After Archbishop Gomez’ announcement of Cardinal Mahony’s disgrace, the latter decided to write on his blog an answer to the Archbishop. Unwisely, the Cardinal encourages everyone to disseminate his letter.
The Cardinal’s arguments are pretty much as follows:
1. We weren’t told “at school”.
This is very interesting. It’s the first time I read of a cardinal saying he was never trained as a specialist. No, Your Eminence, of course you weren’t. Your job was, in fact, to apply that modicum of common sense and intelligence than one can expect from every half-way wise person.
I also point out that people become parents – and many of them do an excellent job of it – without receiving a specialised training at school.
Still, this is a new one for the Church, and might be used from other organisations too. I can imagine big whigs of the BBC saying “we did nto receive any specific training about dealing with pedophile journalists”.
2. I made mistakes, but hey, everyone does. Since 2003 no one could accuse me of anything.
This is so twisted Berlusconi would be proud of the man. No one questions the fact that since the beginning of the century the problem has been tackled very aggressively (too aggressively, I would say; but that’s for another day…). The big problem is not what has happened in 2003, but before. In addition, it is clear the turning of screws from 2000 on came at the initiative of the Vatican. This is not something Mahony spearheaded, this is something he had to comply to.
3. Archbishop Gomez did not raise any question since 2010, and now shoots at me with the cannon.
Honestly, I thought as much when I read the Archbishop’s statement. My conjecture is that we are at the vigil of further revelations which would disgrace the Cardinal even more, or else that now a complete picture has emerged that makes the Cardinal’s position utterly untenable. It doesn’t happen every day that an Archbishop orders to a Cardinal to just keep out of his Archdiocese’s affair because he has already made enough damage.
If you ask me, the Cardinal has missed a wonderful occasion to shut up; but again, I can’t imagine he would asked me very often. How deluded the man is can be clearly seen from the picture of his horrible, very expensive Cathedral (among friends it is called the “Taj Mahony”) in a prominent position in his blog page.
Cardinal Mahony was made a bishop by Paul VI. John Paul II made him Archbishop and sent him to Los Angeles, the biggest Catholic diocese worldwide. John Paul II is also the one who gave him his red hat.
In a rather brutal communique’ of the (huge) archdiocese of Los Angeles (Socialist Republic of California, USA), Archbishop Gomez has announced that Cardinal Mahony and an auxiliary bishop (Curry) have now been relieved of every duty concerning the Diocese (Mahony) and from his responsibility for his part of the Archdiocese (Curry). I do not know about the other bishop, but Mahony’s duties within the Archdiocese cannot have been numerous, or of any real importance. Possibly one dinner here and one lunch there, with the occasional buffet thrown in. Therefore, one cannot avoid thinking this last measure is simply due to either something big about to happen or to the frustration of his successor at the mess Mahony has left behind him.
If memory serves, Mahony’s idiocy already cost Californian Catholics several hundred million dollars in compensations, though if one understands the way the press presented the matter this should prevent further money going down the drain.
Again, one can’t escape the impression that further developments are going to be announced, and the Archdiocese wants to start a preventative cleaning to avoid accusations from the usual corners; or maybe Archbishop Gomez is simply fed up with the continuous references to the Archdiocese’s past, and understandably wants to separate the Cardinal’s responsibilities from his own tenure.
Something tells me, though, that this is not the last we hear from our disgraceful -and now disgraced – Cardinal.
Even after the felicitous departure of Cardinal Roger Mahony from the Diocese of Los Angeles – last time I looked, the biggest diocese of them all as far as the number of faithful is concerned – strange things continue to happen over there, hovering like ghosts over the diocese like the horrible Cathedral left to us as a memento of irreligiousness, wasteful megalomania and outright stupidity.
We are informed ( I have it from Father Z, who mentions the CNA, which mentions other sources) that a Los Angeles priest has been suspended for openly supporting what he astonishingly calls “gay marriage”.
Not so surprisingly, the chap describes himself as “a gay man and a celibate gay priest”.
Now, one can only approve of the decision of the Diocese to suspend the obviously heretical man from making further damage among his sheep; but the question is not this one.
The real question is: how likely it is that the man decided to “out” himself at the same time as he made public his support for the logical impossibility of so-called “gay marriage”? How likely it is, on the other hand, that the man was openly homosexual and had outed himself some time, perhaps a long time, before the event?
I write this because it strikes me as odd that the Priest be suspended because he “supports gay marriage”, whilst the fact that he is openly homosexual does not seem to have been a factor in the decision.
More gravely, CNA reports that the priest “will be suspended as long as he remains politically active”. What! Without making a complete abiura, and apologising for the damage done? Should he be, then, allowed to go back to his parishioners as an openly gay priest who used to publicly support “gay marriage” but is not able to do that anymore? What is this, an Anglican province of Los Angeles?
Even the notoriously weak and “nuanced” authorities if the Church in England made very clear, when the Ordinariates were announced, that no openly gay Anglican so-called priest would be accepted in the priesthood in the Catholic Church, for the simple and elementary fact that a priest cannot be more allowed to be homosexual than to be a paedophile or a lover of dogs, and that whilst the Church cannot enquire into the mind of people, once one has told that he is a sexual pervert the game is up, period.Good Lord, has the Diocese of Los Angeles not had enough problems in the past thanks to the ingress of sexual perverts (in great part homosexual) among her ranks? Are they so eager for the next payment of several hundred million dollar?
One reads such news, and wonders. There are dioceses that manage to make bad headlines even when they are supposed to make good ones, because the mismanagement, corruption or worse are so widely spread that it is difficult to give glimpses of the diocese’s workings without the rot emerging.
“Suspended as long as he remains politically active”, my foot.
Abject apology or kick him out, say I.