Archive for the 'Pastor’s Thoughts' Category

Let us follow His star.

Thursday, December 24th, 2015

IMG_9436 crop adj res

Mainstream Media Promotes Hollywood’s ‘Spotlight’ Movie and the Boston Globe’s Dishonest Reporting

Saturday, November 21st, 2015

** Fact Checker: Mainstream Media Promotes Hollywood’s ‘Spotlight’ Movie and the Boston Globe’s Dishonest Reporting

November 10, 2015 |

While Hollywood and the Boston Globe would want you to believe that the new movie “Spotlight” is an impartial dramatization of the paper’s 2002 reporting on sex abuse in the Catholic Church in Boston, the truth is something else entirely.

As “Spotlight” slowly makes its way to theaters across the country, mainstream media movie reviewers are grossly distorting the truth about the Catholic Church sex abuse story.

For example:

“The Spotlight team found that those in power knew about the abuse.  That included the head of the Boston Archdiocese, Cardinal Bernard Law, who continued the pattern of moving Father John Geoghan from parish to parish despite his history of serially molesting boys.” (WBUR, 9/4/15)

Not even close.  The mainstream media won’t tell you this, but the Boston Globe’s reporting routinely minimized the critical role that secular psychologists played in the entire Catholic Church abuse scandal.  Time after time, trained “expert” psychologists around the country repeatedly insisted to Church leaders that abusive priests were fit to return to ministry after receiving “treatment” under their care.

Indeed, one of the leading experts in the country recommended to the Archdiocese of Boston in both 1989 and 1990 that–despite Geoghan’s two-decade record of abuse–it was both “reasonable and therapeutic” to return Geoghan to active pastoral ministry including work “with children.”

The Globe’s rank hypocrisy

And it is not as if the Globe could plead ignorance to the fact that the Church had for years been sending abusive priests to therapy and then returning them to ministry on the advice of prominent and credentialed doctors.  As we reported earlier this year, back in 1992–a full decade before the Globe unleashed its reporters against the Church–the Globe itself was enthusiastically promoting in its pages the psychological treatment of sex offenders–including priests–as “highly effective” and “dramatic.”

The Globe knew that the Church’s practice of sending abusive priests off to treatment was not just some diabolical attempt to deflect responsibility and cover-up wrongdoing, but a genuine attempt to treat aberrant priests that was based on the best secular scientific advice of the day.

Yet a mere ten years later, in 2002, the Globe acted in mock horror that the Church had employed such treatments.  It bludgeoned the Church for doing in 1992 exactly what the Globe itself said it should be doing.  The hypocrisy is off the charts.

The Church’s secrecy that wasn’t

Another example:

“‘As soon as we discovered that the church had made secret payments to victims of other priests–which one of the attorneys referred to as hush money–we began to realize that of course the church did know, that it had to know, and that its sole interest wasn’t in the children,’ [ex-Boston Globe editor] Walter Robinson said, ‘it was in keeping the story quiet’.” (WBUR, 9/4/15)

While Hollywood and the Globe would want you to believe that the Catholic Church demanded secrecy from victims when doling out settlements, the truth is that it was the other way around: it was the victims who had demanded secrecy from the Church.

How do we know this?  For starters, even the Globe itself has finally admitted this.

In an article on Monday June 3, 2002, the Boston Globe buried this crucial admission from Boston contingency lawyer Mitchell Garabedian: “Garabedian said he harbors no regrets about the settlements he negotiated in secrecy, often at his clients’ insistence.  ‘They were embarrassed, and many victims thought they were the only ones,’ he said.”

In other words, Robinson’s claim is simply bogus.

Just the tip of the iceberg

As a movie, “Spotlight” appears to resemble The Wizard of Oz more than anything factual.

Suffice it to say that the Boston Globe’ dishonest and biased reporting could fill a book, and that book is [David F. Pierre Jr.] Sins of the Press: The Untold Story of The Boston Globe’s Reporting on Sex Abuse in the Catholic Church.

Thoroughly detailed and footnoted, the fast-paced Sins of the Press will change your mind about the Boston Globe and its lauded reporting on the Catholic Church sex abuse scandal.


Here is  the recommendation by the psychological expert to return Geoghan to ministry.

Just last week, Boston television network WCVB unleashed a startling revelation on its evening news:

“[WCVB] found in recent years, on average, the licenses of 15 Massachusetts educators are suspended or revoked each year for sexual misconduct. But there aren’t always charges.”

15 teachers. Each and every year in Massachusetts schools.  Suspended for sexual misconduct.  And almost all of these cases never see the inside of a courtroom.

Compare this with the Archdiocese of Boston, where the last time a priest was publicly accused of contemporaneous abuse of a minor was in January 2002, thirteen years ago.  So according to the findings of WCVB’s investigation, there has been nearly 200 public school educators found to have abused students in Massachusetts since the last time a priest was publicly accused.

Missing in Action

So where is the Boston Globe on this explosive story?  It has not published a single syllable about WCVB’s stunner. The paper and its crack “Spotlight” team are nowhere to be found.

Instead, the Globe simply continues to promote itself ad nauseum with article after article about the new Spotlight movie, in which Hollywood predictably does violence to the truth in its attempt to bash the Church.


Even CBS news reported that the cases of child sexual abuse in public schools do not get the media attention they deserve.  It quotes without quibble Hofstra University researcher Charol Shakeshaft, who received federal funding for her work through the DOE, remarking: “Think the Catholic Church has a problem?  The physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests.”  It is rarely given major covered by the national media except when a 22 year-old blond knock out thinks she found her soul mate in an 8th-grade boy in her class and it gets physical.

Bread Of Life Discourse in John 6: Literal of figurative?

Sunday, August 23rd, 2015

The context in Jn 6 makes clear that every act of Jesus and device that John (Jn) uses affirm that Jesus means His flesh and blood.

The discourse of Jesus in Jn 6 has two parts.  Both are important:

(A) vv 35-50 — Jesus, the bread of life, nourishing us in His TEACHING and in our personal RELATIONSHIP with Him. –a transition in v 51 – “and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”
(B) vv 52-58 — Jesus, the bread of life, nourishing us as the true Passover Lamb, who gives His slain body and spilled blood for the life of the world.

**In both (A) and (B) as elsewhere in his gospel John uses the protests of “the Jews” as foils to stress Jesus affirmative, literal meaning and intensify it.**

In the case of (A), in 6:41 he narrates that “the Jews” challenge how Jesus can have come down from heaven; and John also recounts Jesus’ affirmative, literal answer (6:43-50, esp. v 46) which comports with His same teaching elsewhere (e.g., Jn 1:18; 3:13,31).

We than transition in 6:51 from the first part to the second part.

Again in (B) the pointed protestations of “the Jews” (6:52) serve as a foil for Jesus’ affirmative, literal answer (6:52-58) that is nothing short of in your face as to its meaning. He says it 4 times in 4 consecutive verses (53-56) that we must eat his body and drink his blood, followed by 2 verses (57-58) that reaffirm what He just said.

This use of “the Jews” by Jn can be seen in that they also protest Jesus’ statement that Abraham saw His day and was glad (8:56). The author again narrates Jesus’ affirmative, literal response (8:58-59), where Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM.”  Later these are “the Jews” who also want to stone Jesus in protest for saying He and the Father are one (10:30-31).  He again goes on to give a literal, affirmative response (10:32-39)–He reaffirms He is the Son of God and says: “Father is in me and I am in the Father.”  In all these cases (including 6:41,52) “the Jews” understood exactly what Jesus meant.

Back to Jn 6, next the evangelist notes that even some of Jesus’ “disciples” were perplexed (6:60) and He responds by asking if this teaching “shocks” them, and then says something else that He will literally do: ascend into heaven.  And then the gospel writer comments that because of this teaching many of Jesus’ disciples left (v 66).  Even this did not cause Jesus or the evangelist to allegorize or apologize.

Some argue that when Jesus says His words are “spirit and life” (6:63) He means the teaching that we must eat His flesh and blood is metaphorical or figurative or symbolic. This argument does not hold up for at least three reasons:

(1) The word “spirit” is not used to characterize a statement as figurative in Jn.  Instead the theme runs through Jn of the powerlessness of humanity of itself (“flesh”) to produce new birth and salvation and that these can only be the work of the Spirit.  We see this in Jn 1:13–“flesh” versus “God” who is spirit; 3:6–“flesh” versus “spirit.” This is its meaning in Jn 6:63.

(2) “Flesh” is not used figuratively in John. “Temple” is a metaphor for His “body” (2:21): it “refers (figuratively) to His body.” “Bread” is a metaphor for Jesus and His teaching (Jn 6:24-50), “Water” for the Holy Spirit (4:14; 7:38-39), as “Leaven” is for the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees (Mt 16:12). In John “flesh”, however, sometimes refers to Jesus’ body as in v 51 and vv 53-58, but literally not figuratively. Mostly, though, “flesh” in Jn denotes literally “humanity of itself” i.e., the human in man and women as distinct from the work of God (1:13; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2), OR the humanity or “body” of Jesus (1:14; 6:51, 53-58).

(3) Both Jesus and Jn characterize statements as figurative quite clearly when they want to (6:32-35; 11:11-14) even explicitly (re the temple in 2:21, the gate in 10:6, and a woman in labor in 16:25, 29). Yet there is no mention of metaphor, symbol, parable, figure or any such clarification in 6:63.

11:11-14 – “He said this, and then told them, ‘Our friend Lazarus is asleep, but I am going to awaken him.’ So the disciples said to him, ‘Master, if he is asleep, he will be saved.’ But Jesus was talking about his death, while they thought that he meant ordinary sleep. So then Jesus said to them clearly, ‘Lazarus has died.’

re the temple in 2:19-21 – “Jesus answered and said to them, ‘Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.’ The Jews said, ‘This temple has been under construction for forty-six years, and you will raise it up in three days?’ But he was speaking about the temple of his body.”

the gate in 10:6-7 – “Although Jesus used this figure of speech, they did not realize what he was trying to tell them. So Jesus said again, ‘Amen, amen, I say to you, I am the gate for the sheep.’”

and a woman in labor in 16:25, 29 – “I have told you this in figures of speech. The hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figures but I will tell you clearly about the Father. . . . His disciples said, ‘Now you are talking plainly, and not in any figure of speech.’”

He is Risen! Happy Easter!

Sunday, April 5th, 2015

IMG_8582 res

Good Friday! Behold the wood of the Cross.

Friday, April 3rd, 2015

IMG_8576 res

Mass of the Lord’s Supper followed by Adoration. Tonight 7-10 PM. Fill our seats!

Thursday, April 2nd, 2015

IMG_8566 rot adj res

Have a Blessed Holy Week!

Sunday, March 29th, 2015
Palm Sunday

Palm Sunday

Have a blessed and fruitful Lent!

Friday, March 6th, 2015

IMG_8467 adj res

-2 °F on March 6, 2015

Friday, March 6th, 2015
sign of the times

window in side foyer of church


The Crusades and ISIS morally equivalent?

Monday, February 9th, 2015

In the light of President Obama’s recent equation of ISIS and the Crusades (at the National Prayer Breakfast!) I thought this article from world-class scholar of the Crusades might clear the air a bit.  Also check out this video for a political/military comparison.