Skip to comments.Mel Gibson builds a $37m church in the Malibu hills
Posted on 09/06/2007 11:50:10 AM PDT by NYer
MEL Gibson has poured a further $10 million into his controversial sect in the Malibu hills as he oversees construction of a 400-seat church to expand his flock.
A federal tax filing reveals that the troubled actor-director made the large lump sum donation earlier this year to his Holy Family Catholic Church, which is situated in the secluded Agoura Hills.
The private church now has $37 million in its coffers - up from $27 million last year, according to the tax document.
Gibson's secretive sect is not recognised by the Roman Catholic Church because it does not acknowledge the authority of the Pope or the Vatican and rejects the universally accepted teachings of the Second Vatican Council.
The church - which offers a daily morning mass in Latin - follows an antiquated ideology of Catholicism dating back to the 16th century.
Female followers of Gibson's church must abide by a strict dress code, requiring them to wear veils over their hair and long skirts, with a ban on pants for women.
The exclusive parish currently caters for about 70 families, with the existing chapel having seating for only 100 people.
However, the new church, located 400m up the hill from the current building, will seat about 400 when it is completed in the next 12 months.
Visible throughout much of the valley it overlooks, the high-ceilinged church is being constructed in the architectural style of an old-fashioned Spanish mission.
It is understood that Gibson, 51, also owns the construction company that is building his new place of worship.
Planning documents, seen by The Daily Telegraph, reveal that the current church building will become a meeting hall for the parish.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.au ...
I’m not sure if this is giving costs in US or Australian dollars. My guess is that it’s in Australian dollars, which are worth about $0.80 each.
So was ours -- last September.
Comments, Roman Catholics?
OOOOoooooohhhhhhhh ... conducted in Latin
He should have first banned skirts on men.
Is Mel SSPX?
I don't think one very public DUI qualifies one for "troubled" status.
I don’t believe the Society of Pius X (which I believe is Mel’s “schismatic group”) rejects the authority of the Pope, just the liturgical changes that grew out of Vatican II (but were not, contrary to what this article alleges, mandated by it). Maybe better-informed Catholics on this thread can correct me.
But you gotta love the editorializing in this supposed news article - “antiquated ideology” and all that. I can remember women wearing veils and eschewing pants, and men in suits, at the time of my first communion, 1957. I feel like a real antique.
I believe we already traveled down that road ...
From what I understand, he is sedevacantist but not sure if he is SSPX.
30188 W. Mulholland Highway, between Sierra Creek and Kanan roads. Though they have an unlisted phone number the address is no "secret" and it is highly visible.
I think Mel's involved with a sedevacantist "independent" group, not SSPX.
I pray that he finds his way back home and comes to his senses. I think he has a lot to offer but he's heading in the wrong direction at the moment.
"When I, you know, read that women have to wear skirts of a certain length, ... I think, you know, totalitarian regimes." --Christiane Amanpour 8/24/07
Mel Gibson bumpus ad summum
Bosco: Despite the self-serving suggestions of the SSPX schismatics at the time that The Passion of the Christ was released, I have seen no evidence whatsoever that Mel Gibson has adhered to the SSPX schism. The cited language about Mel's secretive cult is balderdash. He simply has Tridentine Masses said in his own private chapel. The priest who said daily Tridentine Masses on the set of The Passion of the Christ was a retired priest in good standing from Canada.
Thank you for the correction.
Only the two consecrating bishops, Lefebvre and Castro Mayer, as well as the four SSPX priests wbo were consecrated bishops, were said - by a V2 Church spokesman - to have incurred a latae sententiae excommuncation (automotatic under existing law) for consecrating a bishop without papal mandate. No juridical proceedings or the issuance or a formal decree of excommunication was declared against anyone.
Also the law had been instituted by Pope Pius XII to deal with the ChiCom false Patriotic Church, i.e imposed against false Catholics by true ones - instead of vice versa in 1988 - and to incur this penalty under the canon law it was essential that the new bishop be installed as a competing authority in a jurisdiction, i.e as an ordinary in a competing diocese to an existing Catholic one.
And of course those who hold to the true Faith and to the true Church are the real Catholics, not the apostate heretics of modernism of the false Church of Vatican 2.
John Paul II Denying Christ and Kissing the Koran
St Robert Bellarmine, "De Romano Pontifice", ("On the Roman Pontiff"), liber II, caput 30:
"Est ergo quinta opinio vera, papam haereticum manifestum per se desinere esse papam et caput, sicut per se desinit esse christianus et membrum corporis Ecclesiae; quare ab, Ecclesia posse eum judicari et puniri. Haec est sententia omnium veterum Patrum, qui docent, haereticos manifestos mox amittere omnem jurisdictionem."
"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."
What an absurd comment! Not all women look good in dresses, leaving them with little alternative than a tasteful pants suit. Does that, in your opinion, make them less devout?
The picture you have posted, speaks volumes about your total ignorance of the situation, and identifies your particular ‘schismatic’ faith. An apology is in order.
Let’s play “count the buzzwords” in this one:
I say string ‘im up now.
And how can a building be both “secluded” and “visible from much of the valley it overlooks” at the same time?
This is not a Catholic Church accepted by the Archdiocese of LosAngeles.
Totally private church.
For a few days Laura Ingraham used it amongst the soundbytes she plays over her opening theme music. LOL!!!
Not quite sure that line in article about him not recognising authority of the Pope. I thought Raymond Arroyo had cleared this up years ago when he interviewed him on EWTN. I can’t remember the whole interview, anyone else remember?
And, at one time, Mel Gibson would go to the SSPX Church in the LA Area (Saint Michaels).
Mel's son had behavior problems and the strict school seemed to straighten him out (I think). I believe it was the school of SSPX in St. Marys, Kansas, but I am not sure...
“I don’t think one very public DUI qualifies one for “troubled” status.”
Unlike some of the young women recently in the news, I read that Mel was meeting all the requirements of his sentence.
Assuming it was his first DUI, the sentence is not too harsh. But it escalates quite a lot, for a 2nd offense.
Either way, at the time of his incident, it was reported he had had a long time sober. I trust this wake-up situation has put him back on the sobriety path.
So, Mel is a sinner as am I and probably you too! If his chapel is either sedevacantist or SSPX schismatic we would have heard definitive proof as we have not. If Mel were a sedevacantist or an SSPX adherent and excommuncatus, The Passion of the Christ would still be a remarkable and valuable movie (just as the King James Version of the Bible is a magnificent work) and he would still be a remarkable movie artist and actor and the SSPX schism would still be a schism and its cult leaders and adherents still excommunicated. I am acquainted with some of the St. Mary’s, Kansas wingnuts and would not put my kids under their tutelage on a bet.
So true. The bias is blatant.
Note that this Aussie newsrag also writes: :A federal tax filing reveals that the troubled actor-director....
He isn't troubled; he's doing great. The "troubled" ones are the Sleazywoodians and media who detest Gibson. All for the making of his marvelous movie about Jesus. If he had made a mockery of Jesus, he would be a hero to those same people.
Amanpour is a load of garbage.
Thank goodness for Ingraham.
Gibson’s an apostate, plain and simple. I pray that he comes down from the clocktower.
Pope John Paul II’s kissing the Koran, I will be the first to admit, was an episode of poor personal judgment. What that has to do with the infallibility of the Papal office, I wish you could clue us all in on, because it’s not applicable. If this is your measure of what makes the chair of Peter vacant, then you must hold that the seat has been vacant since the time of the fiendish Alexander VI, who “denied Christ” in such a profound way that not even the priests at St. Peter would accept his body for burial at the time of his death.
Seriously, if you don’t understand what infallibility is applied to, stop spreading your errors.
What does canon law say about people setting up personal churches without recognition of the Vatican? I’m certainly no expert on this, but I’m guessing if one acts outside of communion with Rome, one is “outside of communion with Rome”.
Unfortunately, Mel's own words convict him:
"I agree with everyone who says the Vatican is a wolf in sheep's clothing."
Additionally, the following statement was made by Cardinal Mahoney - who I am no fan of, but still enjoys authority as Archbishop of Los Angeles:
"I know nothing about the Church in Malibu. It is certainly not in communion with the Universal Catholic Church nor the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. I have never met Mr. Gibson, and he does not participate in any parish of this Archdiocese. He, apparently, has chosen to live apart from the communion of the Catholic Church. I pray for him."
From the account of Jim Caviezel, it was clear that the Vatican helped with The Passion of Christ, as least from Jim's perspective...
Building reverence to God; I would thou coulds’t.
Yes - but - it is always important that we not lose ourselves in worship! In our great desire to worship the Lord and God of the Universe, there are those of us who humble ourselves and seek to show this through a devout worship service. For some of us, mired in liturgical abuse, we see that service in something more reverent like the Tridentine or Maronite Divine liturgies. These are ancient prayers, timeless in nature, that draw our hearts, minds and souls closer to God. But we must NEVER confound that desire with authentic worship, regardless of our own personal emotions. Recall what our Lord showed to St. Faustina.
How closely He is united [with His representatives]. ..He gives priority to their opinion over His. I have come to know the great intimacy which exists between Jesus and the priest. Jesus defends whatever the Priest says, and often complies with his wishes, and sometimes makes His own relationship with a soul depend on the priest's advice. O Jesus, through a special grace, I have come to know very clearly to what extent You have shared Your power and mystery with them, more so than with the angels. I rejoice in this, for it is all for my good. (1240)
It is so easy to stand in judgement of those priests with whom we disagree or who do not rise to the level of eucharistic celebration to match our expectations. You know my deep love, affection and gratitude to our Lord for guiding me to the Maronite Catholic Church. He had His reasons for instilling this burning love within my heart. I do not question it. Yet if tomorrow, the Maronite Church that I so dearly love should disappear, I would immediately return to any one of the local area RC parishes, even with their liturgical abuses.
Essentially, what I am saying is that we must never place the form of celebration above valid Godly worship. To do so, would be grievously offensive to Him. Our hearts may clamor for what our minds distinguish as a more reverent form of prayer but, ultimately, all worship glorifies God.
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.