Posted on 12/09/2006 11:19:28 PM PST by Coleus
Mel Gibson: $8M More to Private Church
You may recall Gibson telling the officer who arrested him that he “owned half of Malibu.” Well, not quite. But as I reported in this space last February, following up on a New York Times report by Christopher Noxon, Gibson has been building a religious retreat in Malibu for some time. Holy Family is a Catholic church that isn’t recognized by any archdiocese. Instead, it follows beliefs counter to the 1965 Vatican II Conference, which among other things, absolved Jews of Christ’s death. Instead, Holy Family Catholic Church adheres to 16th century Catholic values.
Click Here to Visit the Mel Gibson Celebrity Center.
According to a September tax filing obtained by this column, Gibson put $8 million more into his A.P. Reilly Foundation in 2005. That’s the tax-exempt entity named for his late mother and designed to run his privately built and owned Holy Family Catholic Church in Malibu. The most recent filing is just a registration and doesn’t contain line items. Gibson, according to a source at the California Department of Justice, is late filing his annual tax forms for A.P. Reilly. But the registration indicates revenues in 2005 of a little over $8 million, bringing Holy Family’s assets to $22 million. That’s not bad for a church with just 70 members.
This is a sizeable jump from 2004, when the foundation’s assets were listed at just over $14 million. Gibson’s 2005 contribution was substantially larger, too, since in 2004 he donated $5 million. The big upswing seems due to profits from “The Passion of the Christ,” the hit movie that Gibson financed. The A.P. Reilly Foundation, according to public records, started buying property in Malibu in 1977, when it purchased a 9-acre plot for $51,000.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Seems to me that Gibson is as much of a heretic as the other roque "Catholic" churches that have women and married priests.
It'll be a pity when his retreat drops off into the ocean...He should have built on the other side of the 'fault'...
There's a Malibu Gibson named Mel
Who, though richer than God, lately fell
From Hollywood grace
("Much too Jewish a place!")
And his head up his ass doth now dwell.
If the Catholic Church is and was unchanging for 2000 years, why is it a biggie that Mel just follows an older version. Doesn't the 16th Century church teach the same unchanging doctrines and can lead to salvation just as well as the new-fangled one? Or does Mel's church teach something beyond what the 16th Century RCC held to?
What does not being recognized by an Archdiocese indicate?
Asked out of ignorance...
It teaches the same doctrine, just in a different way. That's my opinion, not an official position.
There are many of us who find the new Mass to be less inspiring than what was done pre-Vatican II.
Mel is a Catholic who has a few splinters in his eye. On the other hand, so many of our clergy and laity have beams and other things not only in their eyes but other parts of their body. And not only that, they insist it is OK. Making Mel the subject of rhyming humilation on FR is very uncharitable if coming from another Christian.
Good for him! God bless Mr. Gibbson and his family and keep them safe. PS Apocalypto was awesome........
It indicates a lack of obidience and a great deal of pride.
It indicates a lack of obedience and a great deal of pride.
I'm afraid if I lived in Mahoney's LA diocese, I'd be going SSPX too.
--Making Mel the subject of rhyming humilation on FR is very uncharitable if coming from another Christian.
I agree! That is why I assume this is not really addressed to me, but snarks_when_bored.
No harm done. :o)
Quote from the article: "...to the 1965 Vatican II Conference..."
Vatican II was a "Conference"? Gee, I always thought it was an ecumenical council!
I think it's a biggie to this writer because he assumes that someone who calls himself a Catholic, but rejects Vatican II, is necessarily an anti-Semite. Some people are under the impression that it was official Catholic doctrine, prior to VC2, that Jews without distinction were "Christ-killers," and that VC2 changed that. That's untrue, but that's what they believe.
What does not being recognized by an Archdiocese indicate?
Mel's private "church" is irregular and in a state of schism. In terms of ecclesiastical governance, it has the same relationship to Rome as your Reformed Baptist church does: essentially none.
Unfortunately, were he to be in communion with Rome, he would be subject to Cardinal Mahony, which has its own set of problems. :-(
you wrote: I'm afraid if I lived in Mahoney's LA diocese, I'd be going SSPX too.
Megadittos. If that's what every LA Catholic did, he'd be kicked upstairs to an obscure Vatican congregation. But they don't, so his influence and tolerance (?endorsement) of pervert priests and perversions have plagued the LA Church for years. Obviously I could be wrong, but "voting with our feet" would give the Pope the strength and conviction to shake things up very quickly.
It indicates a lack of obidience and a great deal of pride.
>>In extreme times, it's a matter of necessity. The L.A. Archdiocese is about as Catholic as the local Episcopal diocese.
Attending one of Roger Mahony's parishes could cost you your faith. Liberal "Catholics" aren't Catholic to begin with.
Technically, it simply means that it's a private chapel.
I attended mass for four years in Mahoney's diocese.
I refused to abandon Christ and offered it up. There are perfectly licit, reverent masses to be found in the Archdiocese. Dumping one group who refuses to follow the Church for another that refuses to follow the Church isn't beneficial to anyone.
How could Vatican II be an ecumenical council when no representatives from the Eastern Orthodox Church participated?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.