Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Catholic diocese: Pedophile Mansion must be protected from gay marriage

Timothy Kincaid

July 30th, 2012

At some point in the last century, the Catholic Church came up with an idea: since priests are scarce, rather than toss out those who molest children, why not refurbish them (and their reputation) instead and send them to a new place where no one knew about their pedophile tendencies. And if a few more kids get raped (or a few hundred thousand), well at least they didn’t lose any priests.

Towards that effort, in 1973 Worcester, MA, priest Rev. Thomas A. Kane opened House of Affirmation at Oakhurst, a beautiful old mansion. As he had already been molesting a boy for five years, Kane was an ideal choice to head up the treatment of pedophile priests. And it gave Kane a convenient place to rape the kid and share him with other priests. Win-win (except, of course, for his victim).

But unfortunately for the diocese, Kane also committed a sin which the Church takes far more seriously and for which reconciliation is not offered: he engaged in financial improprieties with the Church’s money. And so, in 1990, Pedophile Mansion was closed and the Church (without the slightest hint of irony) reassigned the space to the Office for Youth Ministry.

Well now the Church has a need to get some ready cash; those busy-body courts keep awarding the victims of the pedophile priests with settlements. And there are only so many nunneries to empty or social services they can cut so now they have to look at the disagreeable task of selling mansions. And beautiful old Pedophile Mansion was put on the market.

James Fairbanks and Alain Beret were interested. The two had refurbished rundown grand spaces before and wanted to turn the mansion into a beautiful banquet facility. And as they had the support of various planning committees – who were delighted that the building would be restored rather than razed – they put in an offer and a $75,000 deposit.

But then there was a hickup. It was determined that a $240,000 sprinkler system would need to be installed.

And at that point, the Church decided to pull a fast one. Rather than renegotiate revisions to the standing contract, the Church’s broker suggested a new offer – one for only a portion of the 24 acres. And when Fairbanks and Beret retracted their previous offer and submitted the suggested smaller bid, the Church declined the offer, thus leaving them without a legal contract.

They had decided to pursue “other plans” for the property.

But as their intent had been to raise funds and divest the diocese of the costly overhead of maintaining the building, it seemed odd that the Church would make this move. Why could it be?

The “why” of their decision is shocking, but not surprising. At some point in the process the Church discovered that Fairbanks and Beret are not only gay but a legally married couple. And Worcester diocese of the Roman Catholic Church did not want to sell property to a gay couple.

Now it may seem extreme to speculate on something like that. And, of course, the church gave entirely different reasons. (Worcester Telegram)

This week, Monsignor Thomas Sullivan, who oversees the sale of diocesan property, told me the deal fell through because of financing.

“They couldn’t come up with the money,” he said. “This happens all the time.”

I told him the potential buyers believed that he rejected the deal because of their sexual orientation, or the prospect of gay marriages someday being performed at Oakhurst. Was that an issue?

“No, it wasn’t,” Msgr. Sullivan said. “It was an issue of them not having the financing. That was all.”

But, as it turns out, it’s really not a matter of guesswork or differing perspectives. The Church was kind enough to put in words exactly the reasons for their chicanery and bigotry and their agent was stupid enough to include it in an email chain to Beret. And – as seems to be the chief role of Catholic hierarchy – Monsignor Sullivan was lying:

I just went down the hall and discussed it with the bishop. Because of the potentiality of gay marriages there, something you shared with us yesterday, we are not interested in going forward with these buyers. I think they’re shaky anyway. So, just tell them that we will not accept their revised plan and the Diocese is making new plans for the property. You find the language.

No no no no no no no. Not gay marriage. Pedophile Mansion is perfectly fine for molesting children in, but not gay marriage.

Of course, no matter who owned the building, if it was refurbished to be a banquet facility then it could not deny gay couples the same wedding services it offered to opposite-sex couples. But amongst anti-gays these days, the existence of a gay person raises the immediate threat of a gay marriage and then their brain shuts down (… click). There is exactly zero chance that the Church had any reason for denying the sale other than that the purchasers were gay (GAY? But Gay Marriage!!!… click)

The diocese is soon going to discover something fascinating. It’s illegal in the state of Massachusetts to discriminate in the conduct of business. You can’t refuse to sell to customers simply because they happen to be gay. You can’t even refuse to sell to customers because you fear that the gay customers might use what you’re selling in some way that involves gay marriage (…click). And if you are so amazingly stupid as to document your bigotry and then lie to a reporter about it… well, it’s not going to go over well either in the news or in a courtroom.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0

Chuck
July 30th, 2012 | LINK

Ouch. The church should realize that even they are not above the law.

Jarred
July 30th, 2012 | LINK

Chuck: Why? They’ve gotten away with flouting the law for so long, it’s unsurprising to me that they’d keep trying.

Priya Lynn
July 30th, 2012 | LINK

Jarred, you’re right, the church considers itself the ultimate arbiter of justice.

TampaZeke
July 30th, 2012 | LINK

Timothy, I will say here just what I said in one of the other threads, when you have established a long history of lying to prop up an unjust and unfair institution you find yourself lying when the truth sounds better!

Yet another example to add to the list I provided.

KZ
July 30th, 2012 | LINK

I wish them the best of luck in protecting the Pedophile mansion.

I wasn’t so lucky. Gay marriage destroyed my last house and raped my shed.

Mark F.
July 30th, 2012 | LINK

The jokes practically write themselves on this one…

Duck
July 30th, 2012 | LINK

“The “why” of their decision is shocking, but not surprising.”

No, Timothy, the “why” of their decision is not shocking. What would have been shocking is if the Catholic Hierarchy involved had actually stated that they wished to keep the property so they could molest more boys, but to keep it out of the hands of the gays? Not shocking or surprising.

Doodie
July 30th, 2012 | LINK

Here’s a fun display of Catholic Gullabity. The Real Estate market has come to this? Burying upside-down plastic Saint statues in their lawn in the hopes that it will increase the chance of a quick home sale. Many Catholics actually believe this! http://doodiepants.com/2012/07/17/st-joseph-sell-my-home/

Jarred
July 31st, 2012 | LINK

Doodie: That’s not Catholicism. That’s actually a practice from one of the Afro-Caribbean religions. (Santeria, I think, but don’t quote me on that.) I know good friends who have done this and swear by it.

Not sure who pre-packaged it into a marketable product, though.

Andrew
July 31st, 2012 | LINK

Umm… in MA this may be legally actionable. It’s not legal to abrogate a contract due to anti-gay animus.

Dave
July 31st, 2012 | LINK

The outcome of any legal case is unclear and such a case could make new law. Although MA does prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, it is also burdened with a disturbing legal precedent from the MA Supreme Judicial Court from the early 1990s. The SJC held that a religious landlord who denied a rental to an unmarried heterosexual couple was exempt from the state’s antidiscrimination law. The religious motivation behind the discrimination meant that it constituted an “exercise of religion” and thus fell outside the scope of the law, held the SJC. Other courts have come out the opposite way.

It is an unusual quirk that many liberals, including the Obama-appointee to the US Supreme Court Elena Kagan, are sympathetic to this notion that religiously motivated acts are an “exercise of religion” that can’t be restricted or regulated except for compelling reasons. The SJC certainly felt this way 20 years ago. Anyway, if the current SJC holds to its prior holding, the church will prevail.

Charles
August 1st, 2012 | LINK

I’m a life-long church goer and currently work in the church. I have somewhat defended them up until now as not being actively malicious or at worst caught in a web not necessarily of their own making, but this really does put the nail in the coffin for me. Dear heavens. Our diocesan offices are nothing more than Tammany Hall with a cross on the roof.

Timothy Kincaid
August 1st, 2012 | LINK

Charles,

“Tammany Hall with a cross on the roof”. That is brilliant.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.