Read what I wrote HERE about Los Angeles’s Archbishop Gomez bumping Card. Mahony off the diocesean schedule because of Mahony’s cover-up of abuse of children.
Now Card. Mahony writes on his blog… and it sincerely grieves me to point this out… writes on his blog a statement to Archbp. Gomez:
When you [Archbp. Gomez] were formally received as our Archbishop on May 26, 2010, you began to become aware of all that had been done here over the years for the protection of children and youth. You became our official Archbishop on March 1, 2011 and you were personally involved with the Compliance Audit of 2012—again, in which we were deemed to be in full compliance.
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.
I have stated time and time again that I made mistakes, especially in the mid-1980s. I apologized for those mistakes, and committed myself to make certain that the Archdiocese was safe for everyone.
[…]
HUH?!?
So… he is deflecting his responsibility to Archbp. Gomez.
I hope Archbp. Gomez does not respond. Let the papal nuncio and the Holy Father deal with this one.
In the meantime, will the National Schismatic Reporter call on Card. Mahony to do a Card. Billot? Resign from the College of Cardinals? The NSR’s (aka Fishwrap) editors and writers have danced a circle around Bp. Finn with torches and inflated pig’s bladders hooting for him to resign as bishop of Kansas City – St. Joseph. What will the paper of record for heretics and schismatics do now?
Loading ...
What little sympathy I may have been able to conjure up for this guy is quickly vanishing. What a disgusting character.
Cowardly. He cannot even stand up for himself.
Isn’t it weird to sign yourself as “His Eminence Cardinal Roger Mahony?” Does Roger Cardinal Mahony not suffice? It just seems odd to me that a person would sign his name with that title, which cardinals do not normally do.
I shudder when I think of the damage Cardinal Mahoney did to both Churches and souls during his tenure. I remember that he was one of the lightly veiled figures in the novel Windswept House. Guess ill have to give it another read.
or rather, answer for himself. Despicable.
perhaps an appropriate penance for His Eminence would be to have him made orderly for Mother Angelica at her convent.
Sometimes, it’ s just better to be quiet… this is one of those cases. What a….well, being a good Christian woman I can’t say it!
After the Cardinal has apologized for his mistakes, would he please go on to apologize for this deliberate choices?
And it’s really WHINY. “Oh, I just wasn’t prepared to deeeeaalll with it.” “We just didn’t knoooooow.”
oops: s/this/his/
Whatever disagreements I had with Cdl. Mahony, I assumed the sheer gravity of his mistakes would be enough that he would do the honorable thing and leave the stage in quiet grace…
….skunked again.
It’s my understanding that once “teflon” gets scratched up, everything sticks to it. His Eminence is about to find that out the hard way, me thinks. And it’s about time.
Cardinal Mahoney resides in his home parish where he has relentlessly pursued the wreckavation of the beautiful parish church. The written petitions of the parishioners have been ignored. Perhaps now the parishioners can be given a fair hearing and the interior saved the fate of so many of the churches he has ruined.
Too, Bishop Curry was a known foe of altar rails demanding there removal and forbidding their restoration in his jurisdiction of Ventura and Santa Barbara counties.
Christ words in the Dialogues of St. Catherine of Siena on good and bad priests:
“You should love them therefore by reason of the virtue and dignity of the Sacrament, and by reason of that very virtue and dignity you should hate the defects of those who live miserably in sin, but not on that account appoint yourselves their judges, which I forbid, because they are My Christs, and you ought to love and reverence the authority which I have given them.
“It not being My will that they should be in this state, you should pray for them, and not judge them, leaving their judgment to Me. And I, moved by your prayers, will do them mercy if they will only receive it, but if they do not correct their life, their dignity will be the cause of their ruin. For if they do not accept the breadth of My mercy, I, the Supreme Judge, shall terribly condemn them at their last extremity, and they will be sent to the eternal fire.”
PS. I amjust quoting word for word what someone else wrote elsewhere on this log.
God is merciful, but we still have to pay for our sins with punishments, either purgatory, purgatory on earth, or sadly for some, hell.
Sin has consequences despite or because of mercy. The last line is terrifying, is it not?
I have stated time and time again that I made mistakes, especially in the mid-1980s. I apologized for those mistakes, and committed myself to make certain that the Archdiocese was safe for everyone, while making certain that I was shielded from blame.
FTC
It is understandable that Cdl. Mahony does not publicly admit to having committed crimes (though one could make a case for obstruction of justice against him) or to have committed offenses that would lead to civil liability – particularly since plaintiffs would most likely be paid from diocesan accounts. However in only admitting “mistakes”, he omits mentioning something essential to the nature of the Church: sin – both in regard to his own conduct and that of the molesters. It is the loss of a sense of sin that has much to do not only with the reprehensible acts of the molesters, but also the involvement of “residential treatment centers” which not only hid the molesters and their records from the legal system, but obfuscated the nature of the problem.
Instead of writing this blogpost, Cardinal Mahony should have prayed for the victims whose names he keeps on 3×5 cards. I have been reading some of the victim’s accounts today. The pain that these priests and their enablers in the hierarchy is heartbreaking. I am full of sorrow for them, and the suffering they have endured. To many of them, Cardinal Mahony’s response today is probably not surprising.
I fear for the Cardinal’s soul. He and Archbishop Gomez very much need our prayers, albeit for very different reasons.
The Holy See should put Mahony on trial for heresy.
got to wonder whether Mother Angelica has found out yet…for obvious reasons
There are times I wish Father Z’s combox had thumbs-up/thumbs down icons for comments so we could rate them.
Since we don’t have one, let me please just say that I give Tim Ferguson’s comment a big thumb’s-up.
Setting that aside, I hope Archbishop Vigano or the Holy See steps in. We don’t need high ranking officials of the Church disagreeing with one another on a matter of discipline.
I am not at all surprised that he has chosen to reply the way he has. When one loses all credibility, when one realizes that despite all the years to convey oneself as upright and responsible and caring, it is all for naught especially if one was in the dark doing or scheming to twist the truth of ugly goings-on that harmed others.
Like I said before, for those who seek to cultivate their reputation, their person, their fame, well, when you lose that based on your damming behavior, what else is left? I still believe had Cdl Mahoney only risen above that, if only he had stood his ground against those predatory priests and what is right and good, if he had truly safeguarded his children, he would have been a true model-hero of what it takes to be a good fatherly shepherd. I am sad now more than angry to see it all thrown away.
I am going to do my best with the best possible intentions but I am going do so at the feet of Jesus on the cross, to pray for this most unfortunate man who by his own choices, has shown what it means to lack humility and remorse, in my opinion.
Despite it all, I will remain hopeful. I will hope for the floodgates to burst open. May those waters soon become a deluge in this beloved Los Angeles of mine. May those waters be cleansing waters of truth, justice, redemption, freedom, healing, faithfulness, forgiveness, and reconciliation. May those waters be filled with the Holy Spirit and may our Lady Queen of Angels pray and support and mother us all in this most trying time back to the beauty and wonder and joy of the One who loves us most. Amen
I hope Blessed John Paul II is in heaven praying furiously for all the liberal Bishops and Cardinals he made.
Correction…I meant to say “done what it right and good” instead of “what is right and good.”
Does this mean Card. Mahoney is defrocked/laicized or just suspended? [Neither. There really aren’t any meaningful consequences.]
With this, the Cardinal is making himself persona non grata, or at best, making a difficult situation more difficult, and not coming off looking too well. I think that the Archbishop tried to handle the situation as best he could, and, unfortunately for His Eminence, that meant lessening his pastoral duties.
I heard from someone who drove by the parish where the Cardinal resides that there was a tv truck, presumably waiting for the faithful to interview, or just pointing out where the Cardinal works. Pray for that parish as well.
All good comments….guess one thinks or has to chose there words on what to say here…..
Mahony has never been a fan of mine….he is a priest….very liberal one might add…..
Some of us remember what he did to Mother Angelica……..that was horrid, and of course this is also horrid……..
But to attack Arch. Gomez???? Come on Man up….of course if this would have been a person who was on the conservative side of the faith…he would have really been lynched…..
I guess we should cast judgement, but besides the scandal it is men like this who really drove the liberal agenda over these past 50 yrs, all in the spirit of VII
Sorry meant to say shouldn’t cast judgement. This hurts all of us indeed mostly the victims, but lets remember the Wonderful Clergy that has been is and will be!
I just said a prayer for His Eminence, Cardinal Roger M. Mahony.
I pray that the Pope will puts this sad episode to rest soon.
WOW! I never thought he’d stoop this low, but he did! WOW! This is beyond awful. He publicly took exception to the Archbishop of Los Angeles, his successor? Really? WOW! He is only exacerbating his already tenuous situation. I think his goose is cooked. Lord have mercy on his soul.
I read this just now and it gives me much hope…
“Now at last—a decade overdue, but better late than never—we have the first clear public example of fraternal correction. One prelate has held another to account.
This is the Year of Faith, and the Holy Father has emphasized the need for preaching the essentials of Christian doctrine. But preaching and evangelization require credible witnesses. A Church leader who has dissembled, who has sheltered criminals, who has abided with iniquity, can never be accepted as a credible witness or respected as a moral guide.”
Link here to article:
http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/the-city-gates.cfm?id=499
Let’s pray for him and for all who were in cahoots (sad but true) with promoting the dark silence rather than protecting the innocent.
Let’s pray our Holy Father in his wisdom, does what is just and right in this tragic and very sad situation, Let’s pray too, for Archbishop Gomez to follow Jesus’s example in cleaning out the Lord’s temple, in truth, with love, and in charity for the benefit all of the faithful especially those wounded and their families.
Since I’ve known of him I haven’t been a fan of Cardinal Mahony. In my opinion he is emblematic of what has gone wrong since the 1960’s. Although he has not had ‘his day in court’ it certainly appears he is guilty of covering up child predators. When today’s news broke I hoped he would accept Archbishop Gomez’s decision and quietly live out his days in prayer and penance. Sadly, he seems to have other plans. It will not serve the Church to have bishops fighting over the Internet. If Cardinal Mahony can’t hold his tongue then hopefully Pope Benedict XVI will take action. Then again, maybe the District Attorney will first.
There is, it seems, an abundance of bishop’s skulls with which to pave the low-way to perdition.
With Cardinal Mahoney’s latest remarks, the road to hell just got a little wider.
Wait… I take that back. If the Taj Mahoney is any indication of the size of the man’s ego, the road has become a freeway.
“Not once over these past years did you ever raise any questions”
That’s how heretics defend themselves from charges of failing to teach authentic doctrine, it seems fitting for Cardinal Mahony to resort to that here.
If a Cardinal is convicted of a crime, is there a way to prevent him from voting for the next Pope?
Even though it’s hard, we should pray for Cardinal Mahony, and pray and pray.
I read the letter that Mahony posted on his blog, and I was very disappointed. His claim to be “sorry” isn’t sorrow for what he has done, but only sorrow for having been caught doing wrong.
At his age, this whole mess coming to light and Abp. Gomez’s actions might be the Lord’s last attempt at getting him to repent before he faces Judgement.
This whole thing is scary….
I hope the Holy Father takes some action, like calling him to Rome for a man-to-man chat, and then sticking him in a remote monastery so he might come to his senses and really repent before it’s too late.
Gracie, as Card. Mahony is 76, I believe he would be ineligible to vote in the next consistory due to his age. I could be wrong. I’m sure someone will clarify.
I also expect crickets from the Fishwrap.
Amy,
That depends.
A cardinal can vote in a papal conclave until they’re 80.
Viva il papa!
Excuse me …
A cardinal can vote in a papal conclave until he’s 80. Sorry about that.
This strikes me as grievous indeed. We have lived in the shadow of LA as San Diegans, and felt the liturgical… fallout… from all the empty promises of innovation. So many of us were deceived over the years.
Still, I wonder how high Ab Mahoney had become in his own mind, and consider it all the easier for him to be so misled, as he was surrounded by so much political junk and so many who were eager to use his position for their own ends. To his credit, I do remember his post about the contraceptive mandate last year, and I certainly cheered him for that!
The penalities and humiliations he will have to face will happen regardless of our opinion here. Let them come, and let us not rejoice in wrongdoing.
Since Cardinal Mahoney seems to read this good blog, please accept my sincere message:
Your Eminence,
For my part, and I say this as a sexual abuse survivor, you are still one of my spritual fathers despite your imperfections and mistakes. As your spiritual daughter full of my own, likely greater, imperfections and mistakes, I offer prayers for you. What did Our Lord say to the humbled Peter? “But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.” Your priestly ministry has not ended, and so I pray that after due reflection and acceptance of responsibility, as only you and God know the appropriate restitution, the next chapter for you, like St. Peter, will be to strengthen your brethren and the Church.
cathgrl, you said exactly what I was going to say, only way Mahony is not voting in the next conclave is if Abp Gomez is made a Cardinal and Mahony is deposed of his seat in the college. (Or if Pope Benedict lives another 4 years :D…here’s hoping for both)
It does not surprise me at all that Cardinal Mahony has replied back. 20 + years of his system in place, and now it is all coming apart…I think it’s a last ditch effort to save “the system” and to defend himself.
A few more thoughts at my blog: http://japotillor.blogspot.com/2013/02/cardinal-mahony-strikes-backand-is-now.html
“I have stated time and time again that I made mistakes, …”
Ha! Reminds me of a courtroom scene at sentencing; defendant’s mother speaks up, “He’s a good boy, judge; he just made a mistake.” No, not a mistake (error without sin), but a crime, serially repeated.
Cardinal Mahony keeps saying that he has apologized several times. He has never apologized for his conduct. All of his apologies have been in his representative capacity as Archbishop of Los Angeles. Why? Because he does not admit that he, personally, did anything wrong. His open letter to Archbishop Gomez confirms this fact. Sad, sad, sad.
While we would probably all like to see Cardinal Mahony sent off to a Carthusian Monastery for the remainder of his days, we should all take some time to reflect on our own sins and our own need for prayer and repentance. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone…
It is, I think, also rather unfortunate how in these last decades our Roman Pontiffs have not exercised their immediate and supreme authority to more hastily remove bad apples from the priesthood and episcopacy. Why was Cardinal Mahony not removed from his post years ago? Why was he made a Cardinal in the first place when Canon Law states that Cardinals must be outstanding in doctrine, prudent, etc.? There is much blame to go around…
Poor, poor man.
It is not the response of a sane man;
megalomaniac was the word that came to mind.
He’s not just trying to deflect his culpability (even though he admits to error)
but attempts to rise above it and arrogantly blame his successor who had absolutely nothing to do with the cover-ups, as if the policies were his shield for respectability and would now absolve his errors.
There is more dignity in humility than a delusional respectability through arrogance.
Poor, poor man. whether he is under 80 years of age or not, I don’t believe his state of mind would give him any competence for a papal conclave, yet let us hope and pray that it will never have to come to that decision.
Ad multis annos, Pope Benedict XVI
The term “narcissist” comes to mind.
The hubris of Cardinal Mahony posting in the internet a letter to his direct superior Archbishop Gomez is amazing. Gomez is to be congratulated by responding with the removal of faculties that he can legally regulate. Seems that finally in Abp. Gomez we have a strong leader, precisely what we need in LA after 25 years of Cardinal Mahony. He had the coldest heart for requests for the EF mass after Summorum Pontificum. I have stacks of letters we wrote to him, copies of which are filed at the Ecclesia Dei Commision in The Vatican. Nothing came out of it. Being a Cardinal, and before that the religious agent of the community agitator Cesar Chávez in California, must have gone to his head. Mahony’s public letter was an insult to his Archbisop.
Disgraced Bishop Thomas Curry of Santa Barbara and Ventura counties was an equally dedicated opponent of the Extraordinary Form of the mass.
Gracias Arzobispo por su valentía. Su liderazgo es muy necesario en el desierto espiritual que ha resultado de los esfuerzos de su predecesor. Ser Católico es ser obediente, y nosotros seguiremos fielmente a vuestra excelencia.
I just saw Mahony’s arrogant response on the 11:00 news here in LA. And then the official response Mahony remains in ‘good standing’ in the Church. More fuel for those who already hate the Church. Again the Holy Church is used and abused by those she is entrusted to. How far does this scandal go? Who knew what and when? Domine, miserere nobis. +JMJ+
He deserves to hang, as do all those guilty of treachery.
If such a sentence were passed by a competent authority, I would personally delight in watching Mahoney dance hell’s jig as the life drains from his body. His corpse should be given the same treatment as Oliver Cromwell’s.
I’m no longer completely convinced that Mahoney is fully human.
One must admit “They didn’t teach me at school how to deal with it” is rather original, though…
Mundabor
May be original Mundabor, but I can imagine the natural reply of those who did teach Mahony would be:
“How hard is it to pick up the phone and call the police?”
MSM
I wonder if Cardinal Mahoney will be to Archbishop Gomez what Bishop Williamson has been to Bishop Fellay: a publicly disobedient thorn in his side.
To repeat words used in previous posts: “hubris” and “narcissist.”
But please, let’s remember as Fr. Z might say, that Cardinal Mahoney is only one good confession away from redemption. We profess this as Catholics.
A cardinal can vote in a papal conclave until they’re 80.
Correct, sadly Cdl. Mahoney can vote. Thankfully, Cardinal Law cannot.
Posted by Abp. Gomez on the diocesan website:
“Questions from the faithful and some members of the news media indicate that it would be helpful for me to clarify the status of Cardinal Roger Mahony and Bishop Thomas Curry.
Cardinal Mahony, as Archbishop Emeritus, and Bishop Curry, as Auxiliary Bishop, remain bishops in good standing in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, with full rights to celebrate the Holy Sacraments of the Church and to minister to the faithful without restriction”
http://www.la-archdiocese.org/org/media/Press%20Releases/2013-0201_Clarification-EN.pdf
Reading the files from LA is very sad, as was reading many of the files from Boston.
Ironically Mahoney is being singled out for the same offenses as Law, yet Law was rewarded with a cush post in Rome (and a huge salary).
I would imagine that the idea finally filtered up that there was a lot of resentment on the part of the faithful that the hierarchs have never had any real consequences for their enablement of child sexual abuse, and they waited until somebody they don’t like came along to make an example.
I think it is going to backfire because this just makes it all the more obvious that there is a double standard.
I don’t think any gains are made here for the church at all.
So funny to hear about Mahoney living in a cush rectory while Law is living in his own mansion in Rome with a high-profile position of honor.
This just makes the Law thing look worse, and the Vatican response to this crisis more of a joke than ever.
With regard to the Rita Rizzo comments, my heartfelt belief is that she has done far more to harm the church than Mahoney has. [I think you’ll have a hard time defending that, given her accomplishments. Furthermore, her name in religion is Mother Angelica. Yes, from time to time we might refer to Joseph Ratzinger when dealing with the his pre-elevation writings. But, around here, she gets the respect due her name in religion… FATHER.]
Cardinal Mahony’s internet “confession” is most disappointing. He confesses to the “sin” of naivete. He goes on at length about his sadness at the pain of the victims. He is sorry. The confession is timed to proceed the release to the public of the incriminating documents.
And then he publicly reminds Archbishop Gomez that having inherited a difficult situation, he left office with the problem fixed.
His defense is that he consulted with Archbishop Bernardin and other bishops and followed the best advice available at the time.
My answer is that a worthy shepherd of the Christian people is not nourished at the fount of worldly wisdom. His instincts as a father and the ancient canons of the Church both would compel him to remove from office any clergyman guilty of unchaste behavior towards the flock and to do so immediately and permanently. Those instincts would also prevent him from ordaining any man with disordered sexuality.
Cardinal Mahony should cease any public ministry and refrain from public statements. Perhaps the shepherds over him should remind him of this.
Father Jim,
Both Law and Mahony protected child molesters in the clergy. Mahony stonewalled and Law resigned. Mahony defends himself and Law is silent. Mahony fostered disorder in the priesthood and the sacred liturgy and Law was oblivious to it. Mahony continues to damage the Church. There is nothing to say about Law now except to hope that his silence stems from repentance.
Jason Keener asked: “Why was Cardinal Mahony not removed from his post years ago?” The fact of the matter is that bishops both traditional and liberal overwhelmingly believed that protection of the Church’s image before the faithful outweighed the obligation to report sexual abuse of children to authorities. Cardinal Mahony’s actions as archbishop would not have been radically different than those of Cardinal Manning, or the traditional Cardinal McIntyre.
It would be nice to think that bishops and princes of the Church, before Vatican II, immediately suspended priests for sexual misconduct. Some of them, the exceptions to the rule, did. Most did not. In fact, Cardinal O’Connell of Boston knew his nephew-priest had contracted civil marriage and kept him working in the chancery office until he was rebuked by Pope Benedict XV.
Please do not misunderstand my point. I am not writing this to excuse Mahony for falling into line with those types of practices. But I am agreeing that he was following a long, very long, line of bishops when he covered up and shielded molester priests. As disturbing as his response to Archbishop Gomez is (basically insinuating that the Church in the U.S. expected bishops to cover-up these crimes), he is not lying when he says he consulted other bishops and this would have been seen as the modus operandi for dealing with abusing priests.
What many do not realize, also, is that the more popular and well-liked a priest was by the laity or parishioners, the more he had a cult following, the less and less likely it was that he would suspended by the bishop/superior for acting out sexually. However, the most honest of Catholics will see the precedents of Corapi, Euteneuer and admit, that yes, even now, even after all the scandals, the most traditional of Catholics will fight to the death in favor of their cult favorite among priests–regardless of how much evidence stacks up against them.
I am thinking of the incredible good that a fair sprinkle of honest and visible humility from this man could do for the US Church.
Please choose humility. We talk about humility and sorrow for sin. This is a chance to show the whole country what that looks like. We talk about willingly suffering for the sin of others; this could be a visible sign of that too.
Please.
I see that Card Mahony has a master’s in Social Work. If memory serves, so did Cardinal Bernardin. Card McKarrick has a doctorate in Sociology.
Some years ago when I was at KU, I took a course in Ancient Philosophy. The prof lacked the insight that a Thomist would bring to the subject, but I do remember that he referred to the Sophists as the Sociologists of their day. And of course, the Mahony comment that his school didn’t tell him how to deal with sexual abuse manifests his education: Everything is defined in terms of a particular group.
Some apparently here see in Archbishop Gomez’s “announcement” some sort of reckoning for
the Church. Sorry, I see nothing more that a self-serving public relations snow job….kind of
like we saw in Law but more like what we have seen in Milwaukee with His Excellency, Rembert
Weakland. They all still remain in good standing within the Church. In Weakland’s case it is just appalling how he is actually fawned over by some of his more prominent colleagues. Nothing has or will happen to serve the cause of justice because the Church is still concentrating their energies
on the business of preserving their image or what little they have left. Like Law, like Weakland, etc , they continue to be treated by the good old boys as “Princes of the Church”! Cronies in the cloth. The strong protecting the weak. Has the Vatican any ties that bind with the Catholic Church here in America? I quess as long as those checks keep coming accross the pond it matters little what the boys are up to.
But just wait! The spiritual bankruptcy of our church will soon be followed by financial ruin. ( already under the aegis of Archbishop Mahoney , later rewarded with Cardinal) the LA diocses is out over 600 million dollars with no doubt more to come) Perhaps then the Vatican will act! I don’t think that time is far off given the way my bishop chases down my paltry contribution to his annual Bishops Fund.
Meanwhile those in the pew are exhorted by these fakeries to become more holy. How? By following their example? I used to try to concentrate on the “good” bishops, place my faith there but am realizing now what the psalmist meant when he said ” place not your trust in Princes or
man”… I no longer will. Few and good and faithful hierarch may be still be around however they seem bound by the same bonds of fraternity which keep them from being effective in any meaningful way. When one does speak out or act like a Shepherd.it has little lasting or far reaching effect. Or he is swept off to Rome where we no longer can depend on his local leadership.
Never am I more reminded of the fact we are all sinners than when first, I look in the mirror, and then at the current state of hierarchial affairs. There is a bit of Judas in all of us but when it reaches the higher ranks of authority it takes the strength and faith of the martyrs to
hold on to your reach for sanctity let alone sanity. God have mercy on us all!
Fr_Sotelo wrote “The fact of the matter is that bishops both traditional and liberal overwhelmingly believed that protection of the Church’s image before the faithful outweighed the obligation to report sexual abuse of children to authorities.”
In California, the legal obligation for clergy to report child abuse didn’t exist before 1997, when they were added to the list of “Mandatory Reporters”
That’s not to excuse what they did or suggest that they didn’t have a moral obligation to prevent child abuse by priests, but it explains why the state can’t put them on trial for not reporting pre-1997 abusers to the authorities.
“The fact of the matter is that bishops both traditional and liberal overwhelmingly believed that protection of the Church’s image before the faithful outweighed the obligation to report sexual abuse of children to authorities.”
Incredulous! Shameful! Sad…but let us remember the jaws of death shall not prevail over the Church irregardless of the faithful being tossed aside ( by those who sought to protect the guilty) for maintaining appearances, preserving their reputation, loving their skewered view of their own self-importance.
Let’s gather one another up now. Let’s start a revolution of prayer for the conversion and salvation and transformation of all the U.S hierarchy. Let our prayers be sincere, charitable and hope-filled. Let’s stay alert and awake but prudent and humble. We know who it is who has won the way to heaven for us all…let’s pray the U.S. hierarchy into heaven.
Truthfully, I read the newest comments and the latest reports about those two still “being in good standing” and as much as I found that appalling and disgusting and unable to understand, I must trust in God’s infinite mercy or I will become bitter over this whole ordeal and I refuse to let this scandal rob me of what little joy I have at the moment.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theanchoress/2013/02/02/yes-mahony-is-right-he-is-also-so-very-very-wrong/
The Church authorities had an obligation to report criminal and alleged criminal behavior to law enforcement prior to 1997 whether or not it was specifically written into the law just as we all do as members of society when we become aware of criminal behavior.
The reason they were not criminally prosecuted is more likely due to the statute of limitations for those particular crimes, I think.
I hope Pope Benedict fixes this asap. Archbishop Gomez needs to begin to act decisively in LA. No more LA Congress (at least the way it has been). Purge the chancery, reform the clergy, clean out the convents, and restore dignity and reverence to the Sacraments. I look for Archbishops Cordileone and Sample to do the same. The time is now.
It is not just the ‘mistakes’ in the 80s…
Civil authorities may catch up with him yet since the Church never did step in to discipline him for his many deeds contrary to the faith. Yes, final judgment is up to the Lord but earthly judgment may be in the hands of civil authorities and should have been decades ago.
Fr. Jim wrote: With regard to the Rita Rizzo comments, my heartfelt belief is that she has done far more to harm the church than Mahoney has.
That would be MOTHER ANGELICA to you, father. Harm the Church? The number of souls that have been evangelized by her and her efforts are uncountable. Also uncountable are the souls damaged by C. Mahony over the years–not just with the cover-up and lies but the desecration of the archdiocese of Los Angeles and the warping of the clergy and on and on and on.
I guess every blog needs a troll…
I’m still trying to deal with the thought that he needed “school” on how to deal with a grown man taking sexual advantage of adolescent males. Common sense tells me that you do not need school to know that you most absolutely don’t deal with it by transferring him to another place where he is to enjoy the trust of another group of adolescent males and their parents as an ambassador of Christ and His Church. Is he suggesting the seminarians who one day become priests, and, perhaps will someday become bishops and cardinals need a class on this? Perhaps they will also need a class on how to deal with becoming bishop and how to deal with your predecessors big fat mistakes which, upon having been given the mitre, NSR will proclaim to be your direct responsibility while upholding all the “good” the emeritus bishop has done for the poor and the immigrant.
I find it interesting that a person with training in social work is using lack of education as a defense for not protecting children from sexual abusers. How can a trained social worker, with a graduate degree at that, claim he does not know how to respond to child abuse? Crime in Italy, what kind of school did he go to?
Yes. I hope Archibishop Gomez ignores this. Purposely talking TO EACH OTHER like this in a public forum is DYSFUNCTIONAL! Another example of modern society’s ubiquitous boundary violations. Talk to each other or talk to the public. Don’t try to start a conversation between each other in public.
Sieber wrote: “Bishop Curry was a known foe of altar rails demanding there removal and forbidding their restoration in his jurisdiction of Ventura and Santa Barbara counties.”
This was the Revenge of the Altar Rails.
Fr_Sotelo: Very well said!
“Don’t judge another person until you have walked a mile in their shoes”.
Dear cothridge, you ask: “What kind of school did he go to?”
That would be the Catholic University of America, where he graduated with his M.S.W. in 1964.
He also taught social work at Fresno State University (a campus of the California State University) while in the Diocese of Fresno, before being moved to Los Angeles in 1975. During these years, he was deeply involved in the Farm Labor Dispute working with César Chávez.
For more reading on those years in California and the Catholic Church in California, including the younger Roger Mahony, see César Chávez, the Catholic Bishops, and the Farmworkers’ Struggle for Social Justice, by Marco G. Prouty, U. Arizona Press, Sept. 2006, 208 pp.
Many bishops, priests and religious trained in “social work” in the 1960’s were quite occupied with racial question (the Civil Rights movement), economic questions (poverty and the development of our modern welfare system), and the war in Viet Nam. Forty to fifty years later, the world is, of course, quite different, as American society moved from the Kennedy-Johnson to the Reagan-Bush eras.
Of course, that was before no-fault divorce, legal abortion, and many other ailments of a society which is now fixated on rights without morals.
(Remember that Catholic University was where Charles Curran was teaching in 1968 and led the revolt of theologians and Catholic leaders against Humanae Vitae. That is where Mahony did his social work training a few years earlier. Curran arrived at CUA in 1965, the year after Mahony graduated.)
The mistake of the media is to report on these actions of two men (Mahony & Gomez) as if this sums up the life of the Catholic Church, so that we have an amnesia to the miracles of grace which the Lord Jesus accomplishes each day in 60 million plus Catholics (just in the U.S.). Our mistake is to let the media dictate our focus and go along with their game.
Meanwhile, by the most conservative estimates, at least 1,000 children in the U.S. will suffer some form of sexual harassment or molestation today, in homes and non-Catholic institutions and clubs. In one week, that is 7,000 children. By the end of the month, that is 30,000 children. What is the media doing to rally people to their defense? Nothing. What are we doing to storm our legislatures and pass stringent laws on safe environment, just in public schools and sports clubs alone? Nothing.
What laws have been passed to hold public schools, for instance, accountable so that families can sue them for their children who are molested and raped there? None. None whatsoever. An individual public school teacher can be sued and punished. The public school cannot. It can safely be said that the vast majority of children who are raped and molested, just this month alone, will never see any form of justice and restitution. And the public outcry over this? The answer is “what public outcry?”
We are convinced by a clever media that our most intense thoughts and worries should focus today on Mahony and Gomez and what should have been done 30 years ago in the Catholic Church, as if in fulminating over this, we somehow are doing even the slightest bit of good for the children who are being raped and molested, at this very moment, in our very own neighborhood schools, homes, and communities. Both the public and their legislators are good at outrage over Catholic problems, but neither do much by way of effective reform for the vast majority of children who are still being molested. Why don’t we pray for the day when the outrage of the public and their lawmakers is not so selective and narrow?
One can’t state any clearer than our Holy Father while he was Prefect of the CDF,
“[I]t is true that the Church may never simply align itself with the “Zeitgeist” [spirit of the times]. The Church must address the vices and perils of the time; she must appeal to the consciences of the powerful and of the intellectuals, not to mention of those who want to live narrow-minded, comfortable lives while ignoring the needs of the time, and so forth. As a bishop [of Munich] I felt obliged to face this task. Moreover, the deficits were too obvious: exhaustion of the faith, decline in vocations, lowering of moral standards even among men of the Church, an increasing tendency towards violence, and much else. The words of the Bible and of the Church fathers rang in my ears, those sharp condemnations of shepherds who are like mute dogs; in order to avoid conflicts that let the poison spread. Peace is not the first civic duty, and a bishop whose only concern is not to have any problems and to gloss over as many conflicts as possible is an image I find repulsive.”
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger in Salt of the Earth, Ignatius Press, 1986, Pg. 82-83
I would like to mention, mainly for the benefit of younger readers, that following the 1968 public dissent and rejection of Humanae Vitae by so many leaders of the Catholic Church in the United States, including many theologians, well, everything hit the fan in terms of morality, especially sexual morality, not only in the Church, but in the broader culture.
Another significant event in this slide into the moral cesspool was the 1977 publication from the Catholic Theological Society of America, of Human Sexuality: New Directions in American Catholic Thought, A Study, published by Paulist Press in June 1977, 322 pp.
Rosemary Radford Ruether gushed about this book in Christian Century in August 1977:
—
…
Papal Intransigence
In recent years a number of dramatic statements issued by the Vatican have pointedly refused to acknowledge new thinking on sexuality and have reaffirmed traditional teaching. Thus, in 1968 Pope Paul VI went against the majority of his own papal commission to affirm the immorality of artificial contraception. The 1975 Declaration on Sexual Ethics ignored contemporary developments and reiterated a severe condemnation of masturbation and homosexuality. Intransigence on such issues as divorce, married clergy and the ordination of women are related, psychosocially, to these controversies over changing sexual mores.
The recently issued study on human sexuality commissioned and approved by the Catholic Theological Society of America (Human Sexuality: New Directions in American Catholic Thought, Paulist Press, $8.50) is a direct effort to respond to this impasse. Enable to impress newer views on papal declarations, the theological society (the major organization of Catholic professional theologians) has opted for an independent magisterial statement issued on its own authority which will allow Catholics, both lay and pastoral, fuller options for choice between traditional and more recent thinking.
The issuance of such a statement on the authority of the theological society — a study that contradicts traditional and recent papal views at a number of points — represents the surfacing of a major authority conflict in the Roman Catholic Church. More and more, theologians are refusing to make themselves exegetes and apologists for hierarchical views that contradict their own best understandings. It is unlikely that this gap of consciousness and conflict of authority between the hierarchy and the intelligentsia will soon disappear.
…
In the theological society’s new study, Scripture is treated as pluralistic, setting forth no unified code, with many of its dictates referring to social situations that no longer obtain. The person-oriented ethics of Jesus is seen as a corrective to the patriarchalism of the Old Testament and the later Pauline tradition. Tradition is regarded as seriously flawed throughout because of its negativity toward sex and its objectivist view of the “function” of women. Procreation as the norm of sexual ethics suppressed proper consideration of interpersonal values. Science can provide important biological and anthropological data to correct dogmatic notions of the universality of this or that sexual norm, but cannot itself provide an ethical norm. A more person-oriented ethic, the study suggests, has been emerging gradually in Catholic thought over the past several generations, and is vindicated in the liberal wing of contemporary Catholic ethicists of which this study is a reflection.
A Humanized Sexuality
The study goes on to spell out a “theology of sexual ethics” which can provide the basis for both principles and pastoral guidelines. The notion of absolute “do’s and don’ts” that can provide final judgments about the immorality of any particular sexual act is rejected. In its place the study proposes a criterion of humanized versus dehumanized sexuality. A humanized sexuality is one that promotes “creative growth toward integration.” It contains the capacity for personal affirmation and mutuality at the same time. It is “self-liberating, other-affirming, honest, faithful, socially responsible, life-serving and joyous.” Dehumanized sex is sex that consistently negates one or more of these principles. It is evident that no one sexual act serves all these functions all the time. The question is one of patterns of life rather than of individual acts. Is the particular pattern of sexual acts moving toward the pole of humanization or toward the pole of dehumanization?
Traditional moralists will be acutely discomfited by these principles. No longer is it possible to state dogmatically that any particular act — masturbation, adultery, premarital sex, homosexuality, etc. — is automatically and intrinsically immoral. Rather, all such acts must be judged in the context of their service to self- and other-affirming life patterns or their opposites. This approach allows relative judgments that certain categories of acts are likely to be negative, but no absolutes. Not the act but the quality of life it serves is the standard of judgment.
—
(whole review at: http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1176)
By the end of the 1970’s, every moral concept was up for grabs in academia, and, indeed, there was no real clear guidance from the US bishops.
The CDF wrote to Archbishop Quinn concerns and Observations about Human Sexuality in July 1979.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19790713_mons-quinn_en.html
Then came the 1980’s, with a new disease called AIDS, many new STD’s, a general decline in social values of marriage and family, legal abortion, and, by the mid-1980’s, growing awareness of these crimes against children which almost, in the 1970’s, were considered possibly part of “normal” human experience. Child pornography laws were not 18 U.S.C. until 1988.
It was really a dark, evil, smoke-of-Satan clouded time in the US in the 1970’s, and the Church, especially at the upper levels of leadership, especially theologians, was drinking it all in. This might help understand some of Mahony’s statements, although not reducing the horror or awfulness of what happened.
Thank God for his mercy that things are changing. Sin, hell, right and wrong are making a comeback.
Not that *Mother Angelica* needs to be defended by a lowly fan of hers like me, but come on. Seriously? To accuse her of harming the Church is beyond the pale.
Raised by a single mother in poverty, with no formal education, Mother Angelica created a worldwide Catholic media network. Using the Internet, short wave radio, radio and tv, people in the most remote parts of the world can receive EWTN, and the Church. My Evangelical Protestant grandmother was homebound in her later years, and she never missed Mother Angelica. She’s the one who introduced me to Mother Angelica. I have had some health problems recently, and it is so comforting to be able to turn on my tv and say the rosary and Chaplet of Divine Mercy. Who else but EWTN is showing Bishop Fulton Sheen reruns? His shows are still so relevant today.
God Bless Mother Angelica.
“robtbrown wrote,
I see that Card Mahony has a master’s in Social Work. If memory serves, so did Cardinal Bernardin. Card McKarrick has a doctorate in Sociology.”
And guess what? Another bishop, Rembert Weakland, OSB, ArchB. Emeritus of Milwaukee, who had a sexual relationship with a male and paid him off to prevent a lawsuit, had a doctorate in musicology from Columbia. Since when does knowing something about music qualify one to be a bishop?!?
The disgraced Cardinal Mahony was responsible for the corruption of the liturgy in Los Angeles. Google “Gather Faithfully Together: A Guide for Sunday Mass” if you want to see how he poisoned our Archdiocese with his modernist interpretation of Vatican Council II. It is very long but in a nutshell he asked that the mass at the Taj Mahony Cathedral be replicated everywhere. And it was. Los Angeles has to be swept clean by Archbishop José Gomez.
frjim4321 wrote, “With regard to the Rita Rizzo comments, my heartfelt belief is that she has done far more to harm the church than Mahoney has.”
Please elaborate because I disagree. (For those who may not know, he is referring to Mother Angelica, founder of EWTN and a Poor Clare nun.)
Fr Jim – Would you care to enlighten us on the ways you feel Mother Angelica has damaged the Church? I’m sure you won’t respond.
Mother Angelica has also received dozens of vocations as fruits of her work, which is fair proof of its goodness. Some of her Sisters are even branching out from there to renew the older monasteries.
She and her network are absolutely responsible for my return to the Church, and I am most grateful to her.
“With regard to the Rita Rizzo comments, my heartfelt belief is that she has done far more to harm the church than Mahoney has.”
Good grief.
Well, there you have it folks! His eminence and prophet “fr” jim hath spoketh.
So, when *Mother Angelica* is canonized you *will* issue an apology, right “father”?
She has led millions, that’s correct, millions to the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. Yet you dare disparage her in such a way. Is this under the auspices of upholding (defending?) a man who’s ideology and ecclesiology you are more alligned with?
Shame on you.
MSM
Fr Sotelo,
Of course, you’re right about the historical MO of the Church in scandalous matters, but IMHO there have been rather significant changes.
1. My understanding is that years ago if a priest got involved with a woman (or at least, seemed too close to one), the tactic was simply to move him to another parish. Unfortunately, this was the same approach used for pederasty cases in which the problem was not a single woman but rather psychological problems that traveled with the priest to his new assignment.
2. There is also the question of critical mass. The bella figura, everything’s fine approach, works when there are single, seldom occurring cases that are quickly addressed. When they start to multiply, however, word gets around among the laity. Then bella figura doesn’t protect the Church’s image but rather injures it, producing ridicule and distrust.
3. One point I have tried to make more than once with FrJim4321 is that the laity is not naive. Just because there are friendly handshakes after mass doesn’t mean that the laity doesn’t notice the goofy priests or the limp wristed ones.
4. How shrewd was the Mahony mention of two the Cardinals? One, Bernardin, a liberal, the other, O’Connor Catholic.
fvhale,
IMHO, any priest who studies secular disciplines should first have a thorough education in theology, i.e., at least an STL.
The CIC says that episcopal candidates should have a Licentiate in Scripture, theology, or canon law.
EVERYONE: frjim4321 – Father Jim – has successfully knocked some of you off message.
Why do you fall into these liberal traps?
Despite the fact that Father has good taste in cigars, what he asserted about Mother Angelica is beyond risible.
Dear @discerningguy,
you are totally right. In the signature, “His Eminence” was both grammatically incorrect (should have been “My Eminence” or in pluralis majestatis “Our Eminence” – yes, courtesies are not grammar-free zones) and a significant discourtesy.
Archbishop emeritus also was unneccessary. He did not write in official capacity (which he indeed does not have, apart from the right to use the title). And he can fairly well expect Archbishop Gomez to know the name of Cardinal Mahony. “Roger Cardinal Mahoney” or “Roger Mahoney, SRE Cardinal”, perhaps accompanied with an “archbishop”, small letter, would have been much enough.
He was not, though, bound to call the Archbishop Excellency or Grace. It is, I think, a priviledge of those of higher rank that they need not this way do courtesies to those of lower ranks.
Fr Jim,
Mother Angelica has harmed the Church? What???? Excuse me, but have you lost your marbles?
I want to second everything that Fr. Sotelo has said in this discussion, but this in particular. Plastering every church bulletin and parish and diocesan web site with insistent blurbs about how safe our parishes are is counterproductive, annoying, and meaningless. We need to get away from that nonsense and stop letting the secular media dictate our agenda. If we took real steps to raise the general level of holiness and morality, first in the Church and then in the rest of the world, none of that would be necessary. What no one wants to admit is that all of this is the fruit of a sinful world and a corrupt culture, which the Church in many quarters has been too willing to join rather than fight. I am befuddled when I see media incessantly promoting hedonism and paganism and immorality in general, and that very same media is shocked, shocked to learn that such a culture produces people of all stripes– including Catholics, sadly– who have indulged at the altars of that culture.
You are right Fr. Z. Frjim4321 has “deflected” the topic of this post much the same as Cdl. Mahony did in his letter to +AB Gomez. ‘Nuf said.
Just added a word to my vocabulary, too. ;-)
Point taken, Fr. Z. :(
Noted and scolded, I am.
Thank you and will pray for both fathers in tonight’s rosary.
MSM
Dear robtbrown, I agree with you: “IMHO, any priest who studies secular disciplines should first have a thorough education in theology, i.e., at least an STL. The CIC says that episcopal candidates should have a Licentiate in Scripture, theology, or canon law.”
Yeah, and CIC also says that “The program of priestly formation is to provide that the students…are also well versed in Latin…” (c.249, CIC/83). We know how much effort went into that, so far.
I don’t think I can respond adequately without opening a few wormholes so I’ll just take a pass. I’ll just say that I give my respect to those who have done something to earn it.
Come to think of it, I don’t think I was the one to bring that person into the discussion here.
Fr Jim – You are a coward.
Sorry Fr Z. I didn’t see your previous post.
Fr Jim – You are a coward. CMD
You don’t know me. At all. And for me I suspect making your acquaintance would be less than a pleasure. Though I hope your usual level of discourse is at least a little bit higher than third grade name-calling.
I’m taking a pass on that subject because it’s a wormhole . . . and if you READ before you POST you will see that I did not open it.
That being said, our host wishes it to be closed and I have complied.
“The words of the Bible and of the Church fathers rang in my ears, those sharp condemnations of shepherds who are like mute dogs; in order to avoid conflicts that let the poison spread. Peace is not the first civic duty, and a bishop whose only concern is not to have any problems and to gloss over as many conflicts as possible is an image I find repulsive.”
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger in Salt of the Earth, Ignatius Press, 1986, Pg. 82-83
This is serious commentary indeed. Let no one be convinced otherwise that they can hide, twist or squirm their way out of such truths. To be mute and carefree to the cries of your people who have been injured by your neglect is a serious sin. I know what that is like since I have ignored some who were in need and came to me but in my pride and selfishness, I never lifted a finger…it cost me later on.
Dear Holy Father, I trust in your wisdom and in your love of Christ and His holy Church…in God’s time and according to His will, I know you will say something such matters again.
Let the fire fall, dear Lord Jesus.
Robtbrown and Andrew Saucci: Juice comments! I agree totally.
Fr. Jim:
I regret that someone who does not know lowered this conversation by calling you a coward, and also demonstrated crass disrespect to a priest.
But please have the honesty and humility to admit that you also lowered this discussion by referring to Mother Angelica as Rita Rizzo. Yes, that is her legal name, but you are a priest and you have to set an example of respect for a consecrated woman in the Church, who deserves no less respect than you do for having been called to the privilege of serving in ministry. You may not like her particular ministry or her mistakes in ministry. Yet that disagreement does not grant you license to be selective as to which women in the Church will get to be addressed according to the names they received at the time of religious profession. Disagree with Mother, Father, but no need to be disagreeable.
Protestants, non-believers, and agnostics would refer to Rita Rizzo as Mother Angelica, as is the well-mannered thing to do since that is what she has asked to be called. Should you do no less, especially taking into account your stated advocacy for greater respect for women who are serving the faith community?
“Let he who is without sin cast the first stone… ”
Jason Keener says:
2 February 2013 at 12:44 am
Paraphrasing Scripture out of context is the oft used crutch of those ignorant of the totality of Scripture.
There is quite a bit of difference between advocating the stoning of an adulteress as the Pharisees and scribes were who were confronted by Christ and judging the disgusting behavior of Cardinal Mahony. Christ also told the accused “Go, and now sin no more.” Counsel which you and the Cardinal, along with many others in contemporary society, apparently choose to ignore.
The time at which Mahony receives his particular judgment when he will learn where he will be spending eternity is up to God not us. However, Scripture requires that we judge behavior and we all make judgments every day of our lives, even you, whether you admit it or not.
Here’s a few passages of Scripture which you most likely have never read or heard during your stroll through the “smorgasbord” of Scripture that you need to carefully reflect on prior to the next time you have an inkling to play the “cast a stone” card.
“And why even of yourselves, do you not judge that which is just?” Luke 12:57
“And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us.” 2 Thessalonians 3:6
Let us not forget just WHO has been hurt the most in these events.
(the original abuses, the cover-ups and the now disclosures and the back and forth judgements of both C.Mahoney and ABP Gomez):
Let us offer up prayers in REPARATION to the sorrows and pains that have been added to OUR LORD on the Cross and in REPARATION to the sorrows that Our Blessed Mother is now undergoing for her sons of predilection: The Consecrated ALTER CHRISTUS of all ranks.
Thank you, Fr_Sotelo, for bringing up the many children who are or will be abused. I often feel led to pray for children in danger of being abused on a given day.
I have a question. Did this policy of not reporting suspected abusers to police come from the general culture at the time, or was this somehow bound up in the idea that the Church is above meddling from the State, and answerable only to God? I do remember in St. Catherine of Sienna’s Dialogue that she advises the civil authorities not to punish priests because that right is due to God. I also recall that Padre Pio was of the mind that scandals should not be openly admitted to because of the souls that would leave the Church in response to the scandal ( and I believe that he was concerned about their eternal salvation). Was this a common belief among Catholics?
Dear chantgirl, In answer to your question “Did this policy….come from the general colture at the time, or was this somehow bound up in the idea that the Church is above meddling…” I would ask if you read my background comment about the times, above at 2 February 2013 at 1:22 pm. For the most part, many leader of Church and culture in the 1970’s were in the sewer together, from a moral perspective. Things did not start to change in the society (new laws protecting children, prosecutions) until the mid-1980’s.
Many religious and civil leaders just chucked the “moral compass” overboard in the late 1960’s; we are really just beginning to get our bearings again.
Having watched our traditionally-minded former pastor dread and then suffer miserably the persecuting visits of Bp. Curry who warred against all traditional ‘trappings’ (reception of Holy Communion kneeling, the altar rail, women wearing veils, etc.), I can only rejoice at Bp. Curry’s resignation right now. I wish him and Ab. Mahony, “LA Master Liturgist” (read: humble postures destroyer), a fruitful season of repentance before their final reward — whatever that may be.
‘Cushy’ earthly delights are sometimes, I think, from the mercy of God for those who are not destined to eternal ones. So we must not fear or worry about apparent injustice. Human life is short and the Lord will not be mocked.
His ultimate justice is perfect. No one who makes the Child Jesus cry or defends or protects it or tries to drag others down into it gets away with it.
Praying that our new bishop of Santa Barbara, among other things, will be a true & unflagging friend of Christ, the Holy Father, and the Usus Antiquior.
Vis-a-vis your post here (https://wdtprs.com/2013/02/fr-perrones-sexagesima-sunday-sermon-on-spiritual-pride/), I apologize for the above comment.
At 9:00 Eastern tonight, HBO will show a two-hour documentary “Mea Maxima Culpa – Silence in the House of God” on child abuse in the Catholic Church.
I haven’t seen it, so I just pass on this information.
Blaming his successor… I think Obama’s just found a strategy for his second term.
HBO is owned by Time-Warner which also owns CNN. Consequently, I’m sure the HBO documentary “Mea Maxima Culpa – Silence in the House of God” will be objective and balanced. (sarcasm)
Oh, and Time-Warner’s namesake magazine, “Time”, also pronounced Obama as the “first gay president” didn’t they. I’m sure the HBO doc. will be fair and balanced.