Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mel Gibson builds a $37m church in the Malibu hills
Perth Now ^ | September 5, 2007 | Peta Hellard

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 ...


TOPICS: Catholic; Current Events; Worship
KEYWORDS: 666; catholics; divorce; malibu; melgibson; taxevasion

1 posted on 09/06/2007 11:50:13 AM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Lady In Blue; Salvation; narses; SMEDLEYBUTLER; redhead; Notwithstanding; nickcarraway; Romulus; ...
The church was the venue for the wedding of Gibson's only daughter Hannah, who was walked down the aisle by her father in a private ceremony - reportedly conducted entirely in Latin - last September.
2 posted on 09/06/2007 11:51:15 AM PDT by NYer ("Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" - Ignatius of Antioch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

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.


3 posted on 09/06/2007 11:58:34 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYer
conducted entirely in Latin - last September.

So was ours -- last September.

4 posted on 09/06/2007 12:04:00 PM PDT by Romulus ("Ira enim viri iustitiam Dei non operatur")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYer
"MEL Gibson has poured a further $10 million into his controversial sect in the Malibu hills"

Hmmm, interesting prose. Were Mel a homosexual liberal, it would have read this way:

"Mel Gibson has bestowed a gift of $10 million on his progressive church in the lovely Malibu hills...."

Funny what a difference a few well-placed words can make.
5 posted on 09/06/2007 12:04:18 PM PDT by Antoninus (Republicans who support Rudy owe Bill Clinton an apology.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Were I a Catholic in that area, I'd have a real dilemma on my hands--follow the Mahoneyite schism or the Gibson schism.... Hmmmm.

Truly, I'm not sure which is more damaging to one's soul.

In the end, I'd probably end up with either the Byzantine rite Catholics or the Maronites.
6 posted on 09/06/2007 12:07:05 PM PDT by Antoninus (Republicans who support Rudy owe Bill Clinton an apology.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
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.

Comments, Roman Catholics?

7 posted on 09/06/2007 12:07:12 PM PDT by Bosco (Remember how you felt on September 11?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
reportedly conducted entirely in Latin

OOOOoooooohhhhhhhh ... conducted in Latin

8 posted on 09/06/2007 12:08:18 PM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilisation is aborting, buggering, and contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYer

He should have first banned skirts on men.


9 posted on 09/06/2007 12:09:14 PM PDT by mtbopfuyn (I think the border is kind of an artificial barrier - San Antonio councilwoman Patti Radle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Is Mel SSPX?


10 posted on 09/06/2007 12:17:22 PM PDT by jjm2111 (http://www.purveryors-of-truth.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
the troubled actor-director

I don't think one very public DUI qualifies one for "troubled" status.

11 posted on 09/06/2007 12:25:55 PM PDT by JennysCool ("The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bosco

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.


12 posted on 09/06/2007 12:26:56 PM PDT by Argus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
Were I a Catholic in that area, I'd have a real dilemma on my hands--follow the Mahoneyite schism or the Gibson schism....

I believe we already traveled down that road ...

Why Doesn't the Pope Do Something about "Bad" Bishops?

13 posted on 09/06/2007 12:50:25 PM PDT by NYer ("Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" - Ignatius of Antioch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jjm2111
Is Mel SSPX?

From what I understand, he is sedevacantist but not sure if he is SSPX.

14 posted on 09/06/2007 1:01:57 PM PDT by NYer ("Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" - Ignatius of Antioch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: NYer
The church has an unlisted phone number, keeps its address a secret and has asked members of the congregation not to release the information

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.

15 posted on 09/06/2007 1:04:05 PM PDT by Between the Lines (I am very cognizant of my fallibility, sinfulness, and other limitations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Argus
I don’t believe the Society of Pius X (which I believe is Mel’s “schismatic group”)

I think Mel's involved with a sedevacantist "independent" group, not SSPX.

16 posted on 09/06/2007 1:06:58 PM PDT by Campion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Gibson is clearly searching deeply for a spiritual anchor but he's drifted off into loony tune land, probably caused by a visceral reaction to the lunacy of Mahony, Brown, Niederauer et al.

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.

17 posted on 09/06/2007 1:36:40 PM PDT by marshmallow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
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.

"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

18 posted on 09/06/2007 2:24:05 PM PDT by Dajjal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Argus; Bosco; ArrogantBustard; Convert from ECUSA; AnAmericanMother; sittnick; ninenot
Argus: SSPX was declared schismatic and its leaders and adherents excommunicated by John Paul II in 1988 for the consecration of bishops in direct defiance and disobedience of papal authority and orders. No papal document has modified those rulings since. SSPX apologists claim that there is no schism and no excommunications but the document by which Pope John Paul II declared SSPX scismatic and excommunicated its leaders and adherents was Ecclesia Dei. Several schism sympathizing bureaucrats (notably Dario Cardinal Castrillon de Hoyos) have issued confusing statements useful to the schismatics claiming that there is no schism and no excommunications but he lacks any authority whatsoever to lift either.

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.

19 posted on 09/06/2007 2:35:57 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk

Thank you for the correction.


20 posted on 09/06/2007 2:52:49 PM PDT by Argus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk; Argus
Argus: SSPX was declared schismatic and its leaders and adherents excommunicated by John Paul II in 1988 for the consecration of bishops in direct defiance and disobedience of papal authority and orders.

False.

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."

21 posted on 09/06/2007 3:26:59 PM PDT by Youngstown
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Dajjal

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?


22 posted on 09/06/2007 4:23:16 PM PDT by NYer ("Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" - Ignatius of Antioch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Youngstown; BlackElk; Argus

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.


23 posted on 09/06/2007 4:27:56 PM PDT by NYer ("Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" - Ignatius of Antioch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Let’s play “count the buzzwords” in this one:

controversial
secluded
private
secretive
antiquated
strict
exclusive
old-fashioned

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?


24 posted on 09/06/2007 4:37:46 PM PDT by denydenydeny (Expel the priest and you don't inaugurate the age of reason, you get the witch doctor--Paul Johnson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

This is not a Catholic Church accepted by the Archdiocese of LosAngeles.

Totally private church.


25 posted on 09/06/2007 4:39:18 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Christiane Amanpour said that on CNN where she was trying to equate an evangelical Christian outfit called "Teen Mania Ministries" with the murderous Taliban. See here (in the first set of block quotes).

For a few days Laura Ingraham used it amongst the soundbytes she plays over her opening theme music. LOL!!!

26 posted on 09/06/2007 5:30:59 PM PDT by Dajjal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: NYer

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?


27 posted on 09/06/2007 6:05:59 PM PDT by Gerish (Feed your faith and your doubts will starve to death.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
At one time, Mel Gibson sent his son to an SSPX school.

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...

28 posted on 09/06/2007 10:54:46 PM PDT by topher (Let us return to old-fashioned morality - morality that has stood the test of time...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: JennysCool

“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.


29 posted on 09/06/2007 11:12:05 PM PDT by truth_seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Youngstown
John Paul II was pope. Marcel was not. John Paul II was in communion with the Holy See. Marcel was not. John Paul II was Catholic and, once Marcel excommunicated his insolent self Marcel was not Catholic. Those who were consecrated as SSPX bishops excommunicated themselves. Those who adhere to the schism did likewise. Ecclesia Dei 1988. That you pose as a sedevacantist demonstrates the obviousness of self-excommunication. Sedevacantism is even further out than the SSPX schism. God gave Peter and his successors the keys to judge you. You have no authority to judge Peter and his successors. If your tastes are offended, tooooo baaaaad!
30 posted on 09/07/2007 12:18:11 AM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: topher

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.


31 posted on 09/07/2007 12:28:39 AM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
Hmmm, interesting prose. Were Mel a homosexual liberal, it would have read this way:
"Mel Gibson has bestowed a gift of $10 million on his progressive church in the lovely Malibu hills...."
Funny what a difference a few well-placed words can make.

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.

32 posted on 09/07/2007 5:33:05 AM PDT by starfish923 (Socrates: It's never right to do wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Bosco
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.

Baloney.

33 posted on 09/07/2007 5:33:57 AM PDT by starfish923 (Socrates: It's never right to do wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Dajjal
Christiane Amanpour said that on CNN where she was trying to equate an evangelical Christian outfit called "Teen Mania Ministries" with the murderous Taliban. See here (in the first set of block quotes). For a few days Laura Ingraham used it amongst the soundbytes she plays over her opening theme music. LOL!!!

Amanpour is a load of garbage.
Thank goodness for Ingraham.

34 posted on 09/07/2007 5:36:30 AM PDT by starfish923 (Socrates: It's never right to do wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Bosco

Gibson’s an apostate, plain and simple. I pray that he comes down from the clocktower.


35 posted on 09/07/2007 6:18:29 AM PDT by Rutles4Ever (Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia, et ubi ecclesia vita eterna)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Youngstown

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.


36 posted on 09/07/2007 6:27:05 AM PDT by Rutles4Ever (Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia, et ubi ecclesia vita eterna)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk

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”.


37 posted on 09/07/2007 6:29:46 AM PDT by Rutles4Ever (Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia, et ubi ecclesia vita eterna)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
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.

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."

38 posted on 09/07/2007 7:35:21 AM PDT by Rutles4Ever (Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia, et ubi ecclesia vita eterna)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

Exactly/


39 posted on 09/07/2007 7:36:48 AM PDT by Dante3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
What I had heard came from folks (relatives of mine) who are in St. Marys, Kansas, and are part of SSPX. They were the ones that told me the story.

From the account of Jim Caviezel, it was clear that the Vatican helped with The Passion of Christ, as least from Jim's perspective...

40 posted on 09/07/2007 11:59:04 AM PDT by topher (Let us return to old-fashioned morality - morality that has stood the test of time...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Building reverence to God; I would thou coulds’t.


41 posted on 09/07/2007 3:14:12 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onedoug; Frank Sheed; Salvation; sandyeggo; Claud; dsc
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.

42 posted on 09/07/2007 4:43:49 PM PDT by NYer ("Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" - Ignatius of Antioch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson