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.

[dsc]

"and misquoted them both times"

With all the "translations" floating around today, it's hard to say for sure.

"So, like, there was this God and everything, and He, like, goes 'Somebody turn on the lights.' So, like, then the stars and stuff appeared...then He goes, 'This is so last week. I'm going to make a woman,' so he did and everything and she was, like, really a betty, but she needed somebody to carry heavy stuff and take out the trash, so then He like messed everything up by making a (yuck) man."

From "The Clueless Bible," copyright dsc

[Antoninus]

"One cannot pick and choose which Pope to follow, especially dead ones, or which teaching to follow -- and then set aside the rest."

Yo Rog, we don't believe that those "dead" Popes are actually dead, do we? Maybe you do, who knows? And since when does one Pope teach a different doctrine than previous ones?

I find myself wishing for the days when heretic bishops were dragged off of their cathedras by rioting mobs. Even that is preferable to this current situation.

[Antoninus]

He, and he alone, is the Pastor of the See of Los Angeles. If he is imcompetent or breaking Church Laws, take it up through the Canon process of the Church (ultimately the Pope). Until then, I don't think our Lord is pleased by this attack on the Archbishop. The Lord is his Judge.

You know, in the old days, a mob would take a bishop like Mahoney and drag him bodily out of the cathedral. They would then set up a new bishop in his stead. Rome would then be called in to mediate and on many occasions, the people's decision would be ratified. It wasn't a terribly "nice" way to do things, but at least it tended to keep the bishops honest.

[Antoninus]

There is nothing in Canon Law forbidding the ordination of celibate homosexuals.

As usually, "deacon," you wouldn't know the truth if it had an imprimatur and was waved in front of your face:

From: THE CANON LAW DIGEST, Officially Published Documents Affecting the Code of Canon Law 1958-1962, Volume V, The Bruce Publishing Company Milwaukee, 1963

Canon 973: Careful Selection and Training of Candidates for the States of Perfection and Sacred Orders (S.C. rel., 2 Feb, 1961) pp 452--486, Excerpt pp 468--472

"Advancement to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tenencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers."

Nothing about "active homosexuals." Just evil tendencies toward homosexuality and pederasty. Read it and weep, "deak."

[sinkspur]

That's the old Code. Is that provision still in the new Code?

[dangus]

I don't think he *dodged* the question; I think he didn't know the answer so referred the questionner to a source. While I don't like Mahoney any more than you, I don't think this was a disreputable response if he didn't know the answer, and I don't think that it's any major mark against him if he didn't know the answer.

[Antoninus]

Really? Where does the Church say, with any authority, that there are people BORN as homosexuals? Put up "deacon".

Read the Catholic Catechism, narses.

That's two outright lies you've told on this thread. I'll assume that you told them out of ignorance, rather than malicious intent. The Catechism that says people are born homosexuals was published in 1994 and corrected in 1997. The offending sentence saying that homosexuals do not chose that condition was stricken in the corrected version. That statement was NEVER in the Latin version, only the English. Let's try to get up-to-date, "deacon."

[dangus]

Not an easy task. Sorry, go ahead and disbelieve me if you want, but I don't have the time to spend so much time "winning" a debate point.

[Antoninus]

The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible.

Notice, it says nothing about whether they choose to be homosexuals or not, as you claimed.

[dangus]

...especially since I'm pretty sure that they are two seperate canons.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Don't you think the Archbishop of Los Angeles should be aware and/or concerned if pagan symbols are portrayed on the doors to the cathedral?

If he didn't know, which I strongly doubt, he has an obligation to know and fix it. He's had more than enough time to look at those doors. I'm certain he knew what they looked like before they were attached.

[Aliska]

Is the 1961 directive still in effect? Did all the bishops even know of its existence or did they simply ignore it? Is it sinful to not comply with such a directive?

I can't find anything worded like that in the 1985 Code of Canon Law, so does that mean it no longer applies?

[Aliska]

Don't you think the Archbishop of Los Angeles should be aware and/or concerned if pagan symbols are portrayed on the doors to the cathedral?

They seem to be flexible about this sort of thing these days. Hasn't there been a(n)? historical precedent to incorporate certain pagan symbols and adapt them to Christianity in the past? If so, what we find objectionable today might be seen in 200 years as another layer of the richness of the catholic tradition.

Isn't that kind of how they think? I don't think that way but that is probably why I am always out of sync.

[Antoninus]

"Is that actually a winged serpent on the door of the new Los Angeles Cathedral? If so what significance does that have for Catholics? And if it isn't a winged serpent, what is it?”

It probably is a Seraphim. Although I'll agree the similarity with Aztec images is unfortunate and even foolish. Mahoney seems to simply not know the answer and to be directing him to a reference source so he can look it up.

The Winged Serpent in Aztec mythology is Quetzacoatl.



Basically, Mahony put a bloodthirsty pagan demon on the door of his cathedral. Tells me all I need to know, frankly.

[narses]

Admit it "deak", ya goofed.

[dangus]

Of course what you show is a GARGOYLE!!!! Give me a break!

[BlackElk]

You are probably absolutely right about Mahoney. I don't deny that Buddhism, Hinduism, New Age and other forms of paganism use such things.

I also believe that there are quite Catholic prayers odf the sort I posted, lateraled over to us from the eastern Orthodox or indigenous to us which help us to focus our internal conversation with God and to clear away the distractions of the world. Thomas a Kempis, in his quite Catholic Imitation of Christ, speaks eloquently of such internal conversation with God.

[grammarman]

It's a private chapel where Mass is said privately. He has the right to allow or deny anyone.

NOthing wrong with that.

[BlackElk]

I agree that there is no foolproof method for detecting homosexuals seeking ordination. We are just going to have to do our best.

This is not unlike the suppression of sin generally. We will never succeed in suppressing all of our own sins which would be easier than suppressing everyone else's. That does not justify us in not trying. We do our best and trust in God as to the rest.

[sinkspur]

It's a private chapel where Mass is said privately. He has the right to allow or deny anyone.

Sure he does. But his "chapel" is not in union with the Catholic Church, since it is not affiliated with the archdiocese of Los Angeles.