A reader has some rather pointed questions for the inept Cardinal Archbishop of Boston

I summarize them as follows:

1. Father Stockholm Syndrome has had this style of ministry consistently for a quarter century; why is it suddenly a big issue?

2. After banning lay groups from using property they paid for, is it really wise to now ban priests from meeting?

3. Where is this going to stop? Are you next going to put the archdiocese under interdict and forbid them from gathering for Mass?

4. Why would you take this action without at least talking to Fr Syndrome? We don’t know why you did this, whether it is punitive, directed at Fr. Syndrome, or the parish or the hundred priests…

5. You just antagonized a hundred priests who wanted to meet–without explanation. You abruptly cancelled their meeting. Now they either scramble for a new venue or have to reschedule. Do you have any idea what you’ve done?

Good questions all. For myself, I have no idea if Fr. Syndrome was told privately by Law why the meeting was cancelled. But there was certainly no public explanation.

It’s sort of like watching Leo X’s inept and ham-fisted dealings with Martin Luther. Question 1 particularly highlights the problem now facing any future attempts at reform. A new bishop (Cardinal Law: hint! hint! ) would be able to credibly put the brakes on the lemming-like rush to exacerbate exactly the sexual license and heresy which got Boston where it is. But the current bishop is in a very hard position for being taken seriously when he develops a sudden interest in doing things he should have done 20 years ago.

Update: A reader sez: “Hi, Mark. I think your reader and the AP reporter may be misreading the Cardinal’s order.

The dissenting Fr. Walter Cuenin’s parish, known jocularly as “WallyWorld”, has been a frequent site of official events for many years, most notably for the visit of Mother Teresa.

The Cardinal’s order bans official archdiocesan events from lending their prestige to WallyWorld. Of course he should have done this 20 years ago, and it seems a ridiculously weak move now. Anyway, it’s not clear that the order forbids individual priests from meeting and discussing anything.”