Cardinal Mahony bans Bishop Williamson from LA

  • Thread starter Thread starter bobzills
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
…I would lean more toward the idea that it was for local consumption.
I tend to agree. He got ALOT of ugly publicity on local talk radio during the abuse scandal. This may be his way of trying to win back some respectability. Dennis Prager, who has been following this Williamson fiasco, is a local and has ties to the archdiocese going back to Religion on the Line.
 
I tend to agree. He got ALOT of ugly publicity on local talk radio during the abuse scandal. This may be his way of trying to win back some respectability. Dennis Prager, who has been following this Williamson fiasco, is a local and has ties to the archdiocese going back to Religion on the Line.
Apples and oranges. Mahony is an ultra liberal. He has faced lots of “ugly” press as he spent hundreds of millions on “his” church, despite the impoverished conditions of the immigrants he claims to care for. He advocated using churches as safe havens for illegals. He taxes his poorest parishes so that he can dole out money after skimming some for himself (geewillikers, almost sounds like the feds) He doesn’t give a rats patoody what the local shock jocks say. As for Prager, to my knowledge he hasn’t made any statements since Williamson recanted, and has never demonstrated anything but intellectual honesty in dealing with the diocese.

In case someone hasn’t figured out the fact I’m no fan of the cardinal, I’m not, but he gets a pass on the way he handled most molestation cases. Folks need to stop applying today’s laws with the happenings prior to the mandatory reporting laws, and increased sensitivity towards the damage done by, not to, molesters. Prosecutors, law enforcement officers, parole, probation officers and social workers, would see page after page of incidents being dealt with identically to the way bishops did–with counseling and reassignment. School teachers would routinely be returned to schools, without ever having been arrested…just a letter in their file removed in many cases, after five years. It was, at best, a nutty system. Mandatory reporting became a reality, I believe in the early 1990’s. Until then, the system was discover the behavior, counsel, reassign, repeat process for years and years.
 
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.
The Cardinal of Vienna may have said something, too, but I know the bishop of Regensburg, Germany banned Bp. Williamson from entering Church property in his diocese.
dw-world.de/dw/article/0,3982385,00.html
 
The Cardinal of Vienna may have said something, too, but I know the bishop of Regensburg, Germany banned Bp. Williamson from entering Church property in his diocese.
dw-world.de/dw/article/0,3982385,00.html
It’s all pretty ridiculous: SSPX have their own parishes and do not go to what they call “Novus Ordo” churches. Their churches are not under the control of the local ordinaries. If they are reconciled completely with the church, they may be given a Personal Prelature which would allow them to continue without being controlled by the local ordinaries.

The actions by these bishops are just making a stronger case for giving SSPX a personal prelature.
 
Apples and oranges. Mahony is an ultra liberal. He has faced lots of “ugly” press as he spent hundreds of millions on “his” church, despite the impoverished conditions of the immigrants he claims to care for…
Apples and oranges is a logical fallacy that applies when one is arguing equivalence between two things that are not equivalent. miguel and I are not arguing that Mahony’s actions somehow reverse previous actions he’s taken. We are arguing that the press coverage, and public opinion of him and the Church, will be more positive as a result of this ban. Unless you maintain that the media involved and the segment of the public consuming this news are entirely different from when the earlier negative news came out, apples and oranges doesn’t really apply.
 
This is not clear.

If Williamson’s excommunication has been lifted, why would he not be allowed to visit any Catholic church in the world?

While a local ordinary can block a priest who is not encardinated to his diocese from celebrating Mass–that was done by an English bishop in relation to a Vatican official just recenty–why would a Catholic be barred if anyone else may attend Mass, regardless of their standing vis a vis the Church, even non-Catholics and non-Christians?

By the way, when did the controversial clergyman indicate he was going to visit Mahonyland?
 
This is not clear.

If Williamson’s excommunication has been lifted, why would he not be allowed to visit any Catholic church in the world?

While a local ordinary can block a priest who is not encardinated to his diocese from celebrating Mass–that was done by an English bishop in relation to a Vatican official just recenty–why would a Catholic be barred if anyone else may attend Mass, regardless of their standing vis a vis the Church, even non-Catholics and non-Christians?

By the way, when did the controversial clergyman indicate he was going to visit Mahonyland?
Good point. Even if he was still excommunicated, he would still be welcome, even encouraged to attend Mass.

One wonders how the Cardinal intends to enforce this if Bishop Williamson was to show up in LA. Not to mention that a letter with two co-authors, at least one of which isn’t even Catholic, is an odd form for a binding declaration.

Another unclear point from the article:
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.
Is Cardinal Mahoney claiming that Bishop Williamson was never validly Baptized in the Catholic Church and that any reconcilliation, repudiation or recantation, accepted by the Pope isn’t good enough for the Cardinal? What happened to “once a Catholic, always a Catholic?” Does the Cardinal doubt the authority of the Church to reconcile with a (hopefully) repentant Williamson? There is only one unforgivable sin and this isn’t it.

I find it very troubling that this letter takes the form of a public attack on Bishop Williamson’s person; not just his ideas or actions. I would blame it on spin but this is presented as the Bishop’s own words.
 
It’s all grandstanding on Mahony’s part.
He has done it all before to Mother Angelica. I fear is is a rather pompous person…He isn’t a person who seems to be familiar with the practice of humbling himself, nor one who readily forgives either, from the public fights he engages in
 
In my opinion somebody should ban Cardinal Mahony from Los Angeles.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike
 
“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”

Uuuu, such courageous action from Cardinal Mahony.

Would that he is just as courageous in dealing with those Catholic pro-abortion politicians, even 1/4 of that, would go a long way for the Church.

Man I hate hypocrisy ! :dts:
 
“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”

Uuuu, such courageous action from Cardinal Mahony.

Would that he is just as courageous in dealing with those Catholic pro-abortion politicians, even 1/4 of that, would go a long way for the Church.

Man I hate hypocrisy ! :dts:
Hear hear:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:
 
Apples and oranges is a logical fallacy that applies when one is arguing equivalence between two things that are not equivalent. miguel and I are not arguing that Mahony’s actions somehow reverse previous actions he’s taken. We are arguing that the press coverage, and public opinion of him and the Church, will be more positive as a result of this ban. Unless you maintain that the media involved and the segment of the public consuming this news are entirely different from when the earlier negative news came out, apples and oranges doesn’t really apply.
Thanks I’ll let you know next time I need a basic lesson in logic. My err was in not being more clear that I believed Jewish talk show host Dennis Prager’s association with “Religion on the Line” did not give him any particular standing with the diocese. Prager has found fault with many of the cardinal’s programs, not the least of which is his sanctuary city view of illegal immigration, as well as the lackluster support for Prop 8.

In addition, I agree Mahony is binding his girth against any attempt by Rome to allow traditional Catholicism be practiced in his fiefdom.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top