[narses]

Mahony's real reason for establishing a new cathedral is that he is practicing a new religion. Whatever it is, it is not Catholicism. Eli Broad, a non-Catholic developer and Democratic Party godfather who helped finance the cathedral , calls it "architecture for the ages." Many Catholics, when they look up at the tapestries on the walls depicting people in sneakers and birkenstocks, will wonder if it can last even a generation as a Catholic building.

[RobbyS]

You will be able to tell by what use is made of it. It could become the Left Coast equivalent of St. John the Divine.

[sinkspur]

I appreciate being pinged to these threads about Mahoney's Cathedral, but I just can't get worked up about it. Since it was financed privately and not on the backs on Los Angelenos, I find little to complain about as far as costs are concerned. Five or so years ago, a $100 million monstrosity was built in some third-world country amid absolute squalor, and the Pope defended its construction. Personally, that kind of money spent on a building dedicated to the One who had nowhere to lay is head is scandalous, to me.

As to the architecture itself, I prefer the cross-shaped churches, but much simpler. This Cathedral looks horrid from the outside, but not bad once inside.

[BlackElk]

It certainly won't last a generation as a Catholic building unless it becomes one at some point. Maybe, if the scandals bankrupt the LA Archdiocese, maybe the US Bankruptcy judge can persuade some maroon of a creditor to take it away.