They are a tiny band of antiabortion zealots, being exploited by the hierarchy in hopes of promoting a backlash against reformers outraged by the criminal conduct of predatory priests and the bishops who protected them.And at the end of her column:
Sadly, Archbishop Sean P. O'Malley and Bishop Richard G. Lennon are willing to exploit them as long as their antics distract attention from the real challenges confronting the church.So Ms McNamara somehow knows the motives of Archbishop O’Malley and his associate. She says they hope to “promote a backlash” against reformers (by which she means the Voice of the Faithful organization) and to “distract attention from the real challenges confronting the church”.
Is there a shred of evidence that this charge is true? None is presented. Is Eileen a clairvoyant? Then how does she justify the charge that the Archbishop of Boston is acting out of these motives? She doesn’t have to, it seems, in order to get her column published.
Will the Boston Globe's editors give a license to anyone who trashes the Catholic hierarchy these days? After a BC-bashing photo in 2004 (see here and here), Metro editor Carolyn Ryan when asked about anti-Catholic bias as the reason said ‘it’s unfortunate if we gave people cause to even think that.’ Yet with absolutely no substantiation, a Globe columnist attributes Machiavellian motives to the actions of the Catholic Archbishop, and the Globe editorial process gives the column a complete pass. Would the Globe treat Boston’s leading minister, rabbi, or imam the same way?
Sadly, I must say this column gives me “cause to even think that”.