Archdiocese of Los Angeles - clergy scandal cover-up - ministering or being elitist? (celibacy, Lutheran)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was baptized, churched, and schooled within the purview of this Archdiocese. I've said before there were a lot of clergy members (priests and nuns) I didn't care for, on an instinctive level, as a kid/teenager.
The situation now looks uglier than it was thought to be. The LA Archdiocese has had to pay out on this before and the list of those involved, or at least accused, was long. Now, we learn there were maneuvers to cover up data.
I was always indifferent to Mahony. I figured that he had to have been charismatic enough to snag such an important spot. After learning he got in his car to go visit Frank Sinatra on his deathbed, I thought less of him. Why Frank? Why not others? Incidentally, when touring Notre Dame in Montreal, we learned that Celine Dion can get married in the Cathedral itself, while "plebes" can get married in an adjacent chapel.
Does this anger you? Are you Catholic or not? Do you feel this has been a last straw for many, pushing them away from practicing Catholicism?
This just in: previous Cardinal Mahony of LA has been relieved of his remaining duties. In a weird sort of parallel, this reminds me of the Joe Paterno situation. Again, we have somebody who was charismatic and well thought of rocked by a scandal by which they were surrounded. When I was a kid, I thought that LA's old Cathedral, St. Vibiana, was kind of smallish for America's second largest city, but it was built in 1876, per Wiki. The new building, shown in the article, is supposedly avant garde and impressive, and took some serious coin to build. However, I have never had a reason to be in that neighborhood, nor the desire to hunt for parking. Here's the article:
I was baptized, churched, and schooled within the purview of this Archdiocese. I've said before there were a lot of clergy members (priests and nuns) I didn't care for, on an instinctive level, as a kid/teenager.
The situation now looks uglier than it was thought to be. The LA Archdiocese has had to pay out on this before and the list of those involved, or at least accused, was long. Now, we learn there were maneuvers to cover up data.
I was always indifferent to Mahony. I figured that he had to have been charismatic enough to snag such an important spot. After learning he got in his car to go visit Frank Sinatra on his deathbed, I thought less of him. Why Frank? Why not others? Incidentally, when touring Notre Dame in Montreal, we learned that Celine Dion can get married in the Cathedral itself, while "plebes" can get married in an adjacent chapel.
Does this anger you? Are you Catholic or not? Do you feel this has been a last straw for many, pushing them away from practicing Catholicism?
Just more scandals to add to the list.
The files, some of them dating back decades, contain letters among top church officials, accused priests and archdiocese attorneys, complaints from parents, medical and psychological records and — in some cases — correspondence with the Vatican.
Mahony, who retired in 2011 after more than a quarter-century at the helm of the archdiocese, has publicly apologized for mistakes he made in dealing with priests who molested children.
Similar document releases in other dioceses, including Boston, have shown top church officials shuffled molesting priests from parish to parish, failed to call police and kept parishioners in the dark about the growing scandal.
The bolded parts, are what make me sick & ensure that I will never consider myself a practicing catholic again
the exact same things have been occuring in Australia too.
Now, we learn there were maneuvers to cover up data.
That's been pretty much an open secret for at least 7 or 8 years now. Maybe more. I wasn't surprised at all when it was confirmed. It's been an absolutely despicable situation.
The Catholic church wields a LOT of power in Los Angeles. And there are a lot of Catholics wielding power in L.A. The dedication of the new cathedral was broadcast live on local TV. A lot of people didn't want the money spent on it. They wanted the money to go to social programs. But Mahoney got what he wanted. Both with building the cathedral and covering up an absolutely sickening scandal that should have seen a lot of people sitting in prison for their crimes.
Last edited by DewDropInn; 02-01-2013 at 08:01 PM..
That's been pretty much an open secret for at least 7 or 8 years now. Maybe more. I wasn't surprised at all when it was confirmed. It's been an absolutely despicable situation.
The Catholic church wields a LOT of power in Los Angeles. And there are a lot of Catholics wielding power in L.A. The dedication of the new cathedral was broadcast live on local TV. A lot of people didn't want the money spent on it. They wanted the money to go to social programs. But Mahoney got what he wanted. Both with building the cathedral and covering up an absolutely sickening scandal that should have seen a lot of people sitting in prison for their crimes.
Eventually, they needed to replace the old cathedral, since it was no bigger than a parish church. However, I read they spared no expense. There were plenty of architectural firms in Los Angeles who could have taken on that job, but they opted for the THIRD largest cathedral in the world AND a foreign architect. So, now, I am sure they can extract some additional dollars from L.A.'s Catholic elite to help pay for social services. In Los Angeles, the question then becomes "Where does one start?" The story gets better. Wiki says he is a L.A. native, went to grammar school at St. Charles Borromeo in the star-studded shadow of studios such as Universal and Disney, and has a Master of Social Work from CUA (Catholic University of America) in DC.
Yes, I am (was) fairly familiar with the Catholic landscape of Los Angeles. What was Mahony like during his tenure? A gladhandler, a maverick, or some other combination? I remember his predecessor Timothy Manning better. For all I know, Manning's signature may even be embossed on my parochial school diplomas, but I'm sure I've thrown them away. In the news tonight, it said that Mahony had already apologized and, reluctantly, he can't undo what has occurred. That kind of sounds like Philadelphia's excuse for their musical chairs with their "problem" priests!
He's got a "poker face." I'm sure he's cool under fire. Plus, he was a personal friend of Frank Sinatra. That combo makes for a politician.
I'd call Mahohey an enigma. You know he's not Irish. He's Greek. (If I recall correctly.) He took a lot of criticism for siding with immigrant rights when LA started getting a huge influx. But at the same time he wasn't an "in the trenches" type. Not aloof but close. He never seemed to radiate warmth or charisma.
I'm not sure about when you lived in LA. But for a very long time the head of the AME church was a man named Rev. Cecil Murray. He was very much a part of the community. During the King riots he took a lead role in calling for peace. He was always out and about. Very warm, VERY popular man. I'd say Mahoney was his opposite.
His predecessor was Archbishop Timothy Manning. He did a lot of pastoral work and was known for being a gentle man. My guess is (even before the scandal) Manning was more popular. Mahoney never seemed to connect with people on the level Manning did. JMHO.
Were you in LA when Pope John Paul visited in 1987? JPII went through town like a rock star. Mahoney seemed to trail along in his wake.
I'd call Mahohey an enigma. You know he's not Irish. He's Greek. (If I recall correctly.) He took a lot of criticism for siding with immigrant rights when LA started getting a huge influx. But at the same time he wasn't an "in the trenches" type. Not aloof but close.
I'm not sure about when you lived in LA. But for a very long time the head of the AME church was a man named Rev. Cecil Murray. He was very much a part of the community. During the King riots he took a lead role in calling for peace. He was always out and about. Very warm, VERY popular man. I'd say Mahoney was his opposite.
His predecessor was Archbishop Timothy Manning. He did a lot of pastoral work and was known for being a gentle man. My guess is (even before the scandal) Manning was more popular. Mahoney never seemed to connect with people on the level Manning did. JMHO.
So, maybe 1/4 Irish and 3/4 Greek or 50:50, enough to tip him over into the Catholic school system.
Right. I don't remember hearing anything bad about Manning. He might have even been at my parish for Communion or Confirmation. He was present at SOME religious rite of passage I went through, but I don't remember him. Regardless, the abuse issue was occurring during Manning's reign as well, pre-1985/pre-Mahony, so one can only wonder how much he knew.
Last edited by robertpolyglot; 02-01-2013 at 09:45 PM..
Were you in LA when Pope John Paul visited in 1987? JPII went through town like a rock star. Mahoney seemed to trail along in his wake.
No. I wasn't in town when that happened.
My issues with the Archdiocese of Los Angeles are about other issues and, while it's sad, not the molestation issue since it didn't impact our parish, having read the "rosters." My issues are about the negativity of their educational system, seen very clearly in grammar school and less clearly in high school where I, in general, learned to dislike many of the priests and nuns because I didn't feel people who were that mean-spirited and on a power trip toward KIDS were Christ-like. I've had opportunities to be enrolled in public schools, in northern NJ and in LA for middle school one semester, and the teachers treated the students BETTER. Then, to see that some of the kids in the Catholic HSs thought they were better than kids from South Central or East LA really bothered me, even though I didn't live there. As I've mentioned up above, the term L.A.'s "Catholic elite" works for me. In the past, it has never been an Italian or Hispanic elite, but long-lineage Irish types, for the most part, who did the "right things" and went to the "right schools," who could "pass" alongside the WASPs in the Southland's country clubs. It's a thesis in and of itself, really. All I can say is "Thank God for good state universities, where I was handed an oxygen mask," so to speak.
And, sadly, I've seen the same hypocrisies in other dioceses and archdioceses elsewhere in the U.S. Those "fundie Catholics" who blindly tow the line need to wake up and smell the coffee. The Church is far from what Christ intended it to be. If you've ever known anyone who has worked at an archdiocese or diocese, they are political "little" places to work, and little is the operative word. How sad.
Last edited by robertpolyglot; 02-02-2013 at 12:52 PM..
I was baptized, churched, and schooled within the purview of this Archdiocese. I've said before there were a lot of clergy members (priests and nuns) I didn't care for, on an instinctive level, as a kid/teenager.
The situation now looks uglier than it was thought to be. The LA Archdiocese has had to pay out on this before and the list of those involved, or at least accused, was long. Now, we learn there were maneuvers to cover up data.
I was always indifferent to Mahony. I figured that he had to have been charismatic enough to snag such an important spot. After learning he got in his car to go visit Frank Sinatra on his deathbed, I thought less of him. Why Frank? Why not others? Incidentally, when touring Notre Dame in Montreal, we learned that Celine Dion can get married in the Cathedral itself, while "plebes" can get married in an adjacent chapel.
Does this anger you? Are you Catholic or not? Do you feel this has been a last straw for many, pushing them away from practicing Catholicism?
I'm not Catholic, but my wife comes from a very devout Catholic family that really takes Marian doctrines seriously. I'm not a Catholic-basher but, as an outsider to the faith, I think the behavior of both the archdiocese and other dioceses throughout the country and abroad really did extraordinary damage to the credibility of Catholicism in particular, and Christianity in general. Mind you, at its absolute minimum, the church should seek to oppose sin and evil in the world, not abet it. And the fact that these predations took place against the most vulnerable and innocent of its charges makes the abuses even more appalling.
Churches are human institutions, run by humans for humans. So when any institution forgets its core mission in favor of its institutional needs, it has an existential crisis. That is precisely what has happened with Catholicism. By any account, the church's included, literally thousands of priests sexually abused an unknown number of innocents. These abuses, when discovered, were hidden with a payoff to the family and the exile of the offending priest to an unsuspecting parish. When an institution essentially abets such heinous acts, it is very hard for it to recover moral authority in any sphere. How many good, dedicated priests out there now must operate under intense suspicions because of the church's short-sighted abandonment of its moral foundation?
That is not a critique of Catholic theology or the faith of its communicants. I'll leave that to the arrogant and self-righteous nutjobs on City-Data who think they have a direct hotline to the Almighty. To be sure, all Christian denominations have to grapple with the potential for sexual abuse, especially when someone as trusted as a clergy must spend long periods of time around parishioners dealing with highly personal and private matters. However, the way the Catholic church dealt with these issues showed the complete absence of any moral awareness. To some of the faithful, it won't matter.
For example, my wife's family still doggedly attend mass faithfully. To them, this is just an aberration, something that will right itself in a year or so. To others, it really is the symptom of an institution that has truly lost its way. In my Episcopal church, I have noticed a steady influx of new members over the past dozen years from nearby Catholic parishes. This is a logical step for many of them, because we remain avowedly liturgical. I'm not saying that we're perfect. Not by a long-shot. Yet the organization of the Episcopal church makes this kind of conduct much more difficult. First, it's not nearly as hierarchical. Second, celibacy is just not part of the requirements to be a priest, which allows a much wider roster of candidates. Third, priests do not have nearly the power and authority that they wield in the Catholic church. A very good friend of mine went through discernment to be an Episcopal priest, and it was the equivalent of tiptoeing through a minefield and shinnying through razor wire. According to his conversations with Catholic priests, the process was simply not that rigorous because the field of candidates was not nearly as plentiful.
To me, the issue comes from how it stokes anti-Christian fears. Christians have a hard enough time in the world as it is, without scandals such as this. And, lest my Fundamentalist brethren in faith think themselves immune from this kind of scrutiny, a year doesn't pass when some highly influential head of a megachurch doesn't get caught embezzling from the collection plate to pay for his Mercedes or buggering teenagers in the robe room. And, of course, we have the Westboro Baptist people out there doing a fine, fine job as ambassadors of our beliefs. I don't know a sane person who would endorse Westboro as being even remotely about Christ, but their terrible actions in His name affect us all.
In my Episcopal church, I have noticed a steady influx of new members over the past dozen years from nearby Catholic parishes. This is a logical step for many of them, because we remain avowedly liturgical. I'm not saying that we're perfect. Not by a long-shot.
I read your whole post, and it's very good. I'm wondering what the "retention rate" is of Catholics who are transferring over, so to speak. I wonder if it's a temporary move, and then they lapse altogether. I've heard that the Episcopal, Lutheran, and Methodist churches have received Catholics and, logically so, it's the Episcopal church who has received the most. I have gone to Episcopal "Mass" (if that's the name used) once, instead of going to the Catholic Mass. I think that particular parish was a dud and I couldn't believe how few people were in attendance ... at a 10 am service. It was extremely similar. It was interesting that there was an "Act of Contrition" alike prayer that replaces the confessional. The pattern and liturgy is very similar. One of the issues I'm having is questioning the authenticity of transubstantiation, in addition to the other issues I've complained about in the past, in addition to the one which is the focus of the OP.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
