But first and foremost...here is a new initiative:
You were good enough to reply to my message from July about the reconfiguration process and how Holy Trinity parish was overlooked. Based on your responsiveness then, I write now after reading your words in Saturday’s Boston Globe about how you support Catholic Charities brokering adoptions by homosexual couples. I would like to ask you to do a big favor for Boston-area Catholics. (And I am also asking my colleagues who get this message to forward it to others).
I see you are a very important man in the Catholic Church who has all kinds of influence. So, could you help us all—please just do not refer to yourself as “Catholic” in public for the future?
Also, before I and a few hundred of my colleagues copied on this message get too far along with our plans for a petition calling for your removal from Catholic Charities, maybe you can explain the following instances of where you opposed the Church:
--Supported adoptions by gay couples
--Attended big-ticket fundraiser for pro-abortion, pro-gay unions politicin
--Criticized Archdiocese for removing pro-gay pastor
--Recommended keeping parish open so pro-gay pastor could keep job
--Defied Bishop of Boston twice by taking money from dissident group
More details are below. We are anxious to get your reply on the following:
October 22, 2005: Because the Catholic Church’s position is that adoptions by gay couples are “gravely immoral,” why did you tell the Globe that Catholic Charitys should be accepting same-sex couples willing to adopt needy children? You said, "What we do is facilitate adoptions to loving couples. I see no evidence that any child is being harmed."
You are a very well-known and important executive, so maybe you see evidence us lowly people don’t see. Can you reveal how you are empowered with wisdom that the teaching authority of the Church lacks and the medical experts are missing too?
The Vatican document Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons says:
"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 human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case."
OK, maybe what the Vatican and the UN says are not well-enough-informed for someone as influential as you are.
Can you explain then why even the Boston Phoenix publishes evidence that “lesbian parents “raise queer kids.” The Phoenix, which I am sure you and your family read regularly, published a very good, if not an outstanding article--"Queer as your folks—A new study says gay parents create gay kids." Since you come across as knowing so much, maybe we can read it together. It says, “(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?", a 24-page article published in the April issue of the American Sociological Review, University of Southern California professors Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz found that the children of lesbian parents were more likely to experiment with same-sex relationships than those raised by heterosexuals. Girls raised by lesbians tended to be more "more sexually adventurous and less chaste" than those raised by straight parents.” Boston Phoenix, October 2001. Is this what you want for your own children? Is this not evidence of harm to a child?
Were you unaware of all of the health risks of homosexual behaviour? Here are a few examples: higher rates of interpersonal maladjustment, depression, conduct disorder, childhood abuse (both sexual and violent), domestic violence, alcohol or drug abuse, anxiety, suicide, death at an early age, incidence of anal cancer, HIV/AIDS, sexually transmitted diseases, and dependency on psychiatric care than heterosexuals. There is more detailed information at, and I listed details at the end of this message in case you do not web browse yourself:
Is the lifestyle which produces these effects what you want modeled for young troubled children and encouraged by the Catholic Church? Perhaps you have a gay or lesbian child or family member, and that is why you support the gay agenda?
I don’t want you to label me as homophobic, since I do have gay and lesbian friends and co-workers myself, and they are nice loving people. We have other worries about you calling yourself “Catholic.”
September 27, 2003: You were quoted in the Herald as saying, "Not even my dog believes that story”—that the archdiocese axed a the popular, gay-advocating dissident Newton pastor over a car lease and stipend that violated church rules. "The idea that a priest" is forced out "over a Honda paid for by the parish," said Meade, "is absolutely preposterous."
I hope your dog and my dog (George) can meet, since my dog says he doesn’t believe that you are even Catholic. Even more important, I ask you why is this preposterous? Authorities couldn’t convict criminal Al Capone on murder charges, so he was ultimately jailed in 1931 for tax evasion. People like you, Jack Connors, and Fr. Hehir publicly dissent from Church teachings all the time. If you are asked often by the Archbishop to serve in leadership roles, isn’t it totally consistent with current practices for the Archdiocese to keep a dissident like Walter Cuenin in a pastoral role and only remove him for money reasons?
September 16, 2005: you attended a $1,000/plate fundraiser for pro-abortion, pro-gay-unions politician Sen. Barack Obama (IL). Since the Church opposes abortion and gay unions, is this an indication of your Catholicism?
Did you know he has advocated for gay marriage and gay union before you gave him the reprieve? Did you know he publicly gave money to pro-gay legislators, and was booted from St. Brendan’s in Dorchester a few years ago for some inappropriate behavior or actions—something having to do with a youth group? Did you know 3 months after your committee gave him a reprieve, he organized a bus of parishioners to go to the MA statehouse and support the same financial disclosure AB Sean P. O’Malley opposes?
In 2002 and 2003, as vice-chair of Catholic Charities, I am told you and your buddies at CC defied Cardinal Law and then temp-bishop/apostolic administrator Bishop Richard Lennon by accepting funds from the dissident group, Voice of the Faithful—twice I think. On April 1, 2003 you were quoted saying, Catholic Charities board decided in December [when you first defied the Cardinal-archbishop] “that to turn down money from any contributor would be a mistake that might alienate other contributors.”
By the way, if you broke the then-Archdiocesan rules to take money you knew you were not supposed to take and you got away with it, is that why you think it is now “preposterous” that Fr. Cuenin was forced to resign? Do you and your dog think everyone can just take money and get away with it?
In conclusion, we are beginning to plan for gathering signatures to ask for your resignation from Catholic Charities and-or ask that the “Catholic” identity be dropped from the organization name, so your response soon would be very helpful. We were going to combine the two together in one petition, but if you think they should be separate, do let us know. Also, about how many signatures do you think it would take to get you to resign? Since you seem to do a good job of balancing your busy schedule with having time to talk to the media, I am also copying reporters directly to make it easier for you to talk to them and respond to me also. Thank you.
Mary Jane Davis, Brookline
p.s. Friends, colleagues, and bloggers who are reading this, please feel free to share any of this information you wish with others.
Isn't that a great letter?
Re: Oust Meade Initiative...there's much more coming down the pike on it and we're gonig to need to move into some action items in a week or two....