your neighbor, namely, that he may love God with a perfect affection." (St. Augustine, Of the Morals of the Catholic Church, No. 49,

And by the way, His Eminence is implying that Archbishop Chaput failed to be "compassionate" in his response to a similar situation earlier this year.

JayG said...

No one from the sash movement showed up at St. Paul's Cathedral at today's 10:15AM Mass, which also happened to be Confirmation day for all the Parish youth, and some recent converts.

JayG said...


JayG said...

This is one of two background articles that should be read by everyone concerned about the recent school admission controversy in the Boston Archdiocese, and especially by anyone who will have a say in formulating a policy for the Boston Archdiocesen schools in respect to admitting children of practicing homosexual parents in the future. (The other article is "The Overhauling of Straight America,"

This isn't really about the child, athough the child is affected also. It's about not caving in to the homosexual agenda. If you're thinking "conspiracy theory" now, read on because the agenda was explained in these articles written more than 20 years ago by homosexual authors. The agenda is part of a spiritual battle.

Yes, the Church does often let different "categories" of people go to its schools. But unlike the other "categories" of people, the homosexual movement is out to destroy the Church. The purpose of the people in this incident was to paint Catholic belief about human sexuality as wrong and force others at the school to adjust to homosexual "parents."

"After the Ball -
How America will conquer its fear and hatred of Gays in the 90s"

The homosexual propaganda campaign in America's media: the powerful, sophisticated psychological techniques that the homosexual movement has used to manipulate the public in the media.

If you think that the radical changes in the minds of Americans -- and in your own mind -- about homosexuality in the last decade are an accident, you must read the section below.

From the 1989 book, "After the Ball - How America will conquer its fear and hatred of Gays in the 90s" (Penguin Books) which immediately became a beacon for the then-emerging homosexual movement.

Building on the basic strategies outlined in Marshall Kirk's groundbreaking 1987 article, "The Overhauling of Straight America", this book puts forth the very sophisticated psychological persuasion and propaganda mass media techniques that we've all seen and been affected by over the years -- but never understood what was happening...

follow link to read more

Paul Anthony Melanson said...