I've just added Cardinal Seán O'Malley's blog to my bloglist. As Archbishop of Boston, he's my bishop, and I just learned that he was the first Cardinal to have a blog. Much of what he writes is a journal of his daily activities, which are quite different from most of ours. As you can see, bishops have to attend a lot of events, and don't get to spend a lot of time behind their desks.
What makes this especially timely is that the latest post contains a reference to his statement on the issue of a parochial school which refused enrollment to the child of a lesbian couple.
The latest post also has a reference to the pirate queen, Grace O'Malley, and to a cursillo for men in one of the Massachusetts prisons.
Also, if you're reading this, Lunario, you may be interested to see the reference to the book in Portuguese.
So I hope you'll give this a glance when new posts arrive. At least sometimes there should be something of particular interest, and it gives some insight into the work and thinking of a Catholic cardinal archbishop.
I know I'm way behind on acknowledging new followers. I'll get to it eventually. But even without mentioning you by name, I'm grateful for your interest.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I like it when public figures do things such as blogging or Twitter, because it let's you see into their lives more so than if you just watched them on TV or something, and it is really quite interesting to read.
I had a look at the blog and read the two latest posts. I found them both quite interesting, though i had to stop myself from reading too many comments on the post regarding refused enrollment. Some opinions get me riled up. :P
I've always found religion very interesting for some reason, and i find myself having more respect for people of faith as i grow up, or mature. :P
Thanks for the link.
I had not wanted my first comment to your blog to be negative towards the Catholic Church but I feel strongly on this subject.
Actually, it is not the Catholic Church that this rant is about. It is directed towards all organized religions' intolerance of those who don't accept their dogma that raises my dander so.
"He made a decision about the admission of the child to St. Paul School based on his pastoral concern for the child."
Really? Rejection definitely can do wonders for a for a child's self esteem!
This child is in no way guilty of the sins(?) of the parents. If God loves us all, surely a Priest can find it in his heart to set aside his prejudices for the sake of an innocent child.
What is the "pastoral concern"? Could it be a desire to protect the child from exposure to the Church's intolerance? I could probably buy that, but in my view the concern would better be directed towards the Church and not the child.
I realize that these comments demonstrate a degree of intolerance on my part, but dang it, some things just push my buttons!
Thanks for the thoughtful comments.
@ Peter — Yeah, the blog gets you much more in-depth than the usually brief coverage on TV.
@ Mirrorboy — St. Augustine wrote in his "Confessions," addressing God, "You have made us for yourself, and our hearts are restless until they rest in you." I'd like to think that is why you find religion very interesting. Be that as it may, I commend both your interest in religion and your respect for people of faith.
I'm not surprised that you found some of the comments irritating. I'm sure that other readers in this corner of the blogosphere would feel the same — as did other commenters. The issue is hardly open-and-shut, IMO. See my response to Mister Ed.
@ Mister Ed — I'm glad you decided to comment on one of my post. You raise some fair questions. While clearly the good of the child has to be a primary concern, that does not necessarily mean that the decision was the best for that purpose. I tend to think that if that was the motive, the decision was misguided.
Certainly, it was to be expected that the child would be presented with what the Catholic Church teaches about homosexuality. Whether that teaching is "intolerance" or not is at least debatable, IMO. But one can reasonably expect that it would raise some questions and concerns in the child's mind. Does this mean that the good of the child requires that he be kept out of the school and net be exposed to the teaching? That hardly seems a reasonable position to take if one believes that the teaching is correct. One should consider it to be in any child's best interest to be presented with what one believes is true.
Maybe the priest thought that the conflict between the teaching and the child's home life would be too distressing. I can see how he might have thought so, but I still think that he went the wrong way on a judgment call. Fr. Rafferty may be a fine priest in many ways, but that doesn't mean he's always right.
BTW, the priest in my parish was very clear, the morning the story appeared in the paper, that he thought the decision to exclude the child was wrong.
Post a Comment