Skip to comments.Cardinal Speaks (Mahony blames abuse crisis on Pre-Vatican II type priests, Latin and cassocks!)
Posted on 07/17/2007 2:05:50 PM PDT by baa39
Just got off the phone with Cardinal Roger Mahony. Below are my notes from the conversation. (snip) What about the charge that the problem is a lack of discipline and orthodoxy in the seminaries?
Well, first of all that's one of the things that we still are studying. As you know, the bishops are conducting a study of causes.... In our case, many of the priests came out of the "good old days" -- Latin-only, cassocks-only.... Most of our cases did not come out of post-Vatican II, they came out of pre-Vatican II.
Of course today, our screening process, our evaluation process, the fact that we take in older men, we don't take in guys out of high school or even grammar school -- it's a whole different frame of reference for the process of choosing seminarians. There's psychological evaluation, constant monitoring. We do everything we can to make sure that the people being ordained don't have a problem.
On why he didn't call the police when he learned of abuses:
Unfortunately, in those times we just didn't do that as readily, we didn't understand the depth of the problem.... The McMartin trial was first time in the state of California that this whole issue came into the spotlight, into the light of day...
(Excerpt) Read more at insidesocal.com ...
a picture worth a thousand words!
Counting down like that, I imagine you are one of the unfortunate faithful to live in his Archdiocese? I hope you’re wishes (and no doubt prayers) are promptly fulfilled; it’s common for bishops to wait until almost just before their 76th birthdays to officially submit the resignation, and then it can take months or years to name the replacement. However in this case I would imagine the Holy Father is personally involved in making a short list of candidates already.
Oh, and another thing, the Our Lady of the Angels Cathredral is simply no church building. Even the soon to be open Carbela’s in my hometown will look a whole lot better.
That Taj Mahoney was a hugh mistake. Does not look like a church at all.
Church rules says he has no choice, 75 is stepping down time.
If there are potholes on the road to Hell, not to worry: Mahony can’t live forever, and his skull will be available soon enough.
MONK that wrong dude LOL!
NOT COOL least Baghdad Bob he lie for Iraqi govt LOL!
I seem resemlence
No, the problem is sin. The problem is hypocracy. It is inexcusable that clergy fail to see it as it is and condemn it for what it is. Not a euphemism. Not propound a lie to excuse the inexcusable. It magnifies the churches negligence. Jesus never shyed away from calling it the way it was. Hypocrites,sepulcres full of dead mens bones. Get on your knees and in the closet and get right with God.
Here is the URL:
At least it can be rebuilt and done RIGHT.
I believe there are insurance policies that will be covering most of this. I didn’t even know such things can be covered by insurance, but one learns something new everyday.
In the Portland Archdiocese, much of the legal wrangling was with the insurance companies, who came around and are paying a big chunk. However, in the Spokane Diocese (state of Washington), they aren’t so lucky. Bishop Skylstad there has informed his people that they “share in the responsibility” for the abuse, and would they kindly fork over $4000 per family to pay the claims. (And we thought Mahony had nerve!)
He didn’t give exact numbers, but Mahony stated that the majority of the funds will come several insurance policies and the rest from other sources(i.e. laity or rainy day funds).
I disagree... have you toured the building? It is a wonderful work of architecture. Architecture and especially religious architecture is evolving with the advances of our modern world and culture. Just because it is not replication of cathedrals from the Middle Ages does not make it a mistake. Many people put their most creative work into the cathedral. Many, many artisans DONATED their work. Just because it was built during the reign of Mahoney, does not diminish it.
... but then again I love the arts. Historically the Catholic Church has been one of the foremost benefactor of the arts and architecture. (At least this is one thing he may have done correctly).
Why no mention of brothers and nuns? Probably because the incidents were treated identically, but the cover-up succeeded, and I doubt there are as many orphanages in the US now as there was 85 years ago. There are many orphanages in Mexico where I am now writing this, and I hear stories. I can’t say anything to you that would recompense you for what you endured, other than to note that you endured and thrived despite the circumstances.
According to insurance payouts, the rate of RC related abuse and non-RC related abuse is about the same. That means there is a lot more of this out there that is not made public but in other denominations. Not in any way trying to minimize what happened, but I am saying that there is a lot that is not mentioned, and it is not confined to one religion. It is heinous in each circumstance.
Can you please show pictures of the new cathedral to show me what is so nice about Our Lady of the Angels, at least a website that has pictures this new cathedral. One that gives a virtual tour. Thank-you.
Paging Pope Benedict
c. 1401 case for sure.
From the bottom of my heart, heartly wish that Mahony be blessed with two scorpions dropped down his drawers (after a box if itching powder is sprinkled down them first).
There are a couple of facts about the abuse scandal that many people do not know. The first is that there are provisions in canon law for dealing with priests who are accused of misconduct, including sexual misconduct. However, the bishops of this country chose not to use these provisions, not to try these accused priests before tribunals. If they had, they could have gotten rid of the guilty ones. The second fact is that when the bishops approved their much-ballyhooed Charter on the Protection of Youth and Children, they exempted themselves from its draconian provisions. The bishops have truly behaved an irresponsible and hypocritical fashion. Mahony’s excuses are just that, excuses.
I think this is where the culpability of "the spirit of Vatican II" (as opposed to the Council itself) comes into play. The "spirit" of Vatican II blended with and fed off the "spirit of the '60s" -- the sexual revolution, "do your own thing," God wants us to be "happy," etc. Self-discipline, self-denial, sacrifice were out. And the "helping professions" (the therapists to whom offenders were sent for an enlightened "cure") only added fuel to the fire.
Sex abuse was still in the closet 30 years ago, most kids weren't taught to be aware of it either and when it happened, a lot of them were too embarrassed to tell anyone. It was a different climate.
Yes. The root of the problem is that many of them had bought into the psychologization of sin. Either they themselves were poorly catechized, or they simply lacked faith, and trusted in the world.
When psychologists recommended "rehabilitation," many bishops went along willingly. This was a gross abnegation of responsibility, since sin falls well within what should be their sphere of competency. Similarly, bishops should be well acquainted with the philosophical shortcomings of various schools of psychology. But Freudianism, Jungianism, and Behaviorism were very potent cultural forces from the '50s to the '80s. They are only now being seriously and generally questioned.
You've got a good point there.
But there IS another secular notion which was influential, that was/is the Therapy/Treatment model.
For decades after, it seems, WWII, there were influential people in the dioceses and in the religious orders who believed that what should have been called a crime and a sin, was actually just something of a psychological nature that needed compassionate treatment.
Plus there was a widespread conviction in therapeutic circles that criminal proceedings against offenders would re-traumatize the victims: that it was pointless and cruel to get victims under oath to testify against their abusers.
Therefore, all the victims needed was money (to pay for therapy) and all the priests needed was a transfer (to facilitate therapy) + a "second chance."
The Church's legitimate interest in a compassionate approach, + loyalty to brother priests, + avoiding "re-traumatizing" the victims, was twisted into this policy of clerical offenders being sent off for treatment, paralleling the alcoholic-priest model.
In other words, it wasn't all pure corruption, if I can use that paradoxical term. There was also wrongly-directed compassion involved.
When are these so-called "therapists" going to go on trial?
Evolution can be either positive or negative. Most "advances of our modern world," like modern art and architecture, have gone in a southerly direction, to put it kindly.
Sorry, but I can't agree. It's not a compassionate approach if evey word coming out of your mouth is a lie. The church had ZERO intentions of making sure the priests never did it again. They supoposedly threw some head shrinkers at them, personally I think they just had other priests tell them, "what they did was wrong in God's eyes and don't do it again". That is not a psychological therapy, that is trying to guilt someone into doing the right thing. They already knew it was wrong and chose to do it anyway. So the church then just sends them to prey on other children in a new parrish.
I believe that your list of reasons assumes the church itself was concerned about the victims. I contend that is patently false since they let sexual preditors loose on a new parrish and didnt' follow up on the priests AT ALL. Compassion for victims should include NOT allowing the horrible act to happen to another person.
In fact, I know of a priest in my home town diocese who, prior to our area, molested at least on prior parrish. He was was then sent to THREE other parrishes since the one in my area. A FOUR TIME repeat molester, adn the church just sent him off to another parrish to do it all over again.
I personally know of situations in my childhood diocese of Erie, PA where the "therapeutic" model reigned supreme: a genuine attempt to help the youths who had been molested, but based on the wrong-headed idea that "treatment" or "counseling" was the key to everybody (abuser and abused) being able to make a "new beginning."
On the other end of the state - Diocese of Allentown, it was pedophile free reign. Pay the money, ship the priests off to a new parrish, ignore the problem completely - Wash, rinse, repeat.
Good news, I did some google search and found the website for the OLAC. Is taking a look, but it is deep for a website. I am suprise there is no virture tour, but other then for that it is a good site.
What's the market like for slightly used Cathedrals in Los Angeles these days?
Yes, that's true, but it's a bit deeper than that. The normalization of same-sex orientation, brought to fruition by the 1973 removal of that orientation from the diagnostic manual of disorders, meant that "treatment" and "therapy" was not even really treatment or therapy.
If one denies that same-sex attraction is disordered, then sending abusers off to "therapy" cannot possibly solve the problem.
Even if the APA had continued to consider SSA a disorder and therapists had continued to treat it, sending a priest off for therapy and thinking him "cured" would have been a problem because therapy for this particular disorder is very, very difficult. You are right that trusting in therapy, even if the 1973 "normalization" had not taken place, rather than dealing with it as sin and packing the offender off to hair shirt monastery incarceration, would have been misguided.
But the denial that SSA is a disorder is the root of the problem because it makes therapy not only impossible but actually, in the eyes of the gay activists, makes therapy itself an evil. If SSA is "normal" and not disordered, then to insist on therapy for a non-disorder is itself an injustice to the "normal" person. So the "therapy" to which these abusers were being sent was actually not even trying to solve the problem. That's why the "therapy" and reassignment approach of the 1970s and 1980s was so destructive.
So the deepest problem was then and remains now the belief on the part of too many priests and bishops, that SSA is not even a disorder but can be "healthy" and "holy" if the person suffering from SSA will only stay "chaste."
Today the Church still insists it is a disorder but far too many Catholic leaders have bought the lie that it is not a disorder. That's the real battleground. And we are approaching the point where to insist that it is a disorder will be criminalized as hateful and hate crime.
At the same time, however, I have to insist that casual heterosexual fornication, treating heterosexual intercourse as recreation, the widespread pornographic mindset (which has affected almost all of us to some degree) is disordered. It differs in degree from person to person, but it has made deep inroads into the culture. We are dealing with sexual disorder, both homo and hetero, on a massive scale. It is terribly destructive. Remaining chaste not merely externally but internally in this situation is the fundamental challenge, of which SSA disorderedness is a huge subset.
You are so right. If SSA is normal, then conceivably the Diocese could have argued that in court. But that would have blown their argument out of the water, because no court would have bought that.
Better to settle than to expose the Truth of all this. I celebrate that this good Pope is on first.
They were only thinking of their own hot pants. Smell the smoke?
Those great big ones that keep turning up in people's tents in Iraq. . . .
Well, if they could sell THIS in Portage MI
. . . they ought to be able to sell ANYTHING in LA . . . .
(the Episcopalians are responsible for THAT abortion . . . )
The caustic Diogenes has picked up on this news tidbit (and ‘sound off’ comments almost as good as some Freepers):
Well KFI 640am radio here in SO Cal has report that guess where Roger Mahoney getting support believe or not large Latino community in SO CAL reason is Roger Mahoney build it up during Amensty battle on immigration gee wonder why
The therapy itself was -- at least in many cases -- more than questionable. An article in the Boston Herald when the scandal broke quoted someone familiar with the materials used who said that they were practically a how-to book for abuse!
I think your view is a personal one, which is fine with me. I personally try to enjoy varied creative approaches to art and architecture. My education and work is tied to that field. Criticism of Mahoney is justified, but should not have any bearing on the work of so many others who brought this project to fruition. By the way... all the money was raised for this project through donations. I believe I have some documentation somewhere in my files regarding this.
“One man’s ceiling is another man’s floor.”
OK, three scorpions! And make them the great big ones in the picture! Excellent!
The problem with the idea that we should approve of "varied creative approaches to art and architecture," (in this instance, anyway) is that a Catholic sanctuary has a particular purpose, and that purpose is served by particular types of architecture.
When a professor of architecture is turned loose to do as he wills, you often get some pretty wild ideas that don't facilitate or help Catholic worship.
In this case, I would say that the Brutalist style writ large is simply NOT appropriate for a place of worship.
I think it is subject to your own personal preference. I have actually been in the space and toured the entire facility. Looking at photos on a website does it no more justice than looking at any other religious space on a website.
If you do visit Los Angeles I would encourage you to take a tour of the facility. There was great care taken in the design of this space.
It might make a great "Crystal Cathedral". But is it appropriate for a Catholic cathedral? I don't think so -- it lacks many of the necessary ingredients. And their presence and absence can be ascertained from photographs, you don't need to be there.
Cool organ, though.
Great care I was speaking of had to do with countless artisans who donated their time and work... for them it was a work of love and a work they believe they were doing in service of Christ and the Church.
The “handsome” rewards paid to the architect, builders, project management companies, interior design associates and others were rightly paid and made their way into the pockets of many who were were employed as a result of this endeavor. The funds to provide these rewards were all privately donated and did not come from parishioners tithes.
I again would encourage those who are so quick to malign this project to take the time to tour it in person. As for it being “Catholic” enough... I don’t quite know what necessary ingredients you feel it is missing.
Just for an example, the 'teaching office' of the architecture is completely missing. The interior is dark and monotone and lacks the lively brightness and variety of Catholic architecture. The ceiling (astounding in such a large space) is oppressive because of its dark color and curving down instead of up. Other than the rather static and flat panels of saints along the side aisles, there is NOTHING specifically "Catholic" about this cathedral. It's divorced from the liturgical tradition. No stained glass, no statues, no beautiful reredos or roodscreen, no high altar. I can't find the Tabernacle anywhere - Jesus has been exiled from His own church into some side chapel or closet somewhere. And WHERE is the crucifix that should be the focus of the sanctuary? The altar is isolated in the middle of a raised circular platform - bare, naked. It's a huge cavernous vacant space illuminated by alabaster paned windows that shed a cold light.
It's an architectural tour de force, no doubt, and it's very impressive (not to say oppressive) in its very scale -- but it's an architectural tour de force, not a Catholic tour de force.
I don't begrudge them the money, the workers obviously worked hard and are good at what they do -- particularly the stonemasons -- but lots of money and lots of work was misdirected here.
The mind boggles.
They could have restored St. Vibiana's, the old Cathedral, which was a gorgeous, traditional Catholic cathedral. Instead, they spent $cajillions on what is referred to locally as the Yellow Armadillo.
But don't take my word for it -- here's an architect who took on How It Should Have Been Done. A Counterproposal for Our Lady of the Angels. Scroll down to Jan. 22. It's worth a look.
My first hand experience was that the space was not dark. The design of the windows actually bathes the space in soft light. The space has a very spiritual feel - but then again that is my personal observation. Jesus is quite present in the space for me.
I would suggest that those who read what you have said, contrast it with the published information on the Cathedral website. If they take the time to read through the sections on art and architecture, as well as the comments from the art consultant Father Vosko, insight can be gained as to the creative thought process behind their work.
You personally seem to have an aversion to anything other than traditional approaches to art and architecture. I can respect that, but there are many of us who love contemporary work as well.
The architect whose blog you reference looks like a losing contender for this project. He is also a designer with a traditional style. Nothing wrong with that, but also nothing wrong with contemporary church architecture either. BTW - I am a local and have never heard anyone refer to the cathedral as a "yellow armadillo" prior to reading this architect's blog.
RE: St. Vibiana's - The Chapel of St. Vibiana on the mausoleum level features the reliquary of Saint Vibiana, the altar from the old church as well as a beautiful display of St. Vibiana's stained glass windows - all completely restored.
The Cross and Jesus are quite prominent:
This is the architectural cross located to the left of the altar. Light pours through the alabaster insets between the cross beams. This is the human scale Cross:
I love the tapestries:
But I've seen too many contemporary architects abuse church design. Too often, the church is subjected to the architect's whims to the point that it cannot function as a church. Our former Episcopal church was like that, even extensive renovations couldn't cure the problems completely.
The photos I saw did not have the crucifix in evidence, it must be removable. And of course I have to defer to your first-hand experience.
There are many photos of the space that were taken before all of the elements had been placed.
I agree with you that many contemporary architects do profane the concept of a church.
I don’t believe that has happened in this instance.
The only profane thing about this complex is Cardinal Mahoney. He needs to find another profession.