Archbishop takes action on Mahony, Curry over abuse scandal

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This may be an extreme nitpick, but I am just a little tired of seeing +Mahony’s name consistently misspelled. Is this just an ignorance about his name or is this some kind of small insult in which you don’t bother to get someone’s name right and make him appear insignificant?

I would be annoyed if people threw an extra ‘e’ into my name.
 
Elizium23 said:
This may be an extreme nitpick, but I am just a little tired of seeing +Mahony’s name consistently misspelled. Is this just an ignorance about his name or is this some kind of small insult in which you don’t bother to get someone’s name right and make him appear insignificant?

I would be annoyed if people threw an extra ‘e’ into my name.
Click to expand...
I agree but on the other hand, Mahoney is a fairly common name, Irish? Correct?

There are people who have the last name Karter but we generally think of Carter as to that name, Johnson not Johnsen but last names do get spelled in ways differently than from what we are accustomed. I have noted the Cardinal’s name is Mahony and if I have spelled it, have tried to spell it right.
 
It’s funny. A Google search for “Mahoney” turns up 24,400,000 results, with many people represented. A search for “Mahony” turns up 7,660,000 results, but this time, the first hundred or so hits are almost all referring to Cardinal Mahony himself.

The Wikipedia article on Mahony reveals 21 notable people with that surname, including the Cardinal. Interestingly, the article on Mahoney only lists 17 notables along with 4 fictional characters with that surname. y, which seems more obscure but again well-represented with many notable people.

I also find it interesting that many people are ignorant of Irish pronunciation of quite common names. In the news, you will often hear about “Lindsey Low-han” or “Archbishop Michael Shee-han” when the pronunciation is more like “Lowun” and “Sheeun”…
 
Elizium23 said:
It’s funny. A Google search for “Mahoney” turns up 24,400,000 results, with many people represented. A search for “Mahony” turns up 7,660,000 results, but this time, the first hundred or so hits are almost all referring to Cardinal Mahony himself.

The Wikipedia article on Mahony reveals 21 notable people with that surname, including the Cardinal. Interestingly, the article on Mahoney only lists 17 notables along with 4 fictional characters with that surname. y, which seems more obscure but again well-represented with many notable people.

I also find it interesting that many people are ignorant of Irish pronunciation of quite common names. In the news, you will often hear about “Lindsey Low-han” or “Archbishop Michael Shee-han” when the pronunciation is more like “Lowun” and “Sheeun”…
Click to expand...
Seems some of the Mahonys are more in Ireland/UK/British Empire at that, that would be another factor possibly. The Commonwealth or old Commonwealth (British Empire) Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, England and Canada and other countries.

It appears Mahoneys could be more in America and skewing your results for Mahoney are “Mike Mahoney- Multiple People”
Mike Mahoney (catcher) (born 1972), Major League Baseball catcher
Mike Mahoney (first baseman) (1873–1940), first baseman in Major League Baseball
Mike Mahoney (umpire) (1860–1947), Major League Baseball umpire
Mike Mahoney (footballer) (born 1950), retired English football goalkeeper
Mike Mahoney (American football)
Michael Mahoney-Johnson (born 1976), former professional footballer
Michael Mahoney, 19th century American thief known by the alias Wreck Donovan
Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Mahoney_%28disambiguation%29
Click to expand...
Possibly pushing Mahoney above Mahony in references.

It’s interesting, Cindy Sheehan and also the famous author on running was known as Sheehan… he’s famous to American scholars of running at least… I read one of his books once.
 
Elizium23 said:
This may be an extreme nitpick, but I am just a little tired of seeing +Mahony’s name consistently misspelled.
Click to expand...
Well since you wonder if it is an extreme nitpick, I can assure you it is more - it is extremely pedantic to the point of being puerile, given the serious issue at hand.

Oh, If only an extra ‘e’ was all the Church was concerned with in this issue!

Remember, “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”

God bless you.
 
It was very uncomfortable for our priest (and us) at the Sunday Vigil Mass this afternoon. First, instead of the homily, he had to read Archbishop Gomez’ letter about Cardinal Mahony and the abuse scandal. Then, he had to launch into an appeal for our diocesan fundraiser (which Cardinal Mahony started years ago). Not good timing, combining the two, but life goes on. We pray for the victims of abuse especially, and for everyone involved.
 
beehumble said:
Well since you wonder if it is an extreme nitpick, I can assure you it is more - it is extremely pedantic to the point of being puerile, given the serious issue at hand.

Oh, If only an extra ‘e’ was all the Church was concerned with in this issue!

Remember, “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”

God bless you.
Click to expand...
But that is not all that Elizium23 said to be fair. The poster asked if it was a “slight” insult and sometimes, misspelling names is indeed meant to be that way. But in this case, I think it can be satisfactorily explained.
 
SMHW said:
I believe Archbishop Gomez is not one to take action before he understands the implications. He’s taken over a year to familiarize himself with both the official and the unofficial workings of his Archdiocese (and probably those of the suffragan dioceses as well).

I imagine it has taken him several months to go through these files and I presume he has taken some more time to consult with the Vatican.

To me the timing seems reasonable for something so important. I realize it may not ***feel ***that way since this is (rightly so) such an emotionally charged issue.
Click to expand...
I agree. You can review the files online. There are a lot of them. The ones you will see are heavily redacted. The files Archbishop Gomez sees are not. Giving the consideration these matters require, the time elapsed does not appear unreasonable.
 
a priest and I talked about all this sex abuse stuff recently and he brought up an interesting point. In many cases if you accused of sexual abuse as a priest you are removed from ministry for good even if you are found innocent.
so is the Church doing a good thing when they remove a priest as soon as he accused of something or should we wait till he is found guilty before we remove him from ministry and maybe eventually defrock him.

the way our world is going we are no longer innocent untill proven guilty we are now guilty until proven innocent and this attitude has crept into the Catholic Church in many places.

as a person who desires to be a Catholic priest it is unfair that a man’s life would be ruined by a false accusation. I don’t mind removing a priest if he is accused of sex abuse but if he is found innocent he should be put back into ministry. I thought that this would be common but it apparently isn’t the case.

is the church wrong in being so quick with the removal of priests, and maybe not letting them back in no matter what? or is this a necessary evil that must occur because of the great evil sexual abuse is?
 
catholictiger said:
a priest and I talked about all this sex abuse stuff recently and he brought up an interesting point. In many cases if you accused of sexual abuse as a priest you are removed from ministry for good even if you are found innocent.
so is the Church doing a good thing when they remove a priest as soon as he accused of something or should we wait till he is found guilty before we remove him from ministry and maybe eventually defrock him.

the way our world is going we are no longer innocent untill proven guilty we are now guilty until proven innocent and this attitude has crept into the Catholic Church in many places.

as a person who desires to be a Catholic priest it is unfair that a man’s life would be ruined by a false accusation. I don’t mind removing a priest if he is accused of sex abuse but if he is found innocent he should be put back into ministry. I thought that this would be common but it apparently isn’t the case.

is the church wrong in being so quick with the removal of priests, and maybe not letting them back in no matter what? or is this a necessary evil that must occur because of the great evil sexual abuse is?
Click to expand...
Manipulators are out there, however this tale that you told is a bit to the opposite of the other story discussed: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=751212

Does discipline vary from region to region ?? And between Dioceses and Archdioceses I would wonder .
 
BroomWagon said:
Manipulators are out there, however this tale that you told is a bit to the opposite of the other story discussed: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=751212

Does discipline vary from region to region ?? And between Dioceses and Archdioceses I would wonder .
Click to expand...
it does each diocese must set up a system which they use to protect children in their diocese. The diocese where I attend seminary calls it safe environment and my diocese calls it child protection, the amount of times I have to renew it for my diocese is different for the diocese I attend seminary in. When it comes to removing priests from ministry it is the decision of the Bishop and the Bishop and because he is the Shepherd of his diocese and the descendent of the apostles he makes those decisions for the diocese. So its not like the vatican or USSCB makes some universal way to handle priest who are accused it is up to the bishops. That is why I know in some diocese they will put a priest back in ministry if he is found innocent of the charges and in other diocese even if he is found innocent he isn’t let mack in.

I leave all of the names of the diocese nameless to avoid creating scandal, and if asked I will not name what dioceses I’m talking about.
 
catholictiger said:
it does each diocese must set up a system which they use to protect children in their diocese. The diocese where I attend seminary calls it safe environment and my diocese calls it child protection, the amount of times I have to renew it for my diocese is different for the diocese I attend seminary in. When it comes to removing priests from ministry it is the decision of the Bishop and the Bishop and because he is the Shepherd of his diocese and the descendent of the apostles he makes those decisions for the diocese. So its not like the vatican or USSCB makes some universal way to handle priest who are accused it is up to the bishops. That is why I know in some diocese they will put a priest back in ministry if he is found innocent of the charges and in other diocese even if he is found innocent he isn’t let mack in.

I leave all of the names of the diocese nameless to avoid creating scandal, and if asked I will not name what dioceses I’m talking about.
Click to expand...
This is good that you don’t tell us.

I don’t know if some geographical areas have had more incidences and some less incidences in the USA. It does seem in some ways, there are fewer of these incidences in the South but one would need to look at statistics, perhaps the Church is also smaller in the South.

Internationally, it appears there has been very very little of this in the country of France.
digitaljournal.com/article/298130
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church in France has less state protection – tacit or otherwise - than it does elsewhere, and this has long been demonstrated by the Church’s policy of coming down relatively hard on pedophilia within its ranks compared to the Church elsewhere.
Click to expand...
**The French Catholic hierarchy was the first in the world – in 1998 – to issue strict and publicized formal guidelines stating that it would not cover up for pedophiles. It followed up this declaration up with another – even more emphatic - declaration in 2002 which condemned pedophilia in the strongest terms and reiterated that offenders would be turned over to the police if they did not do so themselves when unmasked by the Church. **The declaration also asked churchgoers, families, Catholic schools, associations and even the government to help it deal with pedophilia, and issued guidelines to help detect signs of abuse in children.
Click to expand...
Read more: digitaljournal.com/article/298130#ixzz2K2Y0whhf
Click to expand...
Sounds like in this case, other countries should consider the response by the Catholic Church in France.
 
pnewton said:
Before anyone posts that rather inappropriate link(Fr. Longnecker) for the third time, you might want to check the rules here.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=145187

Negative and rude comments toward CAF members, clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) or toward religious and religious orders are banned.
Click to expand...
Isn’t this whole thread a negative comment about a member of the clergy? Saying that Mahoney and Curry allowed pedophiles access to children is certainly a very negative thing to say about them. So is saying that they are relieved of their administrative duties. It seems these threads always get censored and locked down, so I am trying to figure out if discussing the subject is even allowed. :confused:
 
Having read the public statements and several hundred pages of the documents, it is my opinion that Archbishop Mahony did not have the executive ability to handle the sexual abuse problem. He was in over his head but did not recognize it until it was too late,
 
KostyaJMJ said:
Isn’t this whole thread a negative comment about a member of the clergy? Saying that Mahoney and Curry allowed pedophiles access to children is certainly a very negative thing to say about them. So is saying that they are relieved of their administrative duties. It seems these threads always get censored and locked down, so I am trying to figure out if discussing the subject is even allowed. :confused:
Click to expand...
The archbishop’s are saying it!
 
OriginalJS said:
The archbishop’s are saying it!
Click to expand...
100% Correct. These are not “allegations”. Go to the Archdiocese of Los Angeles website and read the Clergy Files Produced by Archdiocese of Los Angeles. Look at the Clergy Personnel Files on the website. Remember, The Catholic Church is releasing this information. He is very a very intelligent man. He keeps making excuses. “I was naive” Come on. Now, he Deflects responsibility to Archbp. Gomez.
 
I said Old Commonwealth, please take that somewhere else and don’t correct people about things they did NOT say.
that would be another factor possibly. The Commonwealth or old Commonwealth (British Empire) Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, England and Canada and other countries.
Click to expand...
Your correction is imaginary.
 
catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/scardc2.html

According to this site Cardinal Mahony is an eligible elector for a new Pope at the conclave
presently.

Would he remain so if Pope Benedict were to elevate Archbishop Jose Gomez to Cardinal of Los Angeles before the conclave? Or would both then be eligible electors?

This is a surprising state of affairs given the news today. A Cardinal Emeritus votes while the Archbishop of Los Angeles doesn’t.

:hmmm: - another thing there is no recent precedence for. Wonder what will happen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top