Vatican officials comment on Cardinal Mahony's liturgical rebellion

Naturally, the claim by Cardinal Mahony that he can authorize priests to ignore the liturgical rules the pope imposes on the Church has provoked comment and a fair amount of indignation among some of the clergy in Rome.

I asked more than half a dozen American priests what they thought about it -- and a few non-American priests too.

Of course there are American priests in Rome besides those who work for the Holy See; for instance, those who are teaching or studying theology here. But, understandably, the ones who are working directly with the pope's official advisors and assistants, in the curia, are particularly unhappy about Cardinal Mahony's claim.

What the Los Angeles rebellion implies, some suggested, is a crude denial that papal acts have any claim to be obeyed -- although a diocesan bishop, such as Mahony, swears to obey the pope. One priest said, "well, and so what is the point of the pope saying anything, if what he says can be brushed off for any reason, as Cardinal Mahony claims it can? If a bishop can just set aside the general discipline of the Church, in part or as a whole? And no one in the Church is presumed to be bound by her rules and laws?"

Another, who has been observing the smoldering conflict in California for some time, said "it is important, too, in this dispute that Cardinal Mahony is publicly insisting the pope is out-and-out wrong about what the pope condemns as an important liturgical abuse. This comes very close to a doctrinal difference -- to a split with the Church, a rejection of her faith. The Catholic liturgy expresses the Catholic faith, just as much as the creeds do; and a bishop, or a priest, who won't use it, a priest who insists on changing it, or a bishop who lets it be changed, is interfering seriously with the teaching of the Faith and is virtually leaving the Church.

"If you are curious about the issue," continued this priest, "just look up what Saint Thomas Aquinas said. He proposes to discuss a strange-sounding question -- whether the worship of God (the worship of the one true God) can be a sin. And he says: yes, it certainly can be, if the priest falsely represents the faith taught by the Church -- and any change that a priest makes in the liturgy of the Church alters the official expression of the Church's faith, and that is certainly sinful."

The Council of Trent, too, said this priest, "defined that a priest is not free to innovate. It is a Catholic dogma, defined by that council, that anybody who says that a priest is not bound to follow the rituals of the Church whenever he administers her sacraments is anathematized -- out of the Church. Not the priest who actually changes the liturgy on his own is excommunicated, no; but it is anyone who says that a priest like that is not sinning when he changes the words of the Mass. Anyone who says that is excommunicated."

This priest also suggested looking through the Vatican II documents ("if you have a lot of time"). "They make the same point," he said. "Brevity, which is the soul of wit, is not the soul of all the Vatican II documents, but this point is repeated sharply and succinctly enough in the key documents."

From what this priest called a "'tradition' of weirdness" that arose after the council, Catholics have gotten the idea "that the Church, the pope and the bishops whom the Holy Ghost raises up to rule the Church lack any real authority to control the celebration of the Mass and, in God's name, to forbid innovations. And that is just what Mahony has been saying -- but when it is said so crudely as he said it, and by a cardinal of all people, it looks so completely wrong that even today people feel really shocked. Cardinal Mahony is telling us that he will not allow the pope to forbid anything. And many people are really shocked."

The priest opined that when Cardinal Mahony "asserts that he knows of no abuses in Los Angeles, I doubt he really expects to be believed. Who will believe that no one in the archdiocese of Los Angeles has complained about grave liturgical abuses in the twenty years since Mahony has been the ordinary? Or that things the Holy See has condemned really do not go on out there?

"What Cardinal Mahony means is that rules established by the pope for the Catholic Church don't bind the cardinal and don't bind any of the local priests. It is a declaration of independence from the pope, the canon law, and the whole liturgical tradition in the Church. While many of the laity consider that some things are abuses, and the pope explicitly supports what they say, [Cardinal Mahony] says that the only important thing is that he, Roger Mahony, does not say that -- and the pope can't make him."

According to this priest, "a similar attack on the very idea of the authority of the pope happened almost three decades ago, under Paul VI. The situation was just the same. The pope made a rule concerning the administration of the sacraments, and an American priest loudly denied that Rome could bind America. So Cardinal Baum (then archbishop of Washington) remarked to a priest I knew -- 'Oh? Well, then exactly what authority can in fact the pope have, if he has no authority over the sacraments?'"

From their vehement comments, you would think some priests in the curia were actually surprised by what Mahony said. But I noticed that these seemed to be chiefly the younger priests. A more experienced American priest quoted bitter things that he heard said about Mahony and then sourly commented: "if you ask me, Cardinal Mahony ought to have been removed quite some time ago."

I interrupted him -- "Oh, but -- well.... That is never done, you know. With a cardinal, you know," I said.

"It really ought to be in this case," he replied. "And some others. It chiefly surprises me now... that these priests actually seem to be surprised. As though they had really expected anything better. But how is that possible? Could anyone in Rome not know about this man by now?"

An ecclesiastic who is long-winded but well-informed, in a good position to know a lot about both Rome and America, said, "this whole thing is very simple. I can tell you exactly what is going on. The key to the situation is that Mahony is using Joe Bernardin's liturgical expert. The very first thing Cardinal George wanted when he got to Chicago was to get that liturgist out of Chicago. George wanted to get Chicago back into the Catholic Church, if possible, and clearly that had to be the first step.

"But Mahony was only too delighted to take him. So that is the man calling the shots here -- that is the man who really wrote the funny letter Mahony brought out a little while back -- 'Gathering Rosebuds While We May,' or whatever they called it." The ecclesiastic, of course, meant Mahony's 1999 liturgy pastoral, Gather Faithfully Together.

"And Mahony knows just what he is doing," continued the ecclesiastic. "Exactly. Right now Mahony is the leader of the American schism. That seems to be the way he sees himself and the way all others see him, if they know anything.

"Those glass vases on the altars he dithers on about are a symbol of the war against the pope, the Mass, Catholic theology -- the outward signs of an inward lack of grace."

But will the Holy See take any disciplinary measures against Mahony? "The pope will not call him up on the phone and talk about this," said our ecclesiastic. "Another cardinal might, possibly, conceivably. That is about as far as disciplinary measures would go. Mahony is not easy to deal with when he is angry, when someone has dared to suggest that all is not well.

"Cardinal Ratzinger has strongly urged the pope, they say, to remove prelates who seem to have gone too far. But after the first year or two [of his reign], the pope apparently stopped trying. After all, these are men of mature age, and they ought to know their duty, but their habits are hard to change.

"So Mahony is not afraid of losing either his hat or the unfortunate archdiocese of Los Angeles."

I should add that when I began to ask about the position of Cardinal Mahony, there was one question that no one was willing to answer. The obvious persons to ask were those who by their special knowledge of theology, or their employment, seemed prepared to speak with some authority about the defined dogmas of the faith and the excommunications that fall on those who deny these dogmas. But these, unfortunately, were just the priests who in the last week seemed too embarrassed to answer this question.

The question was the following -- among the most authoritative of papal statements is the pronouncement Auctorem Fidei of August 28, 1794. In this document it was defined by Pope Pius VI that it is schismatic for anyone to assert that local bishops are not bound by the rules the pope has set down for the whole Church. In view of what Pius VI solemnly defined as schismatic, is Cardinal Mahony in schism? Or is it true, at least, that anybody who says Cardinal Mahony is doing the right thing and can be defended by good Catholics -- would anybody, who chose to say that, be guilty of schism and, technically, incur the excommunication?

For some reason this question made certain priests extremely nervous. Panic-stricken, in fact.

And the more learned they are, the more important their positions, the more agitated they seem to be by this simple question. For whatever reason they preferred not to say, "yes." But they evidently thought it was impossible to say, "no."

I have to say that it looks as though the sheep were not very well defended from the wolf.

In the end and with as much Charity as is possible, I have to agree. I would bet everything I own though, that he realizes this, and it preys upon his conscience. It's impossible for him not to see it. Especially as illness has laid him low, and given him plenty of time to reflect upon the whole of his Pontificate, both the bare and the sublime.

And, I wonder, if he reflects upon any acutal exommunications he meted out, as he reflects upon the Mahoneys of the Church, and the blaspheming of the Holy Spirit in that Cleveland Diocese insignia, if he asks himself, were my excommunications just?

"I would bet everything I own though, that he realizes this"

He may not know as much as we assume he does. Most stuff he gets to see will be filtered through the bishops and his advisers and many people only want him to see good news. (After all its the new spingtime!)

The average Vatican secretary receives 30,000 pieces of correspondence each year, so most will only receive pro-forma replies and be filed.

If all bishops manipulate their statistics to the point that one I know here did, before his ad limina visit, then it is not safe to assume that the Pope is given an accurate picture of the state of things. That is one area where a good nuncio who is pro-Rome can make a lot of difference.

However, I agree that he must be aware of some of the major stuff.

I don't necessarily disagree with what you've written especially in light of the Pope's declining health, and I hold your intellect and opinion in high regard. But, has John Paul been so divorced from his pastoral duties in which he would seek out independent data himself, and be able to get a fairly accurate general overview of things, to assess the state of his Church, and by extension the protection provided or denied his Sheep?

I realize he may not be able to perhaps even do that now, but the crumbling of his Church did not begin yesterday. Another question for you, who chooses the men closest to the Pope? Don't mean that to be an ignorant question. I'm just wondering if rules and/or protocol dictate who you can surround yourself by to one degree or another.

"has John Paul been so divorced from his pastoral duties in which he would seek out independent data himself, and be able to get a fairly accurate general overview of things, to assess the state of his Church, and by extension the protection provided or denied his Sheep?"

I wouldn't dare to hazard a guess as to what steps he may or may not have taken to keep tabs on things at the grass roots. He is very committed to this philosophy of collegiality, however, and possibly thinks its not his problem - his brother bishops are there to do a job and its up to them to get on with it.

Which leads on to your other point:

"who chooses the men closest to the Pope? .... I'm just wondering if rules and/or protocol dictate who you can surround yourself by to one degree or another."

Ultimately, the bishops, cardinals and his curial advisers are all chosen by the Pope. Why he has chosen so many who are plainly not up to the job, God alone knows, but "ecumenical" credentials seem to have a lot to do with it.

Rules, protocol, politics and blackmail do play their part with some appointments, but ultimately the decisions are his.

Hey there, it's good to 'read' you. Don't see you on these threads that often.

My Priest's Sermon was excellent, if a little scary. When he was elaborating on the state of confusion in the Church, he reminded everyone of one of the final scenes in the Exorcist, where Satan is finally exorcised, and he makes his way through the wall leaving the word confusion scrawled upon it. It was a powerful point.

"What's puzzling you is the nature of my game"

...'em mean it!

Says it all, doesn't it? Mahony likes to flip the bird to the Holy Father but woe betide anyone who crosses him.

" I will do as I please, and you will do as I please,", is his motto. So much for liberalism and "enlightenment".

I'm thinking that the priestly abuse scandal will see off Roger Cardinal Mahony.

With any luck the lawsuits will empty his coffers and he'll also end up in the hoosegow for obstruction of justice.

"Where is the original quote from Mahoney? What is the source?"

Here it is. Good luck wading through the rest of his gobbledegook.

"While we all must constantly re-evaluate our liturgical practice and not allow it to become routine or careless, I have determined that there is no need to make any significant changes in our liturgical practice at this time. Our Auxiliary Bishops, our Deans, and I have been visiting the parishes throughout the Archdiocese regularly over these past years. Especially following the promulgation of Gather Faithfully Together, we have been pleased with the care with which the Eucharist is planned and celebrated. We have not become aware of any serious abuses."

http://www.the-tidings.com/2004/0910/liturgy.htm

"If he had been serious about trying, he would have taken a plane to Los Angeles and other places and driven these heretics from the Church by beating them over head with his crozier."

Now, that's funny. I like it.

Especially following the promulgation of Gather Faithfully Together, we have been pleased with the care with which the Eucharist is planned and celebrated.

What in tarnation is Gather Faithfully Together?! I was pretty sure that the General Instruction of the Roman Missal was the standard that laid a solid groundwork for liturgical norms.

"Gather Faithfully Together" is Cardinal Mahony's "treatise" on the Sunday Mass. It was designed for the Archdiocese, but given Mahony's immense reach, it has unfortunately become a model for many other dioceses.

If you're an exceptionally patient person, you may be able to get through it.
I know I can't!

http://www.la-archdiocese.org/Eucharist/E970904.html

From that site:

Pope John Paul II, in calling us to the Jubilee Year, praises the Second Vatican Council and says this:

< pope >The best preparation for the new millennium can only be expressed in a renewed commitment to apply, as faithfully as possible, the teachings of Vatican II to the life of every individual and of the whole Church.< /pope >

Let's do it. But uh... what are the teachings of Vatican II?

I wonder if it would help to know that. Maybe. Or something. And stuff.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, has ever been able to tell me what the "teachings of Vatican II" are. Ever.

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.