Disturbing excerpts from interview with Cardinal Mahony (leftist in charge of LA Diocese)

RE Congress website ^ | 02-20-04 | online interview

[AAABEST]

Leonel M: Mel Gibson's upcoming movie "The Passion of the Christ" has had more than its share of headlines for the last year or more. But what is the relationship of Gibson's church near Malibu to the Archdiocese of Los Angeles? Is it part of a schismatic group?

Cardinal: I know nothing about the Church in Malibu. It is certainly not in communion with the Universal Catholic Church nor the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.

I have never met Mr. Gibson, and he does not participate in any parish of this Archdiocese. He, apparently, has chosen to live apart from the communion of the Catholic Church. I pray for him.

The Holy Spirit is promised to the Church, as well as the presence of Jesus: "Behold, I am with you all days until the end of the world." Those words were spoken to the Church, not to an individual in any century.

Moderator: We have several related questions about Mel Gibson; I'll try to summarize them. Many people have the impression that Mel Gibson is -- for lack of a better word -- a "regular" Catholic. Could you briefly explain the Catholic traditionalist movement?

Cardinal: Actually, there is no such thing as the "Catholic traditionalist, modernist, movement." Either one is in full communion with the Catholic Church, in unity with the Successor of Peter, or not. One cannot pick and choose which Pope to follow, especially dead ones, or which teaching to follow -- and then set aside the rest. Such people may be very nice people, but that doesn't make them "Catholic" in the true sense.

Even the media is beginning "to get it" about these groups. We must give full assent to the Creed and all that the Church teaches.

Moderator: So if Mel Gibson does not accept the Church's teachings as outlined in Vatican II documents, he's "not Catholic in the true sense"?

Cardinal: The Sixteen Documents of the Second Vatican Council constitute the accurate, authentic teaching of the Church. Those teachings are now contained in the Catechism of the Church. If one chooses to set aside any of those, then they choose to separate themselves from the unity of the Church. Keep in mind that the first temptation of Adam and Eve was precisely this: Satan told them, "you will be like gods, choosing good and evil." Wrong.

Moderator: Users also ask if you plan to see "The Passion of the Christ."

Cardinal: Someone has offered to give me a VHS of the movie, and I will view it.

Runecaster95: Is it acceptable for Catholics to participate in acts of devotion such as Zen meditation and Hindu chanting, providing the emphasis remains on Christ?

Cardinal: Any form of prayer and meditation that helps us deepen our life in Jesus Christ is a positive. We might call the same type of prayer "centering prayer," or "Christian mantra."

Jane M.: Who do you think goes to heaven? Do you think people of other religions will be there? Do people who haven't accepted Christ as their savior go to heaven when they die?

Cardinal: As the Second Vatican Council teaches us, it is the Church's belief that everyone goes to heaven "through the salvific merits of Jesus Christ." Therefore, if they belong to another faith community, we believe that it is still the merits of Jesus' Paschal Mystery that enables them to reach the Kingdom of God.

Keep in mind that each of us "chooses" our final destiny, and God continually calls to us to return home.

[sydney smith]

Since this is a republic can't we vote sinkspur off this site and onto some liberal site? Perhaps liberalist/novusordo/community-of-the-faithful.com? How about that new site that would be perfect for him--Mahoney/O'Brien/Weakland.com? Or that other favorite--IamChurch.com?

[johnb2004]

What I could never understand is how Mahony got to be a cardinal. This guy was a liberal and he still became a cardinal.

This piece only shows how truly crafty and manipulative he can be. He uses Church teaching as a cudgel to serve his own ends. He should have been thrown out decades ago.

[B Knotts]

Do you believe that a centering prayer of that sort is wrong?

Nothing wrong with that, certainly. But, look at what the Cardinal was talking about: Zen and Hindu meditation.

It seems to me that he is speaking in direct contradiction to the recent document ("Jesus Christ The Bearer of the Water of Life: a Christian Reflection on the 'New Age'") from the Pontifical Councils for Culture and Interreligious Dialogue, which warned Catholics to be very wary of stuff like that.

[Pyro7480]

An example of "centering prayer" according to him is: "Jesus, Son of God, Whose sacrifice on the cross atoned for our sins, have mercy on me, a poor sinner."

I don't think that is a "true" centering prayer. That is just a variation of the "Jesus Prayer" which is part of Eastern Christian spirituality. This link provides a real example of a centering prayer. It's just New Ageism.

[Pyro7480]

Ping, post #123.

[drstevej]

***Throw the bum out!***

By bum do you mean:

A person standing in the line of apostolic sucession?
Or do you mean one who is in full communion with the bishop of Rome?
Perhaps maybe bum refers to an elector of the future vicar of Christ?

Now, I think he is both a bum and a universalist heretic! And his claim not to be aware of the church in Malibu strains credulity but I don't look to him as a priest/bishop/archbishop/cardinal as does Rome.

Should by some weird stroke of fate the white smoke rise for the Pocket Fisher of men... I'd reassign Mahney to a monastery to make endless copies of Acts 4:12 and replace him with a archbishop who allows the Tridentine Mass. Where the Taj Mahoney stands would be a Cathedral that was built by profits donated by Mel Gibson's The Passion. (I bet he'd be up for it!)

[heyheyhey]

Since this is a republic can't we vote sinkspur off this site...

If Sinky ever goes, I will go too.

I have personally contributed to the scourging of Sinky and have to admire him for growing a thick skin and not lashing out against his adversaries with matching fury. Besides, Sink makes sense from time to time.

[Aquinasfan]

We believe in papal infallibility, not bishop infallibility.

Cardinal Mahoney may be one of the cardinals who elects the next pope, but wouldn't you grant simply as a matter of logic that the Holy Spirit could direct the outcome of the vote if the Spirit wanted to?

[ninenot]

The Church has deliberately phrased the Catechism the way it did--because there is no scientific evidence that one is created "homosexual."

There's no question that the disorder exists. Most evidence points to acquisition of the disorder in the formative years (between ages 5-15.)

It certainly is NOT genetic--thus the Church does not say so.

[ninenot]

I disagree with your premise 'that if the Church does NOT ordain celibate homosexuals....She will be deprived...'

Certainly there will be less candidates for the priesthood. But your formulation is identical to that used by those who are agitating for female priests, AND for the married priesthood.

Moreover, the prudent Bishop (and prudence is required for the job) will not place someone in a position where the temptations are extra-ordinary and numerous.

At least part of the problem would be resolved if Bishops were to make 'common life' a requirement for priests, again, i.e, The Rectory. And in parishes with only one priest, or parishes served by a circuit rider, THOSE priests should find a centrally-located Rectory, as well.

[ninenot]

Sink and I are at odds on almost every issue raised here.

But Sydney is vicious and vitriolically anti-Catholic in almost any sense of the term.

BlackElk and I have already made inquiries about accomodations for the TTGC members who will journey to Fort Worth at the appropriate time, and we will make certain that Sinky visits with us.

Syd--we won't bother with you, period---or at least, not for much longer than a simple execution might take.

[sydney smith]

I take exception only to the execution issue. Perhaps a punch in the nose will suffice?

[ninenot]

Be nice to BlackElk. He's the judge and jury.

[saradippity]

My purpose in the post to which you are responding was to caution posters that a mere statement saying "we will not ordain celbate homosexuals" is very risky and counterproductive,given the givens,at this point.

The given I am concerned about is the use of psychological tests to determine sexual proclivities. Think about forced choices.If you have been subjected to any of these tests you know that it is not uncommon to have a question that poses a choice between two evils,kind of like many of our political races. So how would you answer the following question?:It is better to steal from the rich than to love a person of the same sex. (T0)(F).

Now I would mark (F) thinking that my mother deserves my love and assume that is what they were looking for. However,if you were trying to make sure you wouldn't be rejected because of a reading of latent homosexuality,you might totally forget the parent of the same sex as you are and answer (T).

Please believe me when I say that I would hope and pray that if homosexuality is a congenital condition and not a choice,and if I believed there was a method that would elicit an honest response,then I would agree that the Church should prohibit their ordination. But there isn't and so we should very careful about the demands we make as long as we have so many within and outside of the Church who do want to destroy it.To insist on that will only hurt much that we want to accompllish during this cleansing and purification process.

[ninenot]

Long before psychological testing, homosexuals were largely (not entirely) eliminated from candidacy for the priesthood in the old fashioned way: when they made an error, they were on the FIRST bus out of the sem, with their bags.

We don't need no stinkin' tests, actually. Think about this for a moment.

And I cannot subscribe to your logic: "I would hope and pray that if homosexuality is a congenital condition and not a choice,and if I believed there was a method that would elicit an honest response,then I would agree that the Church should prohibit their ordination. But there isn't and so we should very careful about the demands we make as long as we have so many within and outside of the Church who do want to destroy it.To insist on that will only hurt much that we want to accompllish during this cleansing and purification process.

What are you trying to say?

I am NOT advocating tossing EXISTING priests out of the priesthood, assuming they behave.

And 'destruction' of the Church will not happen, period.

Finally, 'demanding' a lot of people is the nature of the command: "Be perfect, as My Heavenly Father is perfect."

To what do you object?

[BlackElk]

TRC: I must be older than you but I think that your grandFATHER belonged to the Holy Name Society (one of whose purposes of which was to suppress the largely male sin in those dear dead days of taking the Lord's Name in vain which Our Lady had criticized at La Salette) and that your grandmother belonged to something like the Ladies' Eucharistic League. Under current circumstances the Holy Name Society, if organized for the same purpose will have to be co-ed.

All: Monsignor did specifically explain that he was suggesting that we borrow this practice from the Eastern Orthodox Church. He said that the precise words did not have to be his but that the prayer should be simple, easily repeated, should reference and acknowledge Jesus Christ as Savior through the sacrifice of the Cross and include the request for forgiveness of sin and plea for mercy as to temporal punishment. The purpose was to help refocus our wandering minds upon conversational prayer with God.

[BlackElk]

By bum, I mean Cardinal Mahony, who is a successor of an apostle: Judas!

I comfort myself that Rome would not have appointed him if it knew then what it knows now. My educated guess is that he will be succeeded by the very Catholic Auxiliary Bishop Cordileone of San Diego or someone very like him and that the earth (and "cathedral") of the LA Diocese, among other things, will be promptly and justifiably scorched.

[BlackElk]

Sara: Taking this off the question of homosexuality for a less controversial failing of alcoholism. It MAY be that a tendency toward alcoholism may be genetic as it MAY be that a tendency toward homosexuality is genetic. I think the evidence for a tendency toward alcoholism being genetic is stronger. Obviously, homosexuality would be hard to describe as an inherited trait. Alcoholism runs in many families and not at all in others.

God gives us no challenges that we cannot overcome with His graces. If, as I suspect, I have a tendency to alcoholism, I have been able by near total abstinence to avoid that near occasion of sin. I do have plenty of sins but that is not one. At most there might be a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality but abstinence and prayer will overcome it.

John XXIII ordered that homosexuals NOT be ordained. Run them out of the priesthood and there will be an upsurge of orthodox vocations. If we suffer a temporary shortage, it will soon be overcome. The effects of the lavender actions and scandals are NOT soon going away. We gotta do what we gotta do.

[Pyro7480]

Under current circumstances the Holy Name Society, if organized for the same purpose will have to be co-ed.

The Holy Name Society didn't just do that however. I mean, you do have single-sex Catholic groups with better names, for example, the Knights of Columbus.

[AAABEST]

I for one don't see the thinking problem behind removing the homosexuals. Call me dumb but I don't understand all of the modern gnashing for teeth and tearing at clothes over keeping someone with a mental perversion from leading worshiper and children.

For me it's very simple common logic, just get them out of the clergy and don't let any more in. End of story.

The charitable approach didn't work, everyone has been more than fair with them. They've caused a good deal if not a majority of the problems we're facing now, they've had their chance and they've acted as homosexuals act.

Whether it's their choice or not their choice, it doesn't really matter anymore. Fairness to them in how we choose our clergy doesn't trump our mission of saving souls, they don't have a right to be a priest and they'll get over the trauma of not having such a vocation.

Keep in mind if this is the same church that won't give sacraments to women who've been divorced (whether by their own choosing or not), so the gays can live with remaining in the laity.

Nobody is advocating throwing them out of the church or excommunication, just that they have no business in the clergy for a number of very essential reasons. They need to be removed ASAP and no more allowed in. It sounds harsh but it's not, it's better for everyone. They've done way too much damage and it needs to stop.