Cardinal Mahony bans Bishop Williamson from LA

[bobzills]

“In the Los Angeles Archdiocese, Williamson is hereby banned from entering any Catholic church, school or other facility, until he and his group comply fully and unequivocally with the Vatican’s directives regarding the Holocaust.”
the-tidings.com/2009/030609/statement.htm

 

[Seamus_L]

If I lived in the Archdiocese of LA I’d invite Bishop Williamson to tea to spite Mahony.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Holocaust deniers like Williamson will find no sympathetic ear or place of refuge in the Catholic Church, of which he is not — and may never become — a member.

His excommunication was lifted, doesn’t that make him a member of the Church? Also the letter misquotes what the Vatican said about recanting - Williamson must recant in order to act as a bishop in the church. But the letter says that Williamson must recant in order to “be reconciled to the church”. It isn’t quite honest.

Also, since Vatican II, we recognize that the membership of the church extends beyond the visibile church boundaries… apparently whoever wrote that letter doesn’t like the Spirit of Vatican II

 

[Digitonomy]

Since Bishop Williamson is a member of the Latin Church, does the directive of Cardinal Mahoney (the local Latin ordinary) apply to Williamson anywhere in the archdiocese, or does it only apply to churches, schools, and other facilities of the Latin Church?

 

[maggiemay2u]

This the same cardinal that will bury pro abortion Catholics and non Catholics alike in the crypt nearest the altar at Taj Mahony, if they kicked in enough to get the place built. His diocese alone, as far as I know, charges mandatory opening and closing fees on pre-purchased cemetery plots and charges 10% interest on them (he says cemeteries are one of the best revenue generating diocese organizations–real Christian) He taxes poor parishes at the same rate as rich ones–he’ll collect 38k and give them back 35k (in “diocesan aide”) and have the audacity to tell parishes he’s helping them out (wonder if he’d support a similar flat tax for the feds, too) He also refused to assist priests who wanted to fight false charges of molestation rather than be part of the settlement. The settlement, which, BTW, was meant to derail chances to be deposed for possible legal action(the feds may have the last laugh on this one)

I think Williamson is probably a scoop short of a sundae, but the morality ala Mahony is perverse.

 

[Corki]

Since Bishop Williamson is a member of the Latin Church, does the directive of Cardinal Mahoney (the local Latin ordinary) apply to Williamson anywhere in the archdiocese, or does it only apply to churches, schools, and other facilities of the Latin Church?

Not sure what you mean here?

Bishop Williamson is not a member of Cardinal Mahoney’s diocese. Cardinal Mahoney can only direct what is under his control. That would be all the Catholic organizations that are owned by, run by or controled by the diocese.

If Bishop Williamson was invited to speak at the local Rotary Club, the Cardinal couldn’t really do anything about it. Likewise, if he was invited to speak at a church or school under the direct control of someone else such as an Eastern Catholic Bishop.

I am not sure if the Cardinal has the authority to direct this for schools that are independant or run by religious orders. The “party line” for Catholic universities has been that the Bishop can’t really control what they do. If they can’t control having pro-aborts speak at graduations, they can’t control Bishop Williamson speaking.

 

[Digitonomy]

Bishop Williamson is not a member of Cardinal Mahoney’s diocese. Cardinal Mahoney can only direct what is under his control. That would be all the Catholic organizations that are owned by, run by or controled by the diocese.

If Bishop Williamson was invited to speak at the local Rotary Club, the Cardinal couldn’t really do anything about it. Likewise, if he was invited to speak at a church or school under the direct control of someone else such as an Eastern Catholic Bishop.

That was what I was wondering, whether Williamson owed any obedience to the local ordinary while in his diocese, or just when visiting one of his churches, schools or other institutions.

 

[AdvanceAlways]

As much as I despise Mahoney, I have to say for once I agree with him.

 

[redrosetea]

If I had to pick between the 2 I’d have a hard time figuring out who has done more damage to the church…

I will never forget what a fool he made out of himself with his public fight with Mother Angelica

 

[maggiemay2u]

If I had to pick between the 2 I’d have a hard time figuring out who has done more damage to the church…

I will never forget what a fool he made out of himself with his public fight with Mother Angelica

Unfortunately, only one has been called on the carpet and made to revisit his errors, and one is still in power of a huge organization that perverts post VC2 Roman Catholicism (IMHO)

As I said, Williamson must have a screw loose, as do all the deny folks. Mahony, I truly believe sees LA as his church, not Rome’s, not Christ’s, his.

 

[srp643]

“In the Los Angeles Archdiocese, Williamson is hereby banned from entering any Catholic church, school or other facility, until he and his group comply fully and unequivocally with the Vatican’s directives regarding the Holocaust.”
the-tidings.com/2009/030609/statement.htm

What’s the point of Mahony-meister even commenting on this? Unless Williamson is planning to head to LA, this seems highly immature and petty.

Replace the word “Williamson” with “Traditionalist” in this statement and I think we have what he is trying to say.

It’s great how the LA Cathedral has the Tabernacle outside the main Church in a side room that is unmarked. Put Jesus as far away from the center of the Church as possible. Atta boy, cardinal…

How about complying FULLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY with the Pope’s MP and holding sacred what was sacred to all previous Catholic generations? He should be ashamed of himself.

 

[Corki]

That was what I was wondering, whether Williamson owed any obedience to the local ordinary while in his diocese, or just when visiting one of his churches, schools or other institutions.

I know very little about Bishop Williamson other than what has been in the press. However, I believe that the priests who Bishop Lefebvre illicitly consecrated were validly and licitly ordained as priests. He (and the others) have no faculties as Bishops. Does that mean that they are canonically priests?

Priests, however, make promises to obey their Bishop and his successors. They have to get permission to do some things in other dioceses such as say Mass and hear Confessions but I don’t think they have any particular obligation to obey a Bishop who is not their own superior. Any more obligation, that is, than any Catholic has to obey Bishops in general out of respect.

What are the chances of Bishop Williamson showing up in California anyway? I would think he would be laying low.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Unbelievable! The Vatican has worked for years trying to get a reconciliation put together with the SSPX. I am no expert on the subject, but as I understand it, one of the barriers has been a fear on the part of the SSPX people that they would be hassled by liberal bishops, no matter what the Vatican directed concerning their status. How can they doubt it now?

Being isolated is not a good thing. Part of “Universality” is precisely the avoidance of such. So this Bishop Williamson, or Father Williamson, or whatever he is, has been in the SSPX cocoon for however many years and, like many who are isolated within a small group, he picked up some kooky notions about history; notions that are not specifically anti-semitic but are taken as such. It’s too bad Wiliams believes the holocaust was overblown or a myth or whatever he thinks it is. He’s an old guy, who has been outside the wider Church for a long time, and it’s not that odd that he has picked up an accretion or two. Mahony seems to be okay with Masses specifically for homosexuals. Why the high dudgeon about some fool notion held by one old man?

Truth be told, I’m guessing this has a purpose beyond simply trying to keep Williamson from “infecting” others with a historical view (if he still even holds it) that nobody would pay any attention to anyway, and I’m guessing it isn’t just “political correctness”. My speculation is that it’s a shot across the Vatican’s bow, to express his intention to oppose anything but total condemnation of the SSPX and perhaps all traditionalists generally. It’s your garden variety “Non Serviam”.

Again, I’m not an expert at Church politics. Nor am I a “Trad” myself. But I think I have smelled enough skunks in my life to at least imagine that I can recognize the aroma.

 

[Corki]

Truth be told, I’m guessing this has a purpose beyond simply trying to keep Williamson from “infecting” others with a historical view (if he still even holds it) that nobody would pay any attention to anyway, and I’m guessing it isn’t just “political correctness”. My speculation is that it’s a shot across the Vatican’s bow, to express his intention to oppose anything but total condemnation of the SSPX and perhaps all traditionalists generally. It’s your garden variety “Non Serviam”.

That was my thought too. This is a pre-emptive strike against the possibility of regularized SSPX priests and parishioners operating in “his” diocese.

 

[LRThunder]

Here’s the thing, though: I can understand Cardinal Mahoney banning Bishop Williamson from saying Mass in the archdiocese. As the Ordinary of Los Angeles, Cardinal Mahoney has that right.

But what’s ridiculous is that Bishop Williamson cannot ENTER any church or facility associated with the archdiocese.

As horrible as Bishop Williamson’s statements were, some other bishops are acting too much like the elder brother in the parable of the Prodigal Son.

 

[Digitonomy]

That was my thought too. This is a pre-emptive strike against the possibility of regularized SSPX priests and parishioners operating in “his” diocese.

Perhaps. I would lean more toward the idea that it was for local consumption. In liberal bastions such as LA, the Church is often disdained as a relic of the past, inseparable from the sexism, racism, anti-Semitism, etc that are found in parts of its history. For Catholics who may be wavering because of these issues, this was a clear and forceful demonstration that anti-Semitism is not welcome in the Church, despite what people may have concluded from the Vatican’s bungled PR when Williamson’s excommunication was lifted.

But an action like this may also serve more than one purpose.

 

[Ridgerunner]

As horrible as Bishop Williamson’s statements were, some other bishops are acting too much like the elder brother in the parable of the Prodigal Son.

I’m not aware of what other bishops are doing. Perhaps you could explain.

 

[LRThunder]

I’m not aware of what other bishops are doing. Perhaps you could explain.

This is at least the 2nd time that a bishop (in the general sense) has implied that Bishop Williamson is not welcome back in the Church. I believe the Cardinal Archbishop of Vienna said something similar.

 

[maggiemay2u]

Perhaps. I would lean more toward the idea that it was for local consumption. In liberal bastions such as LA, the Church is often disdained as a relic of the past, inseparable from the sexism, racism, anti-Semitism, etc that are found in parts of its history. For Catholics who may be wavering because of these issues, this was a clear and forceful demonstration that anti-Semitism is not welcome in the Church, despite what people may have concluded from the Vatican’s bungled PR when Williamson’s excommunication was lifted.

But an action like this may also serve more than one purpose.

I’m with the folks who discern a more sinister motive. The cardinal has been a foe of anything not out of his own little think tank. While there are many liberal areas, there are likewise many who have voiced their desire for the opportunity to participate in the VC2 ideals without perversion. Requests by significant members of the faithful for a Latin mass are brushed aside or the requirements by pastors are designed to obliterate any chance of their requests being heard.It’s a mess. My sister is still in the diocese.

There are many faithful priests in the diocese who are candid about “the basket” mentality and the loss of Catholicism in Los Angeles.

 

[srp643]

Looks like he should focus more on his own misbehavior than casting stones at other bishops.

latimes.com/news/local/la-me-mahony29-2009jan29,0,6232753.story

Here’s an excerpt:

*One priest, Michael Stephen Baker, told Mahony in 1986 that he had molested children, but he was allowed to remain in active ministry. Mahony sent Baker to a treatment center in New Mexico and later reassigned him to other parishes, where he allegedly victimized children.

Prosecutors later filed criminal charges against Baker. He pleaded guilty to molesting two boys and was sentenced in 2007 to more than 10 years in prison*.