Cardinal Mahoney's statement on Vatican instruction

[Confiteor]

Willful disobedience?

Excerpt:
“Having reviewed the Instruction thoroughly, I can attest that the Instruction reaffirms the admissions policy and practice of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and St. John’s Seminary. Our policies and practices have been developed over the years to emphasize that all candidates for Holy Orders must be men who are living committed chaste, celibate lives, and who are able to continue living celibately for the rest of their lives. The mandatory period of celibate living prior to admission to St. John’s Seminary is already two years, and this policy will be retained for all Seminary applicants.”

the-tidings.com/2005/1202/vatcm.htm

 

[JKirkLVNV]

“I’ve got some ocean front property
In A-ri-zo-na!
From my front door you can seeeeee
The seaaaaaa!
I’ve got some ocean front property
In A-ri-zo-na!
If you’ll buy that, I throw
The Golden Gate in freeeeeeee!”

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

And he claims all parishes in his diocese are completely compliant with the GIRM too.

 

[m134e5]

Communism looked great (except for the anti-religion part) on paper too…

I believe there are only one or two countries in the world left with Communist governments- and China will make themselves extinct, and Cuba will probably fall when (if) Castro dies. I doubt Lenin saw that one coming…

 

[Confiteor]

Apart from his permissive response to allowing homosexual candidates in the first place, I don’t see how he can unilaterally decide 2 years of chastity/celibacy is adequate in his Archdiocese when the document says 3 years…I hope the Vatican is listening…

 

[Elzee]

Confiteor:

Apart from his permissive response to allowing homosexual candidates in the first place, I don’t see how he can unilaterally decide 2 years of chastity/celibacy is adequate in his Archdiocese when the document says 3 years…I hope the Vatican is listening…

.
Why doesn’t the Pope do something about this man’s blatant disregard for Church authority? I really just don’t get it and wish someone could make sense of what seems to be such a reluctance on the part of the Vatican to clean house of at least the most openly unorthodox leaders. I’m sure there’s a reason - I’m praying there is one…

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Is he going to apply this policy to candidates for the diaconate also?

 

[fkpl]

I have just read the entire statement. It should be pointed out that immediately following the language quoted in prior posts on this thread, the statement accurately summarizes the material portions of the instruction. I think that its doing so completely qualifies the prior paragraph about the instruction somehow validating the LA Diocese’s existing policy with respect to Holy Orders.

Much, much more troubling is the ambiguity of the last paragraph of Cardinal Mahoneys statement, as follows:

"I commend this new Instruction to all of our priests serving in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles as well as to all of our seminarians. It is my prayer that all who are ordained or vowed for the service of the Church, whether they are heterosexual or have homosexual tendencies, may reaffirm their deep commitment to Christ and to a life of chastity and celibacy after the example of Jesus himself." (emphasis supplied)

The chief problem is the phrase "all who are ordained or vowed for the service of the Church, whether they are heterosexual or have homosexual tendencies…"

Given the syntax, this can mean either (1) those presently ordained or vowed only, or (2) both those currently ordained or vowed and those to be ordained or vowed in the future.

If he means (2) then this is a disobedient response.

Also troubling, but perhaps less so is Cardinal Mahoney’s use of the verb “commend.”. According to my dictionary the word “commend” has the following meanings:

**1 : to entrust for care or preservation
2 : to recommend as worthy of confidence or notice
3 : to mention with approbation : **PRAISE

This is a rather pliable verb in context. Why does he not enjoin all to obey this instruction? Is he merely recommending it for their consideration?

Cardinal Mahoney’s language seems like code and it is fair for one who agrees with the letter and spirit of the instruction to be troubled by it.

Given the significance of this matter, this studied ambiguity—and it has to have been intended—is completely unacceptable.

I cannot know what the Los Angeles Cardinal Archbishop means and won’t presume to speculate. He must be faulted, however, for not making a clear and forthright response. People disposed to do so could see this response as both deceitful and cowardly.

The time for pettifogging this issue is over.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Elzee:

.
Why doesn’t the Pope do something about this man’s blatant disregard for Church authority? I really just don’t get it and wish someone could make sense of what seems to be such a reluctance on the part of the Vatican to clean house of at least the most openly unorthodox leaders. I’m sure there’s a reason - I’m praying there is one…

I don’t know why, but I have this gut feeling that, at the pace Pope Benedict is taking, which is quite fast, I can almost see Cardinal Mahoney being reassigned to a remote post.

 

[Elzee]

Lux_et_veritas:

I don’t know why, but I have this gut feeling that, at the pace Pope Benedict is taking, which is quite fast, I can almost see Cardinal Mahoney being reassigned to a remote post.

Do you think he’s moving fast? What are some things that make you think that? I probably need a dose of reality here since patience is not one of my strengths when it comes to correcting wrongs in the Church.

 

[contemplative]

“I’ve got some ocean front property
In A-ri-zo-na!
From my front door you can seeeeee
The seaaaaaa!
I’ve got some ocean front property
In A-ri-zo-na!
If you’ll buy that, I throw
The Golden Gate in freeeeeeee!”

 

[Kevin_PM]

Now, I don’t live in L.A, let alone California, but I’m told Cardinal Mahony isn’t trying hard enough to get his flock back in line. Is this true?

 

[JOHNYJ]

The Cardinal is busy with his lawyers still trying to fight off the victims of pedophiles . He can’t be expected to be worrying about the church.

 

[MikeWM]

Confiteor:

Apart from his permissive response to allowing homosexual candidates in the first place, I don’t see how he can unilaterally decide 2 years of chastity/celibacy is adequate in his Archdiocese when the document says 3 years…I hope the Vatican is listening…

The document says 3 years before ordination to the diaconate. The cardinal is saying 2 years before entering seminary. This isn’t inconsistent, in fact it is tougher, unless relationships are allowed in the seminary.

Mike

 

[Confiteor]

MikeWM:

The document says 3 years before ordination to the diaconate. The cardinal is saying 2 years before entering seminary. This isn’t inconsistent, in fact it is tougher, unless relationships are allowed in the seminary.

Mike

Sorry if I got the sequence wrong…On a slightly different --but related issue --I’m afraid your last statement is quite true, though, based on the news reports out of LA last month:

"Several former students recall a licentious atmosphere at St. John’s that might have accommodated a range of sexual behavior, especially in the years before the 1990s.

They say that many classmates routinely broke their celibacy vows, that emotionally troubled students were allowed to drift though the seminary, and that administrators either were ignorant about sex on campus or turned a blind eye to it.

Some told of seminarians having sex in St. John’s dormitories, bathrooms and orange groves.

“There was an awful lot that was shocking,” said Jaime Romo, who lost his passion for the priesthood after three years at St. John’s in the early 1980s. Now an education professor at the University of San Diego, a Catholic school, Romo has sued the Los Angeles Archdiocese, accusing the late priest Leland Boyer of molesting him as a teenager.

He remembered a small group of students who dressed in nuns’ clothes during his time at St. John’s, and others who were “full-blown alcoholics.” He said the faculty avoided any talk of sex: “There was no discussion of celibacy.”"

latimes.com/features/religion/la-me-stjohns17nov17,1,3303571.story?coll=la-news-religion

 

[MikeWM]

Confiteor:

Sorry if I got the sequence wrong…On a slightly different --but related issue --I’m afraid your last statement is quite true, though, based on the news reports out of LA last month:

"Several former students recall a licentious atmosphere at St. John’s that might have accommodated a range of sexual behavior, especially in the years before the 1990s.

Yes, that is plainly disgraceful. I hope ‘especially before the 1990s’ means that nothing like that is going on now.

Mike

 

[AJC]

Confiteor:

Willful disobedience?

Excerpt:
“Having reviewed the Instruction thoroughly, I can attest that the Instruction reaffirms the admissions policy and practice of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and St. John’s Seminary. Our policies and practices have been developed over the years to emphasize that all candidates for Holy Orders must be men who are living committed chaste, celibate lives, and who are able to continue living celibately for the rest of their lives. The mandatory period of celibate living prior to admission to St. John’s Seminary is already two years, and this policy will be retained for all Seminary applicants.”

the-tidings.com/2005/1202/vatcm.htm

The Cardinal is absolutely the worst. He is a liberal, par excellance! On top of it, he is not honest. How you folks in the LA Diocese stand it, I do not know?

AJC