Those great big ones that keep turning up in people's tents in Iraq. . . .
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 ...
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):
http://www.cwnews.com/offtherecord/offtherecord.cfm
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.