Archbishop takes action on Mahony, Curry over abuse scandal

[SMHW]

Did Archbishop Gomez not have access to these files before now? If he did, why wait until they were released to the public before taking action?

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.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Heartfelt prayers for the people of Los Angeles, the Santa Barbara region, and their Bishop.

 

[cornbread_r2]

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.

I can understand him wanting to take ample time to assess the situation, but Archbishop Gomez was appointed almost two years ago. As it stands, “transparency” seems to mean – acting only when it is absolutely unavoidable. If the judge had ruled in favor of the diocese in regard to the release of the files, I have to ask myself if Gomez would have ever taken action against Mahony and Curry.

 

[pnewton]

cannon law.

in those matters which pertain to their own person

The administrative duties of the diocese and all functions related to the power of the bishop are not matters that personal. A retired Cardinal is only exempt in matters that pertain to his own person, not powers related to the Chair of the Bishop.

It is, of course, the nature of the Church to do things, even unpleasant things, in as courteous a manner possible.

 

[SMHW]

I can understand him wanting to take ample time to assess the situation, but Archbishop Gomez was appointed almost two years ago.

My observation has been that he has really only taken the reins for the last few months. As important as this situation is, I don’t know that it was number one on his list.

As it stands, “transparency” seems to mean – acting only when it is absolutely necessary. If the judge had ruled in favor of the diocese in regard to the release of the files, I have to ask myself if Gomez would have ever taken action against Mahony and Curry.

I have no idea.

 

[FCEGM]

This is excellent commentary by Fr. Longenecker on the terrible situation:

patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2013/02/mahoney-and-modernism.html

 

[ringil]

+Gomez can Ask and it has appears as that he has Requested that the good Cardinal have no official role in his Archdiocese. That is allowable, although not very political. However that does not limit the powers of the Cardinal; that is solely up to His Holiness.

It appear from some posts here that several people need to review the powers and the importance of Cardinals.

On another point, ONLY His Holiness has the power to try (judge) a Cardinal. It is not within the scope of the role of the Laity to do so.

I would also imagine that these latest steps have been taken in full knowledge and cooperation of everyone involved.

In other words,; I don’t think that the Cardinal was surprised by this.

 

[catholictiger]

That is true, in the sense that the local ordinary cannot prohibit him from saying Mass or hearing confessions.

But Cardinal Mahony can certainly be barred from administrative duties, as that is the function of the local curia, who serve entirely at the pleasure of the ordinary. (in other words, Cardinal Mahony cannot name himself the Episcopal Moderator of a Vicarate simply because he is a Cardinal)

In addition, the local Ordinary has authority over who may administer the Sacrament of Confirmation within his diocese (CCC 886)

Based off of what I have read, this seems to be what has happened. Cardinal Mahony has been removed from all administrative dutiues, and will no longer be called upon to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation.

But he still may publically say Mass (and I presume, hear confessions)

rumor has it the pope may punish him to.

 

[cornbread_r2]

My observation has been that he has really only taken the reins for the last few months. As important as this situation is, I don’t know that it was number one on his list.

…]

I have no problem conceding that Archbishop Gomez may have wanted to get out of front of this from his first day in office and that he was prevented by the Vatican from doing so. However, then the question becomes: Did the Vatican not know the contents of files that have been a bone of legal contention since at least 2007? If the Vatican did know the contents of the files, what did it see in them that might lead it to believe that Mahony and Curry should stay in their jobs? Additionally, if the Vatican did know, then Fr. Longenecker’s laying blame for of all of this at the feet of American Catholic Modernism would seem to be misplaced. These are, of course, rhetorical questions to you. Thanks for your previous responses.

 

[pnewton]

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

Do not post articles that make personal attacks or are in other ways inappropriate for the CA forums

Negative and rude comments toward CAF members, clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) or toward religious and religious orders are banned.

Everyone, online and offline, deserves to be spoken to and about respectfully. However, some posters seem to feel that clergy and religious are fair game.

 

[fix]

This is excellent commentary by Fr. Longenecker on the terrible situation:

patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2013/02/mahoney-and-modernism.html

Thanks for that link.

 

[Pat_Payne]

But he still may publically say Mass (and I presume, hear confessions)

OTOH, all we know from the public statement is that Archbishop Gomez “informed” Cardinal Mahoney that he could not serve in administrative or public functions. However, we do not know how it was conveyed exactly to the Cardinal. It could well be that Archbishop Gomez said privately to the Cardinal something along the lines of “Your Excellency, I understand that I cannot forbid you, by canon law, from hearing confessions or saying Mass. However, I would urge you, for the good of the Archdiocese and the larger Body of Christ, to refrain from any public celebration of the sacraments, as it may cause controversy, and weaken the penitental and disciplinary nature of the acts I have undertaken, as well as make it seem that I am only giving a ‘slap on the wrist’ to you and others involved in the scandal.”

 

[cornbread_r2]

My observation has been that he has really only taken the reins for the last few months. As important as this situation is, I don’t know that it was number one on his list.

I have no idea.

I have no problem conceding that Archbishop Gomez may have wanted to get out of front of this from his first day in office and that he was prevented by the Vatican from doing so. However, then the question becomes: Did the Vatican not know the contents of files that have been a bone of legal contention since at least 2007? If the Vatican did know the contents of the files, what did it see in them that might lead it to believe that Mahony and Curry should stay in their jobs? I’ve been unable to imagine a scenario in which the Vatican would not know of or inquire about the contents of those files. These are, of course, rhetorical questions to you. Thanks for your previous responses.

 

[Brendan]

OTOH, all we know from the public statement is that Archbishop Gomez “informed” Cardinal Mahoney that he could not serve in administrative or public functions. However, we do not know how it was conveyed exactly to the Cardinal. It could well be that Archbishop Gomez said privately to the Cardinal something along the lines of “Your Excellency, I understand that I cannot forbid you, by canon law, from hearing confessions or saying Mass. However, I would urge you, for the good of the Archdiocese and the larger Body of Christ, to refrain from any public celebration of the sacraments, as it may cause controversy, and weaken the penitental and disciplinary nature of the acts I have undertaken, as well as make it seem that I am only giving a ‘slap on the wrist’ to you and others involved in the scandal.”

This is from the article in the OP

An archdiocese spokesman, Tod Tamberg, said that beyond cancelling his confirmation schedule, Mahony’s day-to-day life as a retired priest would be largely unchanged. He resides at a North Hollywood parish, and Tamberg said he would remain a “priest in good standing” and continue to celebrate Mass there.]

So Cardinal Mahony will continue to say Mass (as is his right) but will not participate in Confirmations (as is the right of +Gomez to regulate).

 

[YoungTradCath]

It’s Abp. Gomez’s Archdiocese now, not Cardinal Mahony’s. Let us not forget that the scarlet, no matter how eminent and royal a title comes with it, doesn’t mean much in the long run. It does not make the Archbishop of New York any more ontologically superior to the Bishop of some poor diocese in the middle of nowhere.

Anyway, His Eminence posted the following on his blog:

“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.”

cardinalrogermahonyblogsla.blogspot.com/2013/02/historical-evolution-of-dealing-with.html

Is this a slight?

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Is this a slight?

It sounds like he is questioning the timing of this action. Like he is implying that he was chucked under the bus only because the files had to be made public. There’s no way of verifying that rather subtle allegation and wouldn’t the Archbishop have to go through some sort of lengthy Vatican approval process before doling out this punishment? It could have been in the works for quite some time.

 

[Obispo]

This is from the article in the OP

So Cardinal Mahony will continue to say Mass (as is his right) but will not participate in Confirmations (as is the right of +Gomez to regulate).

Celebrating the Mass is one thing. Publicly celebrating it as part of a scheduled Mass at a parish is NOT his “right.” He doesn’t control that schedule – the pastor and hence, the Archbishop does.

I’m sure Cardinal Mahony could go rent or borrow a hall and celebrate a huge PRIVATE Mass if he chose to. He could have hundreds or even thousands join him in his private Mass. But a public Mass? Only if the Archbishop allows him to.

He could bring great scandal to many if he continued to be on the Mass schedule at St. Charles Barromeo Parish in North Hollywood. I’ll keep an eye out but I suspect his future Masses will be private ones.

 

[BroomWagon]

The fallout will get worse as parishioners themselves begin to read the thousands of pages of documents that are now posted on the archdiocese website.
usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/02/02/mahony-defends-legacy-on-church-abuse-in-blog/1885557/

la-archdiocese.org/org/media/Pages/news.aspx

So? Some of this will be put up on the web I gather.

 

[Robert_Bay]

FORUM REMINDER

Negative and rude comments toward CAF members, clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) or toward religious and religious orders are banned.

Everyone, online and offline, deserves to be spoken to and about respectfully. However, some posters seem to feel that clergy and religious are fair game.

If you have an issue with them, take it up in private, not on this forum or any of our forums.

You may cite something from another source, if you are not using it to further an agenda. Agenda posting is not allowed.

If we deem that you are disrespectful to our clergy and religious, you will receive an infraction or even a ban.

Proof what you write before you post.

You may not make disparaging remarks about:

• Vatican II
• Clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) of any group
• Religious (brothers, sisters, and nuns) of any order or congregation
• Lawful actions and disciiplines by the Church including the historical excommunication of the SSPX. It happened. Rome explained why it happened. End of story. Rome did not put it out there for debate by the faithful.
• Another poster or his/her ideas. You can disagree. You cannot attack,insult, ridicule or dismiss as unimportant. His opinion is as important to him as your opinion is to you.
• Parishes, pastors, civil leaders.
• Other religions – if you’re unsure how to speak in public about other faiths, look at the Pope Benedict XVI. He is fraternal, polite, and intellectual in discussing religious differences.

Avoid arguments that will lead to violations of charity. You don’t have to like what you read and others do not have to like what you post. But you must be civil toward each other and those who are not on the forum.

 

[beehumble]

FORUM REMINDER

• Lawful actions and disciplines by the Church including the historical excommunication of the SSPX. It happened. Rome explained why it happened. End of story. Rome did not put it out there for debate by the faithful.

CAF should probably not really allow discussion of this issue - because what you said about SSPX applies here too, imho:

Lawful actions and disciplines by the Church including the disallowing of Cardinal Mahoney to have any administrative or public duties [in the Diocese of LA]. It happened. Archbishop Gomez and the tens of thousands of pages of un-redacted documents explain why it happened, why Cardinal Mahoney no longer has administrative or public duties in the Diocese of LA. End of story. Archbishop Gomez did not put it out there for debate by the faithful.

So again, it seems we should not really discuss it, so perhaps CAF should disallow any discussion of this issue whatsoever in any threads. It will only lead to high emotion and people being suspended or banned. No good will come from discussing it, imho.

God bless you.