Posted on 02/02/2013 1:48:40 PM PST by NYer
.- Archbishop José Gomez's decision to relieve Cardinal Roger Mahony and Bishop Thomas Curry of their duties in the L.A. archdiocese is being welcomed as “the best possible thing he could have done.”
“The archbishop has in one stroke, opened up the doors and let in the sunlight,” historian and author Charles Coulombe told CNA Feb. 1. “It is an enormously difficult task he has taken on...it would have been the case no matter what he did.”
“However, he handled it brilliantly, wisely, pastorally, truthfully, honestly, openly,” he reflected. “Very, very different than what we're used to here in Los Angeles.”
“I can't overemphasize how grateful I am that the Holy Father gave us this man.”
On Jan. 31, Archbishop Gomez announced that with the release of personnel files of priests accused decades ago of sexual abuse, his predecessor, the retired Cardinal Mahony, and his one-time vicar for clergy, Bishop Curry, would no longer have official duties in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.
The files showed that in the late 1980s, Cardinal Mahony and Bishop Curry, who was then vicar of clergy, corresponded often about dealing with priests who had sexually abused minors. The Los Angeles Times said the memos show a campaign to hide sex abuse cases from police.
“I find these files to be brutal and painful reading...We need to acknowledge that terrible failure today. We need to pray for everyone who has ever been hurt by members of the Church,” Archbishop Gomez announced.
“Effective immediately, I have informed Cardinal Mahony that he will no longer have any administrative or public duties. Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Curry has also publicly apologized for his decisions while serving as Vicar for Clergy. I have accepted his request to be relieved of his responsibility as the Regional Bishop of Santa Barbara.”
The decision has been roundly welcomed throughout the Church in America. On the archbishop's Facebook page, 278 have liked the statement, and virtually all of the comments have been supportive of Archbishop Gomez.
“I applaud Archbp. Gomez. and plan to have Masses said for him for his courage,” one online commenter wrote. “Living in Santa Barbara for the past decade, I have seen what a barren land for solid Catholicism the LA archdiocese has been for decades.”
Coulombe continued saying, “it signals above everything else that the church in Los Angeles has entered a new, and if I may so, a much better age.”
Cardinal Mahony served as the head of the Los Angeles archdiocese for 26 years, and as such has had a profound effect on the local Church.
“Suffice it to say, it's been a very long, difficult time here. What the archbishop has done, I think, is draw that period to its end.”
Coulombe went on to compare Archbishop Gomez' task to that of the character John O'Hanlon in the 1970 film “The Cheyenne Social Club,” who “inherited a house of ill repute.”
“It's not that far-fetched of an analogy, unfortunately, because he inherited a huge risk.”
Archbishop Gomez has both brought in “very fine people” from out of state to help in the archdiocese, Coulombe said, and retained some of the “best of the people who were here before.”
“For his Grace to succeed, on the one hand at re-Catholicizing the archdiocese, and on the other, of pursuing the archdiocese's rightful work – evangelization in this part of the world – he's going to need the help of everyone. And fortunately, he really seems to know that.”
Coulombe praised the archbishop's pastoral letter “Witness to the New World of Faith,” in which he gave a mission for the diocese focused on evangelization and the salvation of souls.
“In every way seemingly, he's the opposite of his predecessor, and that's what we need,” Coulombe said.
Cardinal Mahony's removal will be largely unchanged, the archdiocese's media relations director said, according to the Los Angeles Times. The biggest effect for Cardinal Mahony is that he will no longer administer confirmation in the archdiocese.
He remains in good standing and a cardinal, Tamberg said. No cardinal has resigned from the College since Father Louis Billot in 1927.
The larger change in the day to day functioning of the diocese comes with Bishop Curry's removal. He has been an auxiliary bishop of the diocese since 1994, and was responsible for Santa Barbara and Ventura counties. As Bishop Curry is now 70, he is stepping down five years before bishops' mandatory retirement age.
Last week, both Cardinal Mahony and Bishop Curry offered apologies for their failures in adequately protecting youth.
On Feb. 1, Cardinal Mahony released a letter he wrote to Archbishop Gomez explaining his history of dealing with clergy sexual abuse.
“Nothing in my own background or education equipped me to deal with this grave problem,” he wrote.
He reproached his archbishop for not expressing displeasure with his policies before now.
“Not once over these past years did you ever raise any questions about our policies, practices, or procedures in dealing with the problem of clergy sexual misconduct involving minors.”
The Los Angeles archdiocese has been found in compliance with every audit of child protection measures, which have been conducted since 2004.
Coulombe said Archbishop Gomez' removal of the two prelates may “free him up in making appointments.”
“I don't know who Curry's replacement will be, but I'm very confident it will be someone...much better for the job.”
Coulombe concluded his reflections on Archbishop Gomez' statement by quoting Gerald Ford at his presidential inauguration, following Richard Nixon's resignation following Watergate.
“Our long national nightmare is over.”
I took the test as well.
“Do Lutherans, Episcopalians, Presbyteroans, Baptists, etc. on and on have programs like this for all personnel as well as volunteers?”
Survey says, “we don’t have a problem since we don’t have celibate priests” so no. ;)
Gluteus, I understand your position. Even if you have given up on the RCC, don’t give up on Christ. While all churches are made up of flawed people, Christ is the way, the truth and the light.
The Vatican sent a delegation to various seminaries in the 1980s and made a lot of changes which were effective. Most abuse cases happened before that period. Also, the lawsuits have forced most dioceses to realize that they cannot afford to admit new homosexuals, so what you want is being accomplished, albeit more slowly than you would like.
He remains in good standing and a cardinal, Tamberg said. No cardinal has resigned from the College since Father Louis Billot in 1927.
The courts, not Gomez, ordered the documents to be released. Mahony was "removed" but remains a Cardinal in good standing, according to the archdiocese's own media relations director.
What is it, exactly, that Gomez did that has Catholics falling all over themselves in praise over?
Try not to color outside of the lines!
(1) You can't "require" someone to marry. A marriage performed because of force or coercion is invalid.
(2) If a man is involved in homosexual practice, he ought never to have been ordained in the first place, since active homosexuals shouldn't even be in seminaries. So on this one you're supporting the Catholic Church faithfully following Catholic standards, which is of course what the Pope and every good Catholic advocates.
However for ma man who are already a priest, it would be practically impossible to find out if he were secretly homosexual unless he advertised that. Perhaps you have some useful enforcement ideas here? Tell us.
(3) Marriage does not prevent a man from being a child abuser. Penn State professor Philip Jenkins (who is not a Catholic) has written the most objective book on the subject, and he summarizes his arguments in this excellent article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Link). His findings can be summarized as follows:
Mind you, pedophilia, wherever found, is a revolting and disgusting act. We are absolutely right to denounce it as perverted, depraved, and criminal. Particularly so when the offender IS a priest, a group from which we have a right to expect the absolute highest standards.
You will find, as Philip Jenkins found, based on his own research and the comprehensive John Jay College of Criminal Justice study, that less than 1.8% of Catholic priests were ever implicated in any category of sexual misdeed --- in other words, over 98% were (and are) innocent.
So your "solution" based on demeaning faithful celibate priests, and forcing them to marry, has nothing at all to do with protecting children.
Life in prison for offenders makes more practical sense. Put me on a jury: I'll vote for that.
Mahoney used the church to pimp sanctuary for illegals and made his mark throwing official weight around. People were afraid to oppose him and the RC church in So Cal came to be seen as another self serving NGO sanctimoniously serving the open borders mobs as well as covering for perverse officials.
When the time comes: he can rot in Hell.
Jerry Sandusky.
Jimmy Savile.
I rest my case.
And the same Philip Jenkins who said this, as quoted on the thread Letter about Catholics wrong about Protestants [re claim 10% of Protestant clergy are sex abusers]:
"I have no idea what the actual proportion of pedophile protestant clergy is, but I would be amazed if it was more than a fraction of one percent."You can't "require" someone to marry. A marriage performed because of force or coercion is invalid.
Actually, under certain conditions you can - and it is valid:
If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found,
then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.
-- Deuteronomy 22:28-29
I'm not disputing that. Are you?
"...she shall be his wife, because he has violated her."
"Um..." (backing off slowly, reaching behind me for the door handle) "Bye now."
Thee are other Biblical ways to deal with male aggressors.
It sounds like you don't agree with Holy Scripture. Am I reading your posts right?
No, I’m particularly attracted to Biblical heroines Judith and Jael. I believe! I believe!
Jael is good, but howzabout the judge (judgess?) Deborah?
(2) If a man is involved in homosexual practice, he ought never to have been ordained in the first place, since active homosexuals shouldn't even be in seminaries. So on this one you're supporting the Catholic Church faithfully following Catholic standards, which is of course what the Pope and every good Catholic advocates. You're mis-stating the rule, which is that even men who do not have sex with men but who nevertheless suffer from Same Sex Attraction Disorder are barred from the seminaries. That's the rule. The universal ignoring of that commonsense rule is what got us here. The Popes obviously ignored their own directives for decades and decades. The Popes since John XXIII unofficially welcomed homosexuals into the ranks of the clergy. And nothing's changed, as far as I can see. A friend of mine sent me a picture from her Diocesan webpage showing the new crop of seminarians - the finest collection of assorted fruits you can imagine.
However for ma man who are already a priest, it would be practically impossible to find out if he were secretly homosexual unless he advertised that. Perhaps you have some useful enforcement ideas here? Tell us. From my doleful experience, hardly any priest is really closeted. A healthy Inquisition would root them out, at least mostly. And that's really what we need. We'll never achieve perfection and get 100% of the queers out of the clergy, but by imposing a level of Holy Terror we'd at least drive the more discreet way back into the closet. Then we wait for them to die, while ensuring that their replacements are all normal men.
(3) Marriage does not prevent a man from being a child abuser. Penn State professor Philip Jenkins (who is not a Catholic) has written the most objective book on the subject, and he summarizes his arguments in this excellent article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Link). His findings can be summarized as follows: Your argument seems to be that since requiring a married clergy and excising all of the homosexuals from the clergy wouldn't solve all of our problems, that we shouldn't even try. But that's silly. Ridding ourselves of all priests with homosexual attraction disorder and shoring that up by requiring all new ordinations to be married men as a condition to entry into holy orders would greatly improve things. And greatly improving the safety of our children is a laudable end in itself.
Of course you can't "require" someone to marry in the sense that you can order someone to enter into a contract as that requires volition. But you can make voluntary marriage a condition to entry into holy orders. There's no coercion there, since if they're free not to marry, but then if they don't then they can't be priests. No problem. Holy orders isn't a right. So, require them to marry as a condition to entry into holy orders. If you want to be a priest, you first have to get married.
There's nothing wrong with that. The Orthodox do a version of that.
(2) If a man is involved in homosexual practice, he ought never to have been ordained in the first place, since active homosexuals shouldn't even be in seminaries. So on this one you're supporting the Catholic Church faithfully following Catholic standards, which is of course what the Pope and every good Catholic advocates. You're mis-stating the rule, which is that even men who do not have sex with men but who nevertheless suffer from Same Sex Attraction Disorder are barred from the seminaries. That's the rule. The universal ignoring of that commonsense rule is what got us here. The Popes obviously ignored their own directives for decades and decades. The Popes since John XXIII unofficially welcomed homosexuals into the ranks of the clergy. And nothing's changed, as far as I can see. A friend of mine sent me a picture from her Diocesan webpage showing the new crop of seminarians - the finest collection of assorted fruits you can imagine. However for ma man who are already a priest, it would be practically impossible to find out if he were secretly homosexual unless he advertised that. Perhaps you have some useful enforcement ideas here? Tell us.
From my doleful experience, hardly any priest is really closeted. A healthy Inquisition would root them out, at least mostly. And that's really what we need. We'll never achieve perfection and get 100% of the queers out of the clergy, but by imposing a level of Holy Terror we'd at least drive the more discreet way back into the closet where they belong. Then we wait for them to die, while ensuring that their replacements are all normal men.
(3) Marriage does not prevent a man from being a child abuser. Penn State professor Philip Jenkins (who is not a Catholic) has written the most objective book on the subject, and he summarizes his arguments in this excellent article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Link). His findings can be summarized as follows:
Your argument seems to be that since requiring a married clergy and excising all of the homosexuals from the clergy wouldn't solve all of our problems, that we shouldn't even try. But that's silly. Ridding ourselves of all priests with homosexual attraction disorder and shoring that up by requiring all new ordinations to be married men as a condition to entry into holy orders would greatly improve things. And greatly improving the safety of our children is a laudable end in itself.
Mind you, pedophilia, wherever found, is a revolting and disgusting act.
Thanks for that important reminder.
So your "solution" based on demeaning faithful celibate priests, and forcing them to marry, has nothing at all to do with protecting children.
I'm not for demeaning celibate priests. So long as they're not gay, they can stay under my suggestion. They'd also be free to marry if they wish, or remain celibate, at their discretion. What they couldn't do is stay in the priesthood after they violated clear directives that homosexuals are not to be admitted to holy orders in the first place. It's like granting amnesty to illegal aliens - rewarding them for breaking the law. Allowing a homosexual priest - even if he has behaved himself - to remain a priest is to reward sinful lawlessness. It also strikes me as sacrilegious to have a man with such a twisted personality disorder performing the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. All homosexuals must leave. The Church should do her best to hunt them down and remove them.
Life in prison for offenders makes more practical sense. Put me on a jury: I'll vote for that.
Great. I agree. But how about life in prison for those who abetted them, like Mahoney, Law, et al? Why aren't we prosecuting these scum sucking bottom feeders now? Look at what JPII did for Law. He found him a nice, cushy place in Rome. Or that sick-o Belgian Archbishop who was apparently in league with child sex murderer, Marc Detroux. And Mahoney gets a little public embarrassment. Whoop-te-doo.
I grew up in Wisconsin. Two priests whom I knew are now doing time. Father John Patrick Feeney, and Father Donald Buzanowski. Google them. Father Donald Becker was another. He now runs a webpage called "gaygospels.com"
Close relatives and friends were victims of priests (different ones from those named above). Their lives were ruined.
As a disciple of Christ, I cannot have my name sullied by association with the RCC, at least not until it publicly repents of this sickening sin and undertakes all actions it can to ensure it won't happen again. This means, at the very least, ending the celibacy rule for parish priests (I'd allow a monastic vocation so long as monks have no contact with children) and requiring the immediate laicization of all homosexual priests, and hunting all homosexual priests down and forcing them out.
I don't want to go to hell with the likes of Mahoney and Law. I'm not in communion with them. I have nothing whatever to do with them.
For the salvation of my own soul, I can't have anything to do with the RCC as it currently exists.
So, at the 7:00 a.m. mass this morning, in the LA archdiocese, the Archbishop Gomez letter was read. The priest was careful to point out that, although Mahoney had told Gomez many things, Gomez had never seen the transcripts until they were released by the Court. That put some more light on Mahoney and Curry’s conduct. The priest said that we need to be focused on Light and Truth as a church, as that is the way to root out evil, which prefers shadows.
I wonder what Gomez is going to follow up with. Personally, I think a re-dedication of the archdiocese to Our Lady Queen of Angels would be appropriate, with our goal being a recommitment to the virtue and purity of Heaven.
What a wonderful idea. It would draw the entire community together in prayer and recommitment to the faith.
Abp Gomez didn't make Mahoney a cardinal "in good standing" and can't un-make him, either.
The brigadier general CO has banned the retired four-star from HQ, and has taken away his PR duties on behalf of the unit. Taking his stars away will require the President to get involved. What's hard to understand about that?
You'll be judged on what *you* have done, not on what Mahony, Law, or anyone else has done. Damnation isn't "spread by casual contact". Pay attention to the condition of your own soul. Calumny and rash judgment -- for example, basically stating on a public message board that all Catholic priests are perverts, like someone using your handle did recently -- are also sins, last time I checked.
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.