A panel of the Archdiocese of Boston has proposed an additional 37 parishes for closure, alongside those already recommended by local "cluster" consultations. It's not clear whether these are all additions to the earlier list, or whether some of the choices are alternatives to those originally proposed.
Sadly, this proposal isn't surprising. I recall from a recentl Globe article that these parishes are *in addition* to those previously announced. The Archdiocese felt it was better to give the additional parishes warning "in case" they were going to close. Maybe that's a good idea, maybe it isn't. You want to give the parishoners notice, but then you leave them in limbo until a decision is made (later this year, if I remember right).
Unfortunately, the $85 million settlement Archbishop O'Malley reached with sex-abuse claimants last fall probably isn't going to come close to covering the real cost of the abuse coverup in Boston. That's with 400 particular victims, and there probably will be many, many more to come forward. Sex-abuse victims often can't talk about it for more than 20 years later, and many of these priests were in ministry until the past couple of years. O'Malley may simply be planning ahead for future settlement costs.
Such are the costs of a delibrate, multi-decade diocesan policy of covering up the crimes of "members of the clerical club." Yeah, two weeks of counseling at St. Lukes, and reassignment, will overcome deep-seated sexual pathologies. Such thinking--repeatedly carried out by Law and deputies such as McCormack and Banks--directly led to endangering boys in parish after parish. This mind-bogglingly dense thinking doesn't pass the "papa bear" test, and testifies to the utter disconnect of the Law chancery from many realities of life.
God be with Archbishop O'Malley in trying to clean up the mess from Medeiros and Law's coverup. The fact that O. was able to reach a settlement with the major group of claimants *two months* after taking office-this after Law's pit-bull lawyers had put them off for two years--is an encouraging sign. Unfortunately, we have not yet seen signs of O'Malley being willing to clean up a major source of the sex-abuse scandal: dissenting priests and institutions in his diocese which make it easier for those already so inclined to rationalize acting-out homosexual inclinations, criminal or non-criminal.
The "final" list is supposed to be released May 25, so it won't be long.
Better that the people of these parishes learn their fate sooner rather than later.
I've wondered what role the sex-abuse scandal has had in O'Malley's unwillingness to deny Communion to the Kerrys, despite their irregular marriage and visible pro-abortion advocacy. The Kerrys are not even a difficult case; O'Malley and McCarrick's hand-wringing is unjustified and inherently raises scandal.
O'Malley likely realizes that to challenge the Kerrys would mean challenging the culture of dissent and hedonism within his own diocese, and that might be far more institutional discomfort than he is willing to bear in an already turmoil-rocked diocese. Which is not to justify his inaction in the least, but to indicate one potential reason.
Is there any possibility that one of the closing sites could instead be ceded to the Anglican use parish that is currenly without permanent digs?
I doubt it. The Anglican-use congregation in Boston is -- I'm guessing here -- about 50 people, so it fits easily into the convent chapel it's using.
Closing St Joseph's in Hyde Park is going have a very depressing effect on an already depressed neighborhood. Unfortunately, a lot of the older parishioners are fed up and will just give up and quit receiving the sacraments rather than make the short hike over to MBP or Sacred Heart.
This is probably also true for many of the other parishes.
Just as bad: will some priests give up when their parishes are closed?
One hopes that the priests won't give up. But from what I read, a lot of Boston-Archdiocese priests are pretty demoralized these days. They merit our prayers and support; may God be with them. The suspicion of the few wolves among them falls upon them all.
Meanwhile, Law deputy John McCormack, whom the New Hampshire courts specifically chastied for under-oath deception in his own clerical sex-abuse coverup, remains in office undenounced by any of his episcopal peers.
In Patristic days, bishops denounced fellow bishops as needed; the guild functioned to police itself and protect the Church's mission. These days, the episcopal club protects its fellow corporate officers first. And good priests bear much of the cost.