The Frequently Scheduled One

Grant Gallicho levels a devastating post on the Frequently Misspelled Scheduled One and the active ordinary of his archdiocese. And just when you thought the episcopal attack on the truth couldn’t get any more brazen:

(Archbishop Gomez) does have the authority to say who presides over confirmations in the archdiocese. Have a look at the letter. Sorry, is that link broken? It seems the letter is no longer available on the website of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. (The L.A. Times cached a copy here.) Odd that the archdiocese’s archive of press releases includes a January 22 apology from auxiliary Bishop Thomas Curry, who played a part in archdiocesan efforts to conceal accused priests from the law (and who really did cancel confirmations this spring), along with Gomez’s statement on the release of the priest-personnel files, dated January 31 — the same date on his statement on Mahony. Did that document disappear down the memory hole?

Money quote from the cardinal when asked by a reporter about his not doing the Confirmation circuit:

That’s news to me…. I’ve been doing them every week and I’m going to be doing them every week. So go home.

And what was it: yesterday the release of the Charter Audit? I wonder if that would disappear from the USCCB web site.

I’m sure Los Angeles teenagers need the Sacrament of Confirmation. But as for the workload of an ordinary and his auxiliaries, it might say something if Southern California bishops went to two-a-week Confirmations as needed and gave up that one night with a cigar and a glass of brandy in a recliner chair. As an example of selfless service and sacrifice, a gesture doesn’t come by that’s much easier than that.

 

Too Much Information

Too much for sure from the Vatican’s viewpoint. The Frequently Misspelled One broadcasts that the Vatican wanted him to come to Rome. Insisted:

Without my even having to inquire, the nuncio in Washington phoned me a week or so ago and said, “I have had word from the highest folks in the Vatican: you are to come to Rome and you are to participate in the conclave.”

I’m not sure this is a good thing, especially for the Vatican. Minds have been made up on the retired Los Angeles archbishop. But for him to suggest publicly that “the highest folks” wanted him in Rome–that strikes me as a public relations blunder. Maybe minor. Maybe not.

The comment from the Vatican’s Father Federico Lombardi:

(Cardinal Mahony’s statement) can be understood in light of the communique of the Secretariat of State that insisted on the importance of not giving in to external pressures that might limit the freedom of the electors and the conclave.

Said document criticizes a potential influence of “public opinion that is often based on judgements that do not typically capture the spiritual aspect of the moment that the church is living.”

Fair enough. And yet, the “public opinion” is grounded in a morality that embraces responsible management, truthfulness, and cooperation with the rule of law. The public, especially the Catholic laity, have moral reasons for being critical of the man. They don’t strike me as especially political. Except in the sense of the relationship between two church factions: the Vatican bureaucracy and the American laity.

On the other hand, a moral equivalency might be for the laity to tell the bishops they don’t wish themselves to give in to external pressures. What might that mean if it gets thrown back into the laps of the episcopacy? I suspect it already has.

I’m actually starting to worry about Cardinal Mahony. Every public statement coming from him these days strikes me as cringeworthy. He doesn’t get the gravity of the consequences of his actions. The “highest folks” share that blindness. These are the people who will select the next pope. Maybe we should be worried … a little bit.

 

Beyond Humiliation, the Curia

If Cardinal Mahony had come out on his own blog about the smail’s pace of the curia in dealing with priest predators, it might have come across as somewhat self-serving. I’m inclined to think there’s blame to spread around, if not up, with this LA Times piece. One predator was yanked from his parish. But he appealed to Rome to prevent his defrocking. The Humiliated One wrote to Rome in ’93:

The case has been there for many, many months. The lengthy delay has created serious problems for my own credibility as a Diocesan Bishop.

No kidding.

The reporters:

(Confidential archdiocese records) suggest that Mahony at times had to press an unresponsive Vatican to get molesting priests out of the church.

Cardinal Mahony was unwilling to comment for this piece. Interesting. He’s been public with a lot of comments lately. A comment on the CDF and the Congregation for Clergy might be very illuminating at this point. Or maybe personally dangerous.

I wonder if there would be a thaw in that approach after the upcoming conclave. I can imagine an icy reception in Rome if he decided to spill beans like the ones he spit out at Archbishop Gomez a few weeks ago. If he’s going to post personal honesty pieces on his blog, I’d rather see some sense of honesty about the situation as it unfolded all those years ago. I’d like to think the man who harbored criminals from prosecution in the 80′s had learned something by the 90′s. If nothing else, a recognition that he and his brother bishops dislike having their credibility impaired by their being so slow on the uptake.

Cardinal Mahony, after this conclave, has nothing to lose. There will be no more cushy appointments for him. Clearly, he’s been led down a road he didn’t expect and wouldn’t have taken. What was the Petrine experience of John 21:18? Perhaps that is the path beyond the humiliation of abandoning the innocent.

 

Los Angeles Evasion

Is it about time LA’s ex-archbishop gets an expose in the LA Times? A few of my liturgical colleagues still give a nod or two when passing his shrine, but I’ve always counted myself as a skeptic where the Frequently Misspelled One is concerned. With records released yesterday that uncover questionable administrative decisions and policies, Cardinal Mahony offered up the index card:

I have a 3 x 5 card for every victim I met with on the altar of my small chapel. I pray for them every single day. As I thumb through those cards I often pause as I am reminded of each personal story and the anguish that accompanies that life story.

Cardinal Mahony was a JPII bishop. He brushed aside concerns about the size of his cathedral. (Thanks to the attacks on the architecture, many critics missed the mark on the one-foot-longer-than-NYC thing, and the sidelining of those protesting priorities.) He seemed intent on preserving the public perception of an institution with a corrupt underbelly.

The cardinal does concede that it was different in the 1980′s. And maybe it was. If so, it was victim advocates, lawyers, and Catholic protest groups who were ahead of the curve on the moral track in dealing with predation. That probably doesn’t set well with the “orthodox” crowd. But there you have it.