Posted on 09/11/2007 6:43:12 AM PDT by NYer
Three nuns who recently learned that their Santa Barbara convent would be sold to help cover the costs of Los Angeles' multimillion-dollar priest sexual abuse settlement say they have been overwhelmed with offers of help -- and media attention.
"The support has been just unbelievable," said Sister Angela Escalera, the local superior of the Sisters of Bethany house. "It's come from all parts of Santa Barbara and outside too. And from all denominations. It's just astounding." She and two other nuns at the small, eastside convent received word in late August that the dwelling, which is owned by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles, would be sold to help pay for the church's $660-million priest sex abuse settlement. At least $250 million of that amount will be paid directly by the archdiocese.
Escalera, 69, a retired notary public and social worker, has lived at the convent since 1964. She is still an active community volunteer, working mainly with the area's many poor and undocumented residents. Another of the nuns, Sister Consuelo Cardenas, 55, has lived in the building about 25 years and works as a religious education coordinator at a nearby parish. The third, Sister Margarita Antonia Gonzalez, 49, is a relative newcomer to the community, having lived there about four years. They have until Dec. 31 to move out, according to a letter sent by the archdiocese.
Since news of the likely sale broke last week, the phone at the convent has been "ringing and ringing and ringing," Escalera said Monday. Among other appearances in the past week, the nuns have twice been interviewed by Spanish-language television network Telemundo and on Friday by the hosts of the "John & Ken Show" on talk radio's KFI-AM (640). "We feel real bad for her, getting tossed out of her home like that".
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Gonzalez, left, and Escalera read the letter from the archdiocese telling them they were being evicted. "We're just so hurt by this," said Escalera, who has lived in the convent since 1964.
Gonzalez, left, and Escalera read the letter from the archdiocese telling them they were being evicted. "We're just so hurt by this," said Escalera, who has lived in the convent since 1964.
The Sisters of Bethany convent is next to Our Lady of Guadalupe Catholic Church in Santa Barbara.
Escalera says the most hurtful part of the proposed sale of her convent is that the proceeds will be used to pay for the misdeeds of pedophile priests.
What a classic shot. The one on the staircase.
The world was a better place when Christians had nuns.
Quite a black statement for the son of a woman who grew up in Boston with Richard Cardinal Cushing as the local priest.
Maybe all the financial help that’s being offered can be used to build the dear ladies a modern, handicapped-accessible residence.
***Among other appearances in the past week, the nuns have twice been interviewed by Spanish-language television network Telemundo and on Friday by the hosts of the “John & Ken Show” on talk radio’s KFI-AM (640). “We feel real bad for her, getting tossed out of her home like that”.***
VERY bad publicity for Cardinal Mahony...
There are still plenty of members of the Catholic Church who have moral authority and backbone. It's just too much of her hierarchy who have had their God-given authority lessened.
We still have them, and more than many folks think. Young ladies, in habit, joining explicitly traditional and orthodox orders. Many such orders have been formed in the last 20 years, and are overwhelmed with vocations.
Meanwhile, the '60s leftovers that "kicked the habit" are vanishing.
Yes, very bad publicity for him. As it should be.
Yes, very bad publicity for him. As it should be.
Yes, of course, money can and does buy anything. But this is their home . How much do you suppose Mahony will get for this old house that hasn't been updated in decades, and, is next door to a Catholic Church. That is probably up for sale as well. Let him sell that monstrosity he calls a cathedral!
His silken tongue is controlled by other forces; he'll talk his way out of this jam.
Alfredo Rodriguez thanks Sister Angela Escalera for helping with the paperwork to allow his wife in Mexico to join him in the U.S. Escalera and the two other nuns at the Sisters of Bethany convent help poor, mostly immigrant residents is east Santa Barbara.
However, in my opinion, excessive attachment to an earthly dwelling place is inconsistent with the religious vocation. I would expect religious, even more than laity, to see Heaven as their home, and the building as a temporary shelter.
I know it’s wrong of me to be glad, but I think he chose the wrong people to pick on. I think it will backfire in ways he never imagined.
All the talking in the world will not be able to cover up his cruelty. People are seeing him for what he is - a heartless villain.
I know of several aging priests in Los Angeles County who, although part of various orders and not technically “diocesan” priests, have lived at various parishes, administered the sacraments regularly at said parishes, had decades-long tenures at Catholic High Schools, and have been drummed out in the last year by Mahoney. Not even to sell the property. A number of them have been effectively kicked out and removed from their lifelong ministries into a state of quasi-retirement. These are not priests with any allegations of any wrongdoing. They’re simply becoming a burden to the archdiocese and Mahoney basically told them to go back to their orders.
This incident, therefore, is hardly suprising. What’s so shocking is not that Mahoney has the authority to do this - he does. It’s technically not “their” home - they don’t profess to own anything. It’s property of the archdiocese, plain and simple. What IS shocking is how grossly UNNECESSARY this is in the scheme of the archdiocese’s financial woes. To put a minor dent in their debts owed to abuse victims, they’ve decided to up-end the lives of these holy women. Could they have picked on a more sympathetic group? It’s truly mind-boggling and further evidence that the inmates are running the asylum in L.A., completely tone deaf to the plummeting reputation of our Church and digging the hole even deeper.
I am not surprised, however, by the outpouring of charity towards the nuns by others. God provides for those who do His work.
We still have them, and more than many folks think. Young ladies, in habit, joining explicitly traditional and orthodox orders. Many such orders have been formed in the last 20 years, and are overwhelmed with vocations.
What a nice thought. Not everyone is cut out for marriage and the orders gave people more scope than they have today.
Mahony is a real piece of work.
I think we should be careful about referring to Mahoney as a “heartless villain”. His actions are clearly questionable, but the authority of his office should always be respected, since that authority is irrevocable and comes from God. Popes can be personally immoral, too, and when they have been, the villification which followed has provided ammunition to enemies of the Church to declare the seat of Peter “vacant” or of no longer having any moral authority. I don’t want to see Mahoney’s clearly objectionable actions to become fodder for neutering the office of bishop of its God-given authority. Out of due respect to the office of bishop, I hope we can take the high road and avoid pejoratives that don’t include prayer for Mahoney’s conversion of heart.
I address this post to myself, first and foremost, because I have prayed little for the bishop but criticized him much.
Ouch. *bang head on desk*
I said he's a Goa'uld.
Truly, but to my own discredit, I can't remember ever praying for him. Sadly, none of our criticisms have altered his path. Maybe we should be praying that much harder for his conversion of heart. Like I said in the above post, there's a fine line between discrediting Mahoney and unintendedly discrediting the office of bishop.
I agree with her. It is despicable that the heinous actions of a few are leaving so many (in addition to the victims of course) caught in it's wake. It's heartwarming to see the love for these Sisters poured out on them from the area.
I have prayed for him, but not enough. When a person is causing this much harm to others, there’s really nothing useful to do *except* pray, because only God can change him.
That's mild compared to some of the insults I've concocted.
I do respect the office of bishop. That’s why I have no respect for him. And I do pray for him, every time I say my Rosary. I pray for his conversion - his return to Jesus and the authority of the Holy Father. In the meantime, his actions are those of a scoundrel. I’m sorry, but the truth cannot be overlooked and swept under the rug. It does no good to “take the high road” if one can’t call a spade a spade. He is causing scandal in the Church and I’m sure he knows very well that he is providing ammunition to the enemies of the Church. It’s possible that he’s doing it on purpose. I’m merely pointing it out. A problem can’t be fixed if no one acknowledges there is one. Jesus said that to whom much has been given, much will be required.
Where are all the gripes about illegals?
We have a similar situation here in Albany. Due to the 'priest shortage (;-)', lay people are being put in charge of parishes and prists are being reduced to sacramental ministers. One retired priest I know likens it to castration.
To put a minor dent in their debts owed to abuse victims, they’ve decided to up-end the lives of these holy women. Could they have picked on a more sympathetic group?
Mind boggling, indeed! The truly sad part is that they are being evicted from their home .
This is not exactly a state of the art kitchen in a fine home in an upscale neighborhood, that will net big bucks. My prayer is that the Sisters will raise enough money to buy back their home from the diocese. Wouldn't that be a laugh!
VERY bad publicity for Cardinal Mahony...
John & Ken will do anything to give Mahoney BAD publicity. They despise him.
Not that I am complaining, mind you.....
if he picked a group of liberal nuns who did not wear the full habit, I don't think the response would be nearly as great. He chose to kick out old frail nuns who have dedicated their life to God.
The cardinal is telling them they have until December to leave. Is there any offer of help from the LA Archdiocese? Is he leaving them high and dry?
Very bad move on Mahoney's part, very bad.
Perhaps, but they are imperfect people too, and quite old. Change is very difficult at their age. :(
And, what the money is going for probably causes most of the sting.
What a great post. I agree. I feel very uncomfortable praying that the Cardinal converts to a faithful Catholicism, but I suppose that's what needed.
However, people have different attitudes about where they live, I know. I've moved every few years all my life, and each house or apartment is just "the place we've stopped for now."
Regarding the reason for the sale (putting aside the limited value of this particular property), don't most people want the victims of homosexual priests to be financially compensated? Isn't that considered a good thing?
And I still don't hear the new Pope talking in clear LOUD terms as to a clean up that should have taken place at least 20 years ago!
I am just thankful to the US Government for 'sticking' it to the CC where it really Hurts... in the pocketbook.
Sorry, but I have no sympathy for any organization who let degenerates abuse children and pretended not to know or be aware of what's going on. (Yeah RIGHT....)
SHAME OF THE CC!... and all the other degenerates who enabled them to get away with it. We know we they are.
Have a nice day :)
What an unmitigated jerk he is! Not one penny of the settlement should come from the forced eviction of anyone, such as these nuns, who demonstrably has nothingto do with the sexual abuse scandal. I hope this travesty gets publicized sufficiently to turn it into a First Class public relations nightmare for that mitred fraud. He would certainly deserve it. In lieu of spending about $10 million to repair St. Vibiana's, he cheerfully spent $150-200 million for that modernist aircraft hanger he dares to call a "cathedral." Yet, when one finally stumbles across a group of nuns who actually look and act like nuns, he throws the switch on them without batting an eye. And they're Hispanic, too! Isn't there anyone in Los Angeles who has something on Maphony who can dime him out without being trashed in return? This monstrosity has to *go*!
Yes. But the money coming from people who are totally innocent of the wrongdoing is not a good thing. As for the ideal that the nuns should look at any dwelling outside of Heaven as a temporay abode...yes, you're right again. But, it's one thing to have a spirit of resignation to uprooting due to disaster or their own carelessness or culpability; it's something else again to have the property simply stolen away from them without even the courtesy of personal notice or directly promised aid in relocating them. That is morally reprehensible, and it's not right to cite the goal of detachment from physical things to justify their being forced out into the street in circumstances such as these.
Why, what a charitable thing for you to say!
Everyone is aware he's causing a scandal. Calling him a heartless villain only adds to the scandal. It's not our role to heap character assassination on someone who's doing a good job of it himself.
Jesus said that to whom much has been given, much will be required.
Yes, but the tone of your post is more like "Jesus said to whom much has been given, much will be required... by me."
Further up the thread, another poster indicated that it's actions like this which have removed the moral authority of the Church. That's a theological fallacy since the authority is in the office, not the person holding that office. And part of that fallacy derives from the instinctive, human reaction of us, as the flock, to tear down a shepherd we perceive to be irreversibly flawed, or, in your words, "a heartless villain."
If anyone is aware of the injustice, it's God. The bishop doesn't represent us, he represents God. If there is sin, first and foremost, it's against God for failing as a shepherd. It's not up to me to fan the fires, which have a tendency to create unintended consequences, such as creating an environment where faith is lost not only in the bishop, but the Church herself.
"To whom much is given much is expected?" I say, "judge not lest ye be judged yourself". I'm not Mahoney's judge, God is. It's one thing to say, "what he did was wrong." It's another to characterize him like he's some reprobate. Anyhow, something tells me when the chips are down and I'm in front of the Lord, the conversation isn't going to be about Roger Mahoney's sins.
Well, just maybe he doesn’t want any of those pesky conservative Catholics around, the ones who KNOW theology and honor the Lord and don’t hold to Mahoney’s agenda.
The Church may lose its reputation, but it never loses its moral authority. Frankly, the Church is equally legitimate whether you agree with her or not.
And I still don't hear the new Pope talking in clear LOUD terms as to a clean up that should have taken place at least 20 years ago!
A lot of people are waiting for God to talk to humanity in LOUD terms as to a clean up that should have taken place across the globe at least 20 years ago. Should we stop believing in Him since He's taking His sweet time getting around to it?
I am just thankful to the US Government for 'sticking' it to the CC where it really Hurts... in the pocketbook.
An amazing statement. I can almost hear your glee.
Sorry, but I have no sympathy for any organization who let degenerates abuse children and pretended not to know or be aware of what's going on. (Yeah RIGHT....)
You must really hate God, then. There are much worse crimes going on with His full knowledge across the globe that go unpunished.
SHAME OF THE CC!... and all the other degenerates who enabled them to get away with it. We know we they are.
The degenerates will have their day of judgment. You'd rather tear down the whole Church, instead. Since, for you, it's all about retribution, I wonder if you're prepared to settle up for your own sins.
That’s entirely possible.
As a technical point, the money is not coming from these nuns, since neither they nor their order is the owner of the property in question.
More generally, I don't see any other source of the money other than people who are innocent of wrongdoing. If we accept that the means to justice for abuse victims is to give them large amounts of money, then the money has to come from somewhere. It can't be from the perpetrators of the abuse, in most cases, nor from those most responsible for the introduction and perseverance of predatory homosexuals in the priesthood. These individuals simply do not have the amounts of money in question.
Liability insurance policies are a source of some funds, but not an adequate one in the case of vary large settlement amounts; the policies were not often written to cover such situations.
it's something else again to have the property simply stolen away from them
It's not their property.
... without even the courtesy of personal notice or directly promised aid in relocating them. That is morally reprehensible ...
I wholeheartedly agree.
it's not right to cite the goal of detachment from physical things to justify their being forced out ...
No such thing was ever suggested.
I will not glibly declare that the money must come from the innocent. To extract money or its equivalent from people who had nothing to do with a crime is theft. You and I would both object if we were excised for a portion of some doctor's malpractice settlement if we had nothing to do with his actions and didn't even know him, no? To sell parishes, or some of the property from them, bought and paid for by the loving gifts and sweat-equity of parishioners often still living, is both theft and spiritual malfeasance (who knows how many souls have been lost due to the double scandal of the sexual abuse itself and the added injury of parish closures, etc.?).
Los Angeles has options here. If they're anything like the Archdiocese of Boston (where I live), they have hundreds of non-ministry related properties that they can sell-off. Housing and storefronts are owned by the hundreds of units here. I imagine Boston is not unique. Those could be sold-off without jeopardizing the Church's mission any further than the abuse scandal itself has done. Mahony has built himself a $200 million monstrosity that could easily be sold for a good chunk of his settlement; the downtown land alone is worth millions.
I am all for settling the abuse claims in some way, shape or form. I am not in favor of archbishops settling for hundreds of millions of dollars that they know they don't have, just to keep themselves and/or their priests out of the court system. Rather than settle for $600 million for 500 or so victims - over a million dollars per person, on average - why didn't he settle for $100 million and let the wheels of justice grind out where they may in criminal cases brought to the bar? Many of the victims were not so grievously traumatized that a million dollars is "just." Fondling cases, while reprehensible enough, are not the same as full forced sodomy. There are gradations here, after all.
The Archdiocese of Los Angeles, and others like my own archdiocese, were quick to settle at premium prices just to keep the dozens of priests beyond the one or two scapegoats out of jail. Mahony himself is very possibly the beneficiary of this rush to settle, as his complicity - and possible direct involvement - will now be hushed up as part of the settlement. We should not let such results become established as "acceptable," since we wind up paying the ultimate price for crimes we had nothing to do with. No! Let those who are guilty of these crimes pay the price as the result of criminal prosecution, and let the chips fall where they may. If this happened, the guilty would be punished and the Church would find it much easier to heal the wounds of people scandalized by the abuse, without having to add insult to injury in the form of multiple church closures. Or convent closures, for that matter.
“To whom much is given much is expected?” I say, “judge not lest ye be judged yourself”. I’m not Mahoney’s judge, God is. It’s one thing to say, “what he did was wrong.” It’s another to characterize him like he’s some reprobate.”
He is a retrobate and it’s perfectly all right to characterize him as one. What’s with all this turn the other cheek, cast a blind eye stuff? Are you saying no one on earth can be taken to task because God is the ultimate judge? In heaven, yes he is, but God gave us all free choice, and the ability to judge our fellow man here on earth. That’s what we have courts for, and that’s where many pedophile priests have ended up. Phooey on this you can’t make judgments about someone in the priesthood’s character. Judgments were made against the pedophile priests. Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasars, etc.
Mahoney is a bad priest, and IMO, a bad man. His harboring of illegal immigrants policy is against the law, his liberal policies are bad for the church structure as a whole, his protection of pedophile priests in the past is sickening, and the man should be excommunicated for the harm he has done to the church and to our country. From the Middle Ages when the Church had a backbone and called for the Crusades, when God wasn’t only portrayed as the all-loving but had a wrathful side for wrongdoing too, up through the 1960’s when everything began to change to the negative, the Church in liberal dioceses throughout the country have become toothless pansies that won’t fight for the very principles upon which their Church theology is based. I can’t stand wimps, in Churches or out of them, that won’t stand up for right against wrong. What Mahoney is doing to these Sisters by kicking them out because of the actions of a bunch of pedophile priests while Mahoney used millions to build his ugly, palatial “cathedral”, and I use that word loosely, is disgusting. Mahoney should be retired himself, and made to live in the most lowly Catholic retirement building to be found in the USA. Let him reap that which he has sowed upon others.
You can call that "layman's terms," but I call it simply "false." The property is the Archdiocese's. Why start a discussion from a false premise? It just tends to obscure your otherwise very useful observations.
Those [other properties] could be sold-off without jeopardizing the Church's mission any further than the abuse scandal itself has done.
True. However, from a moral standpoint, those properties are still the properties of the "innocent," since Archdiocesan properties were purchased with the contributions of the faithful, or donated by those who, in all probability, had nothing to do with sexual abuse.
With the rest of your post, I agree. One of my intentions in my earlier posts was to point out the moral dubiousness of the "windfall" payoffs to every plaintiff. In my opinion, it trivializes the very serious harm inflicted on some victims, and perpetuates the fallacy that all damage can be fixed with money.
This may be the guiding principle of our secular society, but it's certainly not a Catholic principle!
God the Father spoke to St. Catherine of Siena about his “ministers,” the priests. She recorded it in her Dialogue:
"…[It] is my intention that they be held in due reverence, not for what they are in themselves, but for my sake, because of the authority I have given them. Therefore the virtuous must not lessen their reverence, even should these ministers fall short in virtue. And, as far as the virtues of my ministers are concerned, I have described them for you by setting them before you as stewards of... my Son’s body and blood and of the other sacraments. This dignity belongs to all who are appointed as such stewards, to the bad as well as to the good.
…[Because] of their virtue and because of their sacramental dignity you ought to love them. And you ought to hate the sins of those who live evil lives. But you may not for all that set ourselves up as their judges; this is not my will because they are my Christs, and you ought to love and reverence the authority I have given them.
You know well enough that if someone filthy or poorly dressed were to offer you a great treasure that would give you life, you would not disdain the bearer for love of the treasure, and the lord who had sent it, even though the bearer was ragged and filthy... You ought to despise and hate the ministers’ sins and try to dress them in the clothes of charity and holy prayer and wash away their filth with your tears.
Indeed, I have appointed them and given them to you to be angels on earth and suns, as I have told you. When they are less than that you ought to pray for them. But you are not to judge them. Leave the judging to me, and I, because of your prayers and my own desire, will be merciful to them." [1]
Obviously you can disregard all of this since it's private revelation, but given the fact that, at the time, St. Catherine was in a heated dispute with Pope Gregory XI and the issue of his residence away from Rome, I think these revelations carry significant weight. Either that, or St. Catherine was a crackpot, take your pick.
“But you are not to judge them. Leave the judging to me, and I, because of your prayers and my own desire, will be merciful to them.” [1]
But you may not for all that set ourselves up as their judges; this is not my will because they are my Christs, and you ought to love and reverence the authority I have given them”
Do you feel that way about the pedophile priests?
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.