C. Mahony sells convent to pay settlement "Facing their Convent's Closure"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Angels_Watchin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
People love to rag on the cathedral and that’s fine, but it’s not relevant to this thread. The cathedral isn’t going to be sold to pay off the abuse settlements and it has absolutely nothing to do with the sisters in question.

I’m in the LA Archdiocese and I’m seriously distressed about this story. The article started with a big picture on the front page of the LA Times. I read it and was sorry that I was Catholic. I don’t want to be affiliated with a church that treats people the way they’ve treated these sisters.

I understand that the need to sell off property to come up with the money to pay the abuse settlement. And I can understand that they might decide to sell off a convent they own. It’s within their rights.

But no one from the archdiocese bothered to contact the sisters personally. They sent a note to the motherhouse of the order, not even to the convent being affected. There was nothing in their letter offering to help them find another place to live. Just “get out.”

This is so cold and unfeeling I can’t believe it.

Every time I think the church is maybe ready to move forward I find that actually, it’s ready to give itself another black eye.

Social justice anyone?
 
SuscipeMeDomine said:
People love to rag on the cathedral and that’s fine, but it’s not relevant to this thread. The cathedral isn’t going to be sold to pay off the abuse settlements and it has absolutely nothing to do with the sisters in question.

I’m in the LA Archdiocese and I’m seriously distressed about this story. The article started with a big picture on the front page of the LA Times. I read it and was sorry that I was Catholic. I don’t want to be affiliated with a church that treats people the way they’ve treated these sisters.

I understand that the need to sell off property to come up with the money to pay the abuse settlement. And I can understand that they might decide to sell off a convent they own. It’s within their rights.

But no one from the archdiocese bothered to contact the sisters personally. They sent a note to the motherhouse of the order, not even to the convent being affected. There was nothing in their letter offering to help them find another place to live. Just “get out.”

This is so cold and unfeeling I can’t believe it.

Every time I think the church is maybe ready to move forward I find that actually, it’s ready to give itself another black eye.

Social justice anyone?
Click to expand...
First off, the Church is not the one to blame. The blame rightly belongs at the feet of those who are in charge of this mess. That would be the bishop. Bishops in other states and in other parts of the world have absolutely nothing to do with kicking those poor sisters out of their home.

I have to agree with the others that if the bishop needs to sell something, then he should sell his own house before evicting others out of their homes. After all isn’t one of the three vows he took one of poverty?
 
Sabda said:
I have to agree with the others that if the bishop needs to sell something, then he should sell his own house before evicting others out of their homes. After all isn’t one of the three vows he took one of poverty?
Click to expand...
I say sell his car and make him take the bus. Sell his home and put him in a modest apartment. Garnish his salary until the whole mess is cleared up.

Nohome
 
Nohome said:
I say sell his car and make him take the bus. Sell his home and put him in a modest apartment. Garnish his salary until the whole mess is cleared up.
Click to expand...
That would punish the Cardinal, but it wouldn’t do anything to come up with the hundreds of millions of dollars needed to pay off the court settlement. HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of dollars.

We can come up with all sorts of punishments to give him and it might make us feel good, but the only one who could really do anything would be the Pope.

What disturbs me about this is not the settlement, it’s not selling off a particular piece of property. It’s the way this was done. If we were watching a movie the plot might have the evil banker hold the mortgage on a convent. They fall behind in their mortgage and he decides to foreclose and kick out the sisters who live there. He sends them a message saying “you have to move out” without any concern about the sisters and without any offer to help them in any way. And that would be reasonable because that’s what an evil banker does. But that’s not what a Catholic Cardinal does.

There are so many times I have to remind myself that the Church itself is separate from the people within it who may do terrible things. This one just hits close to home. This isn’t someone across the country or around the world. This is my Cardinal and his minions who are doing it. And I don’t know what to do about it.
 
SuscipeMeDomine said:
People love to rag on the cathedral and that’s fine, but it’s not relevant to this thread. The cathedral isn’t going to be sold to pay off the abuse settlements and it has absolutely nothing to do with the sisters in question.
Click to expand...
But why isn’t the “cathedral” going to be sold off to pay for these lawsuits??? It has as much to do with this whole deal as the Sisters and the convent do. If they’re being held liable for this mess, why shouldn’t the “cathedral” be fair game, too???
Every time I think the church is maybe ready to move forward I find that actually, it’s ready to give itself another black eye.
Click to expand...
Well, I wouldn’t judge the whole universal Church on the shenanigans of His Eminence in Los Angeles. All due respect, but it’s a wonder to me why Rome has put up with Mahony as long as they have…
Social justice anyone?
Click to expand...
Well, maybe what the Sisters should do is just declare themselves to be illegal Hispanic immigrants. Then His Eminence would be falling down all over himself—even right up and including defying Federal law—to make sure they had shelter, wouldn’t he?
 
Wolseley said:
But why isn’t the “cathedral” going to be sold off to pay for these lawsuits??? It has as much to do with this whole deal as the Sisters and the convent do. If they’re being held liable for this mess, why shouldn’t the “cathedral” be fair game, too???
Click to expand...
For one thing, he said that parish property wouldn’t be sold. For another, who would buy it?
Well, I wouldn’t judge the whole universal Church on the shenanigans of His Eminence in Los Angeles. All due respect, but it’s a wonder to me why Rome has put up with Mahony as long as they have…
Click to expand...
But it’s not just Los Angeles. A few years ago it was Boston. Currently in the news we have San Diego and Orange. A couple of years ago the bishop in Santa Rosa had problems for not reporting a priest to the police until after he had a chance to flee the country. In some cases it’s the actions themselves, in others it’s the appearances of what’s going on. But it all adds up and is depressing.
 
SuscipeMeDomine said:
For one thing, he said that parish property wouldn’t be sold. For another, who would buy it?
Click to expand...
You never know. It’s big enough to be turned into an office building, with a little renovation. I’m sure nobody would buy it to use it as church—that much is pretty clear.
But it’s not just Los Angeles. A few years ago it was Boston. Currently in the news we have San Diego and Orange. A couple of years ago the bishop in Santa Rosa had problems for not reporting a priest to the police until after he had a chance to flee the country. In some cases it’s the actions themselves, in others it’s the appearances of what’s going on. But it all adds up and is depressing.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is; but in my criticism of His Eminence, I wasn’t talking just about the sex abuse issue; it goes further than that, with his approbation of rampant liturgical abuse transforming a Catholic archdiocese into “The Newchurch of Whatever Is Trendy”.

As someone said on another site (takingnotes.blogspot.com/):🙂 “It’s very easy to criticize Mahoney. He takes sides on every issue, usually on the wrong side, and is one of the most political devisive religious figures in the country. He demeans religion with his self-righteous involvement in ‘social justice issues’ and his arrogance is unbecoming for a religious figure. Frankly, he deserves the disrespect. The fact that he’s extending that contempt to the whole church is the problem.”
 
And by the way, if you do a Google search on “Mahony selling convent” and read the reactions to this story, there are a lot of people who are Not Too Happy with His Eminence.

Mahony just may have finally gone too far this time; judging from the outrage over this decision, it appears that he’s taken a big dump in his mess kit and this just may come back to bite him in the behind.

And frankly, I hope it does.
 
mystified said:
Secular clergy does not take a vow of poverty.
Click to expand...
Thats true but they do make a promise to uphold Canon law, which has rules about how a priest is to live his life–stating that they are to live a simple live.
 
m134e5 said:
…auxilliaries should sell their residences to pay for the abuse settlements…
Click to expand...
Some of the auxilliaries residences sit on land that is part of a California Mission. Do we really want a piece of land, possibly encroaching into the historic part of the Mission, that is part of the history of the Catholic Church in the Americas to be sold off?
 
Cobbfmly said:
Some of the auxiliaries residences sit on land that is part of a California Mission. Do we really want a piece of land, possibly encroaching into the historic part of the Mission, that is part of the history of the Catholic Church in the Americas to be sold off?
Click to expand...
We could move the auxiliaries out and put the sisters there.
 
Anyone know in what sort of residence Mahony actually lives?
 
JKirkLVNV said:
Cardinal O’Malley sold the archepiscopal residence in Boston, why does Cardinal Mahoney not do the same?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure of the value of Cardinal Mahony’s residence, but selling it would be good PR - which is especially needed after evicting some elderly nuns from their convent.

In the Archdiocese’s defense, the convent is expected to bring in far more money than its assessed value. According to the L.A. Times:
The Santa Barbara County assessor’s office lists the property’s value at $97,746, although it seems likely to sell for more, if a sale goes through. Even the small, older homes near the convent start at about $700,000, according to the Zillow real estate appraisal website.
Click to expand...
I am not registered with the L.A. Times website, but I tweaked the web address and I was taken to the story. You might want to click on this link latimes.com/news/local/la-me-nuns7sep07,1,2190234.story?coll=la-headlines-california&ctrack=1&cset=rss
if anyone is still interested in reading the original story.
 
alih said:
if you please, i do have a problem with a function of the legal system. we have witnessed two trials that occured, one involving the perpetrator of the crime, the other involving the handling of the defendant. our system of justice usually is to be tried by a “jury of your peers.” when it came to the “trials of personal liability” in the civil trials, were the juries and judges made up of “peers of catholics” or of those who harbor evil intent toward the catholic church? i personally have no knowledge of this but i do believe that this question begs answers. have a good year. (alih)🤷
Click to expand...
Think of the OJ trials. Not guilty in criminal court. Guilty in civil court.
The most important procedural difference between civil trials and criminal trials is the difference in the burden of proof. In civil trials where, for example, driver Smith claims that driver Jones was at fault in causing an accident and thus was responsible for Smith’s damages, Smith must prove Jones’s negligence by a preponderance of the evidence. This simply means that the jury must find Smith’s evidence on the issue more convincing, even if only slightly so, than any evidence Jones offers. The scale must tip at least a bit in Smith’s favor for Smith to prevail.
Click to expand...
In a criminal trial the situation is quite different: the prosecution must prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This is obviously a very heavy burden of proof. To explain its meaning a standard jury instruction tells jurors that in order to find the defendant guilty they must be convinced by “proof of such convincing character that a reasonable person would not hesitate to rely and act upon it in the most important of his or her own affairs” (Devitt, Blackmar, and Wolff, p. 354). If, after hearing all the evidence, a jury has a reasonable doubt, then it must return a verdict of not guilty. law.jrank.org/pages/2204/Trial-Criminal-Civil-versus-criminal-trends.html
Click to expand...
 
Wolseley said:
And by the way, if you do a Google search on “Mahony selling convent” and read the reactions to this story, there are a lot of people who are Not Too Happy with His Eminence.

Mahony just may have finally gone too far this time; judging from the outrage over this decision, it appears that he’s taken a big dump in his mess kit and this just may come back to bite him in the behind.

And frankly, I hope it does.
Click to expand...
If the man had a shred of decency, or shame, he would resign. He is a failure. There is nothing he can do to repair what he has done as a bishop, as a religious leader. He is a disgrace. He has lost all moral authority. How can he live with himself?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top