AmericanPapist Comments
Last weekend, with a protestant guest speaker at my parish, I went to the next town. The Jesuit there who has uncountable liturgical abuses in his Mass (no Eucharistic prayer, only the basic words of consecration for example) said that where he once was pessimistic about this conservative pope, he is now at least cautiosly optimistic.
I thought this was a good thing. If this dissenter would begin to truly respect the Holy Father, maybe he will actually listen to him and begin to clean up some things. I hope the same for other cafteria Catholic leaders.
Wasn't it St. Augustine who said that one must bring a soul to love before you can lead them to a morality?
I think St. Augustine is a perfect soul to look to in reflecting on things like this. I love the stories of people who "turn it around".
Magdalen - I will be praying for the Jesuit you mentioned in your post...but in light of the earlier posting about the flood of applicants to the seminary following the Pope's visit, it leaves me with all the more hope that these new applicants can grow in Christ, be properly trained in the liturgy and the teachings of the Church, and form a new generation of priests to lead us. What a great thought!!!
We shall see............
I wish I could be a little more optimistic, but as I read it a lot of what he said rang hollow.
What does he define as his failures? Not suceeding in silencing Mother Angelica & shutting down EWTN?
If he is serious, he will have to start a complete housecleaning. When he does that, then I will take him seriously.
I'll believe him. Prayers going his way.
To be a Catholic layperson is an experience in being repeatedly kicked in the teeth. I'm not getting excited by this letter. Let's just wait and see.
I first read about this on Fr. Z's blog.
What struck me was this paragraph:
For me personally, the two most memorable moments of grace with our Holy Father were ones shrouded in quiet prayer, silence and few public words: his meeting with victims of sexual abuse in Washington, D.C., and his visit to Ground Zero in New York. Both of these events had the dignity of silence, the depth of sadness, and the promise of hope-filled prayer - and both captured deeply the most wounded parts of our Church and of our country.
My understanding was that only HH B16 and P Sambi were with the abuse victums. Is his imminence saying that he was there in the room?
The fact that he publically acknowledges his failings as cardinal gives me reason to hope. If Card. Mahony was not at the abuse victim's meeting, then I think that this is more of the same BS from him.
A comment on an item in your list of Cardinal Mahoney's offenses:
The new cathedral in L.A. is not "ugly." It's certainly modern. But, it has many good features -- including the beautiful and powerful "Communion of Saints" tapestries that line the nave walls.
Also, how is it "vacant"?
It is ugly in that it does not conform to objective aesthetic criteria. A small part being beautiful does not mean the entire thing itself is not ugly.
For example: A team may play a bad football game, but have one or two very good plays. The thing is judged as a united whole, and not by its individual parts.
It is vacant in that it is not filled with the faithful at prayer, assisting at the mass.
It has earned the nickname, "Our Lady, Queen of the Borg."
It's still not as ugly as that monstrosity going up in Oakland.
Prayer as an insult. I find a certain strain of disrespect and insult directed toward clergy when someone says, "I will pray for them." It sounds like they are going to "pray" that the clergy conform to their lay view of what a member of the clergy should be.
Cardinal Mahoney's ministry to HIS diocese may not please some of the clergy, but he is a Cardinal of the Roman Church (an elector of the current Pope) and a legitimate authority in his particular church.
No one else has that authority, except the Holy Father with his unique universal jurisdiction.
In my opinion, folks who assume they have the right of supervision of the Archbishop of Los Angeles are simply out of their league.
And they are very, very rude.
Donald, I don't know anyone who reasonably disputes your points (except perhaps that on rudeness which might be open to various opinions), but by the same token you should also grant that, eg., Canon 212 leaves plenty of room for responsible, and if deserved hard-hitting, criticism of certain ecclesiastical leaders.
As one who was once a part of the diocese of Los Angeles the part Cardinal Mahoney's comments that stuck out the most was:
"After all, concelebrating Mass with the Pope and tens of thousands of people..."
The problem is this - Tens of thousands of people (lay people) do not concelebrate - it is just this type of unorthodox belief which lies at the foundation of his "mistakes and failures". His document on the celebration of the Eucharist, Gather Faitfully Together, is the key case in point and the statement above indicates clearly he has not changed his thinking in this at all.
I wish I could hope for a change in Cardinal Mahoney but his statement does not give me that option.
Joel, do you think that might just be a matter of semantics, and a poor choice of words, although unintentional, of Cardinal Mahoney?
And Donald, I think we should, and do, pray for all priests everywhere. But I don't think that under any interpretation, lay or clerical, it's ok to omit the Eucharistic Prayer from the Mass.
When the cardinal talks about the silence associated with the Holy Father's meeting with the victims of clergy sexual abuse, is that really an indication that he was present at the event?
When the cardinal talks about concelebrating Mass with the Holy Father and tens of thousands of lay people, is it a fair interpretation to say that the cardinal is claiming that those tens of thousands of lay people were also concelebrants, or rather that the Mass consisted of the Holy Father, the concelebrants, and the lay people?
If Mother Angelica had not counseled the faithful archdiocese of LA to disobedience, she would not have been subject to critique, let alone canonical review (she and her ministry in fact deserved the penalty of interdict).
It seems you folks will take the off-hand comments of a publicly-moved Archbishop to the most nonsensical conclusions.
The monstrosity par excellence is the thing being built in a tomato patch in Florida. Now that is ugly!
"...(she and her ministry in fact deserved the penalty of interdict)."
Evidence?
The tree needs to be pruned.
"You will know them by their fruits."
Bill912 [aka Perry Mason :-)],
I think you'll be waiting a while on that one...
The LA cathedral isn't merely ugly. It's monstrous and hideous--purposely so, in my opinion.
That said, I believe that anyone may be brought to repentence through the Grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ. If Cardinal Mahoney became a strong voice for Christ and His teachings as defined by the Church, and turned his diocese around in his final years, I would rejoice.
Our cathedral in L.A. has it's many detractions, but I've come to really appreciate it. And quite frankly, I get tired of all the L.A. bashing. The Cardinal has his faults (as do we all), but he really tries to make the cathedral a place of welcome to all, and to participate in a mass there, you really feel part of the huge, diverse community that is L.A.
If the Holy Father's visit does not convert the Cardinal's heart, maybe God will see fit to stop it. I am OK with either option.
Stephanie,
It is quite possible that you are correct in your interpretation of Cardinal Mahoney's commnent regarding concelebration; and I would be most happy to find that you are on the mark.
Here is my problem; I have heard, read and seen too much of Cardinal Mahoney and his use of fuzzy phrases to be easily convinced. It is also sad but true that most if not all modernists use this tool - words that can be interpreted multiple ways - to allow themselves to say what they want and cry out that they are misunderstood when they get caught.
I will continue to pray for him: whatever may be his failings, I do not know his heart, and as he is a Prince of the Church, I owe him that even if - especially if - I am saddened and concerned regarding his leadership.
Perhaps you could throw a prayer for me also as it is always possible that I am too jaded and suspicious
j
Cardinal Mahony is a great bishop who has stood up for the rights of all Catholics, from the unborn to migrant workers.
He does not approve of or foster liturgical abuses. Mother Angelica never read his pastoral letter on liturgy (which dealt with practices rather than dogmatic theology).
Like many bishops, liberal and conservative, he seriously failed during the sex abuse crisis.
The Cathedral is not "ugly". It is not empty. Go there for a weekday mass and you'll see how it is continually full of people.
The best account of the Taj Mahony is at "V for Victory": http://v-forvictory.blogspot.com...lf-this-
is.html
Michael-- You're absolutly correct about his fidelity to pro-life issues and his dedication to the poor. Those things are commendable, indeed!
But don't kid yourself about Liturgical Abuse. See AmP: http://www.americanpapist.com/20...n-
congress.html
You call the building of the Cathedral "deeply imprudent." And perhaps the timing of such an expensive project could have been better. Obviously the expensive payout from the scandal comes to mind -- though hard to obviously plan for something like that.
But a larger cathedral is actually what the Archdiocese of Los Angeles needed. The previous church that served as the cathedral was about the size you'd expect for a diocese about 1/20th its size.
And I agree the architecture design to the Cathedral is terrible. I would never chose that design.
But the Archdiocese of Los Angeles truly was in need of a Cathedral. And I can't imagine any design coming under $200 million. Cathedrals have their cost. And if cathedrals are beautiful (alas LA's is not), they are worth every penny.
I'll believe he's 'converted' when he doesn't have that awful 'Religious Education Congress' anymore....
Commenting by HaloScan
