FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Before and After: The Cathedral of St. Vibiana, Los Angeles
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
(07-14-2009, 01:02 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-13-2009, 10:04 PM)Baskerville Wrote: [ -> ]Mahoney the Homo just didnt want the old Cathedral it could have been repaird for a few million but he wanted to build his pagan temple worth 200 million. The man is a sick disgrace not only to Catholicism but humanity.

Baskerville, you're kind of pushing it here if you know what I mean.  I probably like His Eminence less than you do, but please refer to him as Cdl. Mahony or just plain Mahony out of respect for the office.

Hows about Mahoney the enabler of child molesters and the Man who kicks elderly Nuns out of their convent so he can sell it to pay off his sex scandals disgrace to humanity?
(07-14-2009, 02:12 PM)Magnificat Wrote: [ -> ]My issue with this is that this is another example of the way we're throwing away our Catholic history.    

Mahony hates Catholic history he wanted it destroyed otherwise he would have built a real Cathedral and not a Pagan temple.
There's some serious accusations against Cardinal Mahoney in this thread, and all I can say is you'd better hope that people are more discerning when they judge you than you're being against the Cardinal.  He "hates Catholic history" because you don't like his choice of architectural style?  That's quite an interesting deduction, can you back it up with logic instead of emotion and guessing next time?

The old cathedral cost $8 million?  I'm not sure I've heard that figure in the news, but assuming it's true, it was already known that the cathedral was far too small, and that's just the cost for the church building.  The other is the church, the parking garage, the parish office and hall, the residence.  I bet if you had to build all that where St. Vibiana's is the cost would have been up there, and you still would have a cathedral that's too small.  Also, St. Vibiana's was renovated by a downtown developer, who presumably gave himself a discount.

I really don't see what the molestations have to do with this issue.  Yes, they cost money, a lot of money, but the archdiocese is selling off property to pay for them, so to point out the cost and say that it proves the archdiocese has money is kind of silly. 
(07-15-2009, 09:55 AM)HolySoulsinPurgatory Wrote: [ -> ]The old cathedral cost $8 million?  I'm not sure I've heard that figure in the news, but assuming it's true, it was already known that the cathedral was far too small, and that's just the cost for the church building.

To clarify:  it cost $8 million to repair.

Backed by the Conservancy, developers Tom Gilmore and Richard Weintraub have spent $8 million turning the earthquake-damaged church into what they hope will become a bustling events center and performance venue.
Source: http://www.downtownnews.com/articles/200...news01.txt



Quote:The other is the church, the parking garage, the parish office and hall, the residence.  I bet if you had to build all that where St. Vibiana's is the cost would have been up there, and you still would have a cathedral that's too small.
Too small for what, exactly?


Quote:Also, St. Vibiana's was renovated by a downtown developer, who presumably gave himself a discount.
Or perhaps received donations from the Conservancy?



Quote:I really don't see what the molestations have to do with this issue.  Yes, they cost money, a lot of money, but the archdiocese is selling off property to pay for them, so to point out the cost and say that it proves the archdiocese has money is kind of silly. 

To clarify: my post merely shows where the Archdiocese's money is going... and where it didn't go.


-----------------------------

Now... you stated previously:

Quote:I forget the name of the donor, but someone contributed a significant amount of money to build a new cathedral.  This money could be used only for that.  It could not be used to renovate the old one.

Putting aside the 'general' issue of someone having the chutzpah to dictate so specifically (as you state) what a Cardinal and/or Archdiocese may do with a donation, as well as the issue of clergy kowtowing to terms so dictated... can you provide a source/citation to corroborate your statement about the terms of this particular, significant donation?  (Something more substantive than a hazy memory.  ;)  )
(07-15-2009, 03:18 PM)AndreasAngelopolitanus Wrote: [ -> ]To clarify:  it cost $8 million to repair.

Backed by the Conservancy, developers Tom Gilmore and Richard Weintraub have spent $8 million turning the earthquake-damaged church into what they hope will become a bustling events center and performance venue.
Source: http://www.downtownnews.com/articles/200...news01.txt

That's right, it cost $8 million to repair, so that makes the comparison with the costs to build a whole new complex even more inappropriate.



Quote:Too small for what, exactly?

For the use of it as a true seat of the archdiocese, natch.



Quote:Or perhaps received donations from the Conservancy?

Perhaps, but that's neither here nor there.


Quote:u]To clarify[/u]: my post merely shows where the Archdiocese's money is going... and where it didn't go.

It didn't go to the new cathedral in that instance either, so again, how is it related to the question at hand?




-----------------------------

Quote:Putting aside the 'general' issue of someone having the chutzpah to dictate so specifically (as you state) what a Cardinal and/or Archdiocese may do with a donation, as well as the issue of clergy kowtowing to terms so dictated... can you provide a source/citation to corroborate your statement about the terms of this particular, significant donation?  (Something more substantive than a hazy memory.   ;)  )

Chutspah ... is it chutspah to specify how you want an endowment used?  It's my understanding that the Church accepts donations that are made for specific purposes.    If a family decide to donate a stained glass window with the family crest somewhere on it to a church, is that chutspah?  Or is it only chutspah when you don't like it?

According to TheFreeLibrary website, Sir Daniel Donohue, President of the Dan Murphy Foundation and Gentleman In Waiting to the Pope, donated $25 million to the building of the new cathedral.  This is the name I couldn't recall earlier.  The Dan Murphy Foundation is listed by the same website as supporting Roman Catholic programs. 
(07-15-2009, 04:55 PM)HolySoulsinPurgatory Wrote: [ -> ]That's right, it cost $8 million to repair, so that makes the comparison with the costs to build a whole new complex even more inappropriate.
When comparing the two, the discrepancy in the amounts highlights the relative minimal cost it would’ve taken to retain and repair St. Vibiana’s.



Quote:
Quote:Too small for what, exactly?

For the use of it as a true seat of the archdiocese, natch.
Fair enough.  I know I wasn’t—and I don’t think anyone else in this thread was—advocating the position that a new and larger cathedral for the Archdiocese was an unsound decision.  What I am—and I believe others are— contending is: Why get rid of St. Vibiana’s?

As an example, the San Gabriel Mission has certainly had its share of “earthquake trouble” over the years.  A new church exists right beside the “Old Mission.”  Why not the same sort of thing for St. Vibiana’s?  (i.e., the new building becomes the cathedral; but the old one can remain, too)



Quote:
Quote:
Quote:Also, St. Vibiana's was renovated by a downtown developer, who presumably gave himself a discount.
Or perhaps received donations from the Conservancy?

Perhaps, but that's neither here nor there.
Well, no more here nor there than someone who gives a discount to himself, is it?  :shrug:


-----------------------------

Quote:
Quote:Putting aside the 'general' issue of someone having the chutzpah to dictate so specifically (as you state) what a Cardinal and/or Archdiocese may do with a donation, as well as the issue of clergy kowtowing to terms so dictated... can you provide a source/citation to corroborate your statement about the terms of this particular, significant donation?  (Something more substantive than a hazy memory.   ;)  )

Chutspah ... is it chutspah to specify how you want an endowment used?  It's my understanding that the Church accepts donations that are made for specific purposes.    If a family decide to donate a stained glass window with the family crest somewhere on it to a church, is that chutspah?  Or is it only chutspah when you don't like it?

According to TheFreeLibrary website, Sir Daniel Donohue, President of the Dan Murphy Foundation and Gentleman In Waiting to the Pope, donated $25 million to the building of the new cathedral.  This is the name I couldn't recall earlier.  The Dan Murphy Foundation is listed by the same website as supporting Roman Catholic programs. 

Thank you for finding out that info; although I was was more interested in "the terms" of the donation, not the donor's name.

To answer your question:
The way in which you described the donation?  Yes, in my opinion it is an example of chutzpah.  It’s one thing to say: “Your Eminence, in light of the earthquake damage to the cathedral, I would like to donate $25 million to help the Archdiocese” (i.e., leaving it up to the Cardinal to decide).  It’s quite another thing (as your post is leading me to believe) to say: “Your Eminence, in light of the earthquake damage to the cathedral, I would like to donate $25 million…BUT not a single dime of it can be used at the corner of 2nd & Main.”  That's not a donation... that's a directive.

(07-15-2009, 07:32 PM)AndreasAngelopolitanus Wrote: [ -> ]When comparing the two, the discrepancy in the amounts highlights the relative minimal cost it would’ve taken to retain and repair St. Vibiana’s.

Again, it was inadequate for its intended use.  Historical preservation notwithstanding, the archdiocese had for years  had permission to build a new cathedral (I think it was granted to Bishop Cantwell, but I'm not sure if it may have been Bishop  ... the one before Bishop Manning.  I can't remember his name).  The only problem, as I recall, was in gathering sufficient funds to build the cathedral to the size etc. that was needed.  CArdinal Mahoney's original plans did include keeping the cathedral intact and using it for some other purpose, but in the end, the cost of the adjacent properties, together with the costs to completely retrofit the old cathedral, plus the cost of the new cathedral and accompanying facilities, was a major hurdle.



Quote:Fair enough.  I know I wasn’t—and I don’t think anyone else in this thread was—advocating the position that a new and larger cathedral for the Archdiocese was an unsound decision.  What I am—and I believe others are— contending is: Why get rid of St. Vibiana’s?

As an example, the San Gabriel Mission has certainly had its share of “earthquake trouble” over the years.  A new church exists right beside the “Old Mission.”  Why not the same sort of thing for St. Vibiana’s?  (i.e., the new building becomes the cathedral; but the old one can remain, too)

That's feasible if you have the space.  In this case, the archdiocese didn't.  See above and previous posts.  Also, remember that in my original post, I wrote how the historical preservationists blocked the razing of the cathedral.  The reason the cardinal was going to raze it was that he didn't want to leave it behind, as I recall.  But the "protection" of it meant that the permanent fixtures that hadn't already been removed could not be touched.  So -- the cardinal couldn't raze the building, he couldn't strip it of things like the altarpieces, he couldn't buy the space around it to allow it to stand and at the same time build new facilities ... so then?

Quote:.Well, no more here nor there than someone who gives a discount to himself, is it?  :shrug:

Perhaps not, but my original response regarding the discount was part of addressing the hue and cry over the low cost of repairing St. Vibiana's.  The being that the cost was probably lower for the developer than it would have been for the archdiocese precisely because the developer presumably gave himself a discount. 



-----------------------------

Quote:Thank you for finding out that info; although I was was more interested in "the terms" of the donation, not the donor's name.

To answer your question:
The way in which you described the donation?  Yes, in my opinion it is an example of chutzpah.  It’s one thing to say: “Your Eminence, in light of the earthquake damage to the cathedral, I would like to donate $25 million to help the Archdiocese” (i.e., leaving it up to the Cardinal to decide).  It’s quite another thing (as your post is leading me to believe) to say: “Your Eminence, in light of the earthquake damage to the cathedral, I would like to donate $25 million…BUT not a single dime of it can be used at the corner of 2nd & Main.”  That's not a donation... that's a directive.

Would you mind pointing out where exactly I claimed that the donor dictated the location of the cathedral, or forbid its construction at 2nd and Main?  What I said was that the donor specifically said his donation was for the construction of a new cathedral.    I think it shows your prejudice to attribute more terms than were ever expressed.  If you're proven wrong in your history and knowledge of the project, then you'll find something wrong with the donors.  When you donate money to the Church and ask that it go to a Mass intention, aren't you "dictating"?  If you receive a pitch from missionaries overseas, asking for your donations for construction of a Catholic hospital, and you give money in response, isn't it understood that your donation is for that purpose?  Why make the donor out to be some sort of Svengali?  Just because you don't like the cardinal or the new cathedral?  That's not very charitable, and it's not even very honest.
[/quote]
(07-16-2009, 10:12 AM)HolySoulsinPurgatory Wrote: [ -> ]Again, it was inadequate for its intended use.  Historical preservation notwithstanding, the archdiocese had for years  had permission to build a new cathedral (I think it was granted to Bishop Cantwell, but I'm not sure if it may have been Bishop  ... the one before Bishop Manning.  I can't remember his name).  The only problem, as I recall, was in gathering sufficient funds to build the cathedral to the size etc. that was needed.  CArdinal Mahoney's original plans did include keeping the cathedral intact and using it for some other purpose, but in the end, the cost of the adjacent properties, together with the costs to completely retrofit the old cathedral, plus the cost of the new cathedral and accompanying facilities, was a major hurdle.
I’ll try once again.  I am NOT arguing that a larger cathedral was unnecessary.  I am NOT arguing that permission was needed to build a cathedral.  I am NOT even arguing for the acquisition of the properties surrounding St. Vibiana’s (for purposes of expansion).  I am ONLY stating that St. Vibiana’s should have been retained, repaired, and ultimately used by the Archdiocese.



Quote:
Quote:Fair enough.  I know I wasn’t—and I don’t think anyone else in this thread was—advocating the position that a new and larger cathedral for the Archdiocese was an unsound decision.  What I am—and I believe others are— contending is: Why get rid of St. Vibiana’s?

As an example, the San Gabriel Mission has certainly had its share of “earthquake trouble” over the years.  A new church exists right beside the “Old Mission.”  Why not the same sort of thing for St. Vibiana’s?  (i.e., the new building becomes the cathedral; but the old one can remain, too)

That's feasible if you have the space.  In this case, the archdiocese didn't.  See above and previous posts.
Again, the matter of “space” does not apply to what I am talking about.  See above and previous posts.


Quote:Also, remember that in my original post, I wrote how the historical preservationists blocked the razing of the cathedral.   The reason the cardinal was going to raze it was that he didn't want to leave it behind, as I recall.  But the "protection" of it meant that the permanent fixtures that hadn't already been removed could not be touched.  So -- the cardinal couldn't raze the building, he couldn't strip it of things like the altarpieces, he couldn't buy the space around it to allow it to stand and at the same time build new facilities ... so then?
Keep St. Vibiana’s and repair it.  Don’t sell it.  Don’t raze it.


-----------------------------


Quote:Would you mind pointing out where exactly I claimed that the donor dictated the location of the cathedral, or forbid its construction at 2nd and Main?  What I said was that the donor specifically said his donation was for the construction of a new cathedral.    I think it shows your prejudice to attribute more terms than were ever expressed.  If you're proven wrong in your history and knowledge of the project, then you'll find something wrong with the donors.  When you donate money to the Church and ask that it go to a Mass intention, aren't you "dictating"?  If you receive a pitch from missionaries overseas, asking for your donations for construction of a Catholic hospital, and you give money in response, isn't it understood that your donation is for that purpose?  Why make the donor out to be some sort of Svengali?  Just because you don't like the cardinal or the new cathedral?  That's not very charitable, and it's not even very honest.
Kindly save the blustering and allow me to show you what I am focusing on.

You specifically wrote (and underlined for emphasis):

Quote:I forget the name of the donor, but someone contributed a significant amount of money to build a new cathedral.  This money could be used only for that.  It could not be used to renovate the old one.


The underlined part is key.  If Cardinal Mahony, for whatever reason, had made the decision to keep the cathedral where it was… that’s his decision to make; just as it is to opt for a new one.  And—again, as written in your post—for a donor, any donor, to say they will donate to a new one and not an old one doesn’t sit well with me.

The two hypothetical statements I wrote previously (i.e., “Your Eminence, in light of the earthquake damage to the cathedral…”) it is certainly implied—if not obvious—that the donor is contributing towards the goal of the Archdiocese’s cathedral.  Again, as written in your post, it gives the impression of: “I will donate $25 million to build a new cathedral; but if you want to repair St. Vibiana’s, I’m not donating anything.”

Quote:I’ll try once again.  I am NOT arguing that a larger cathedral was unnecessary.  I am NOT arguing that permission was needed to build a cathedral.  I am NOT even arguing for the acquisition of the properties surrounding St. Vibiana’s (for purposes of expansion).  I am ONLY stating that St. Vibiana’s should have been retained, repaired, and ultimately used by the Archdiocese.

OK, so I'll try once again.  What for?  The old cathedral is a few minutes' walk from the new one -- no need for a separate parish.  As a cathedral, it was no longer meeting the needs.  Keep it as what?  A museum?  A separate church with no parishioners?  A chapel?  There's already other chapels downtown, and a several parishes.  It really sounds as if you think they ought to have kept it because you would have liked it better that way.  I wouldn't have -- so we cancel each other out. 



Quote:Again, the matter of “space” does not apply to what I am talking about.  See above and previous posts.
 

Again, see above and previous posts. 



Quote:Keep St. Vibiana’s and repair it.  Don’t sell it.  Don’t raze it.
  See above.



-----------------------------


Quote:Kindly save the blustering and allow me to show you what I am focusing on.

You specifically wrote (and underlined for emphasis):

Quote:I forget the name of the donor, but someone contributed a significant amount of money to build a new cathedral.  This money could be used only for that.  It could not be used to renovate the old one.


The underlined part is key.  If Cardinal Mahony, for whatever reason, had made the decision to keep the cathedral where it was… that’s his decision to make; just as it is to opt for a new one.  And—again, as written in your post—for a donor, any donor, to say they will donate to a new one and not an old one doesn’t sit well with me.

The two hypothetical statements I wrote previously (i.e., “Your Eminence, in light of the earthquake damage to the cathedral…”) it is certainly implied—if not obvious—that the donor is contributing towards the goal of the Archdiocese’s cathedral.  Again, as written in your post, it gives the impression of: “I will donate $25 million to build a new cathedral; but if you want to repair St. Vibiana’s, I’m not donating anything.”

Kindly save all your dancing around and pay attention.  You still failed to show me where I said that the donor limited the location in his donation.  A little soft-shoeing on your part doesn't cut it.  It is true that the money was specifically for the building of a new cathedral.  You underlined it without seeming to understand it.  Tell me what part of the underlined sentence makes any specification as to location. 

Fine, the idea of making a targeted donation does not sit well with you, but it does not follow that that makes it "wrong."  It's not wrong.

I'll stop being snotty now and say one thing that's just occurred to me ... you may be under the impression that the cardinal was all ready to renovate St Vibiana's until the donor came along. That's not what I said in my original post, but I think that you drew that conclusion.  Is that what you're thinking?
Pages: 1 2 3 4