Lavish ceremonies, harsh criticism await new $200m cathedral in LA

BOSTON GLOBE ^ | August 31, 2002 | Kathleen Sharp

[american colleen]

Thanks, Siobhan.

[american colleen]

Oh, how truly sad. If this is true, what a pitiful, sad and lost man Cardinal Mahony is. Although Fr. Vosko did design the new Cathedral (big surprise), Mahony surely had the last word.

That's OK though. St. Patricks still has kneelers, candles you have to light with a long match, beautiful altars, statues of the Saints, crucifix's with a corpus, "real" confessionals and a long history of faithful Catholics. And, don't they have Msgr. Clark?

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

St. Vibiana's relics were supposed to be placed in a chapel at Taj-Mahony. Don't know what they did with them in the interim.

[livius]

Expect to see a crowd of locals, carrying pitchforks, storm the cathedral the night of the black tie gala.

I did hear that folks from the Catholic Worker turned up to protest Mahony's spending big bucks on this totally unneccesary project when there were many charitable needs to be met. I guess I wouldn't mind so much if it were - well, beautiful or anything like that.

The other thing is that the space is not welcoming or sheltering, so I can hardly imagine that the poor who live around there are going to feel like it's "their" building. Can anybody imagine a tiny old Mexican immigrant lady creeping in there to pray? I don't even think they've left a place for her to light a candle.

[NYer]

Thank you, Smedley, for posting that story. I had been looking for it for some time now.

...it is not possible to repair the damage to the Cathedral and to restore it without exorbitant costs.

what???? No repair job to the old cathedral could even come close to the price tag on this "Wal-Mart" of cathedrals. Did you see the cost of simply "maintaining" the cathedral? How does he plan to raise that money on a regular basis AND pay off his attorneys AND pay the damages stemming from the continuous pile up of lawsuites? See my other post!

This was an ego trip - pure and simple. A legacy builder. It will all backfire on him at some point in time. He can't possibly maintain such an opulent lifestyle, in his present situation.

I wonder if the local parishioners will be allowed to attend mass there. They can't contribute much to the coffers; if anything, they will be looking for assistance.

[drstevej]

This thread reminded me of the similar frustrations of another era.

"Again: since the pope's income to-day is larger than that of the wealthiest of wealthy men, why does he not build this one church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the money of indigent believers?"

[NYer]

The first issue involved removing all sacred objects "since they cannot be sold or given to any other entity except another public juridic person. Second a determination must be made as to whether or not any of the ecclesiastical goods were given to the former cathedral with restrictions by the donor as to its use. If so, the intention of the donor must be fulfilled or commuted by agreement with the donor if possible.

Obviously NONE of these ecclesiastical goods were retained for use in the new cathedral. And to think that Mahony was once considered papabile. Can you imagine what he would do to St. Peter's?

As for St. Vibiana, here bones were a gift from a pope with the stipulation that a cathedral be built in her name. That same stipulation asked that her remains be returned if and when the cathedral were to be destroyed. The last I heard, she was in a "holding pattern" at one of Mahony's cemeteries.

This web site is maintaining constant watch over Mahony.

MAHONY

[ultima ratio]

I have never felt St. Peter's in Rome was a very "spiritual" environment. I have visited about four different times in my life, each time imagining I would feel some uplift. It never happens. It's practically the only important church in Europe that leaves me flat. It's pretty big and grand, though.

[NYer]

"Again: since the pope's income to-day is larger than that of the wealthiest of wealthy men, why does he not build this one church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the money of indigent believers?"

I'm confused. The pope does not build cathedrals, bishops do. They have to raise their own money for those projects. Indigent believers? Rupert Murdoch contributed 10 million alone. I wouldn't consider him "indigent", would you?

I don't know if you have been following our threads over the past few months, regarding this particular cathedral. There are some very fine cardinals, archbishops and bishops in the US ... and then, there is Roger Mahony. Like Judas Iscariot, not everyone surrounding the pope has his best intentions at heart.

As for the pope being one of the wealthiest men in the world, I don't feel that is a fair comparison. The pope does not sit down at night and count the pennies in his coffers. What about Robert Schuller and his ministry? While it doesn't compare to the "pope's", if you were to combine the wealth given to ALL of the disparite protestant groups, you would be looking at a substantial fortune.

[VermiciousKnid]

Perhaps, but I can't see a reason in the world why the cathedral must be as stunningly ugly as this one is. Yick.

Regards,

[drstevej]

FYI: The quote was thesis #86 of Martin Luther's Ninety Five Theses.

[Antoninus]

"I think it's a horrible time to be opening such a lavish place," said Ruth Green, a school volunteer. "The Catholic Church should be ashamed of itself."

No, dear, please give credit where it's due. Cardinal Mahoney should be ashamed of himself. He is not the Church. Of course, the media is going to use Mahoney's fiscal profligacy as an albatross to hang around the neck of the greater Church. I even heard a talkshow host here in Philadelphia already doing that ... on a sports talk station.

[Antoninus]

You can't expect brand new cathedrals to be built to look like the ones in the middle ages.

One would think with how far we've "advanced" we could do a lot better than they did in the "bad old days." Instead, we've done much worse. Mahoney built a warehouse, installed a set of ugly bronze doors and called it a cathedral.

Search through the history of art and architecture. It's not hard to differentiate the enlightened eras from the decadent ones. Future art historians will have a field day with Mahoney's concrete ziggurat.

[Theresa]

"But you can expect them to be beautiful and to glorify God. "

Well we all have our tastes. And it is futile to argue about taste. I like neutral colors, open spaces and minimal clutter. Its calming and cleansing. ONTOH I also like rich colors and being surrounded by lots of shiney things. It is stimulating and involving. Of course you can't have both styles in the same church. So I think its not a bad idea to try to cultivate an appreciation of both styles.

Minimalism is not so bad in a Church when you think about how our daily lives are so cluttered with things and posessions and "stuff" everywhere. Back in the middle ages the average person did not have a lot stuff, their lives were drab, so they loved to go to church to see all the beautiful "stuff." Nowdays the average person has too much stuff, so when we go to church it's maybe a good idea to forget about the material stuff and just be in a open, plain space and focus on the spiritual dimension instead of the material. So I can appreciate a plain church too but I do NOT want ALL of them to be that way.

[Theresa]

"It's not hard to differentiate the enlightened eras from the decadent ones. Future art historians will have a field day with Mahoney's concrete ziggurat."

We have to share our common spaces and it's impossible to please everbody. You can always set up a small shrine in your home and have all the art and images that appeal to you. What I don't want to see is a deliberate attempt to force everybody into a kind of Puritanism that precludes anything that appeals to the senses as if God does not like anything fancy. But I don't think that is what is behind the move to more minimalistic interiors. I think it has more to do with spending an hour a week away from all the material clutter of our daily lives in a simple open space. Anyway I will tell myself that. It makes me feel better because I do love a beautiful pre-Vatican II church. Chist the King Church in Dallas is a perfect example of a beautiful traditional church.

[Theresa]

"Mother Angelica proved that it could be done with the Shrine of the Most Blessed Sacrament in Hanceville, Alabama."

Oh it is splendid! And she should be free to do that, and evidently she is, because she did do it.

[Theresa]

"Again: since the pope's income to-day is larger than that of the wealthiest of wealthy men, why does he not build this one church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the money of indigent believers?"

Luther had no idea how much money the pope or the Church had. The fact is, the Church did not have much money at that time. One of the reasons the Church did not undertake reform, which everyone agreed was necessary, was because there was no money for it.

[ganesha]

Catholic cathedrals are usually more ornate while protestant churches tend to be more simple. This church looks very austere for a Catholic cathedral. I think if a church is going to go for a simple look then it is important that the lines be elegant. I would prefer a prettier and more symetrical exterior. The one thing they did do right was to build an impressive organ . If you follow the links under photos it shows them building and installing it.

[jobim]

In the movie What About Bob Bill Murray says that there are 2 kinds of people in the world: those who like Barry Manilow and those who don't.

I predict that this building, and all that it represents liturgically, theologically, and geographically (in the diocese of LA) will become the fault line of the Church in America in this new millenium. Those who like it will immediately be identified as practitioners of Catholic Lite, in George Weigel's most useful phrase, to those of us who reject it.

[drstevej]

***One of the reasons the Church did not undertake reform, which everyone agreed was necessary, was because there was no money for it.***

What reforms did the church desire to undertake that was prevented by insufficient funds? Leo X was a pauper?

Leo X (1475 - 1521)

Pope (1513-21) Born Giovanni de' Medici at Florence, the second son of Lorenzo the Magnificent, he received a humanistic education from Ficino, Politian, and Pico della Mirandola and studied canon law at Pisa (1489-91)

In 1492 he became a cardinal and went to live in Rome. Lorenzo's death recalled him to Florence the same year, but he was exiled with the rest of his family (1494). After travelling in Europe he returned to Rome (1500) and in 1503 he became the head of the Medici family. The revolution of 1512 allowed the Medici to return to Florence and in 1513, aged only thirty-seven, Giovanni was elected pope. He was thus able to gratify his humanistic tastes, patronizing scholars and artists and spending papal wealth lavishly on the construction of St Peter's and on the accumulation of books and manuscripts.