Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 3:33 AM By BETH
Yes let us pray for all US Bishops and Priests. We need our faithful Bishops and Priests. And let us heed the words of St. Paul to Timothy (1 Tim 5:8) “If any one does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his own family, he has disowned the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” If Zavala needs to drive a cab or work in the fields to support his children, so be it. He must do penance for his sins and for his Scandal.
Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 4:04 AM By Abeca Christian
God bless you Archbishop Gomez for your very caring statement. We appreciate your love and encouragement. We pray for you always and God bless you for keeping us in your prayers as well.
Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 4:25 AM By Daphne de Rutte
This poor man needs our prayers.Now, more than ever we can see the need for prayer and penance for our Church .Archbishop Gomez put it beautifully”.Let us see this moment as an invitation to deeper conversion.” All our dear priests need our prayers and support .Let us not fail them.
Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 6:10 AM By MIKE
” Lord Jesus, we your people pray to You for our priests. You have given them to us for OUR needs. We pray for them in THEIR needs. We know that You have made them priests in the likeness of your own priesthood. You have consecrated them, set them aside, annointed them, filled them with the Holy Spirit, appointed them to teach, to preach, to minister, to console, to forgive, and to feed us with Your Body and Blood. Yet we know, too, that they are one with us and share our human weaknesses. We know too that they are tempted to sin and discouragement as are we, needing to be ministered to, as do we, to be consoled and forgiven, as do we. Indeed, we thank You for choosing them from among us, so that they understand us as we understand them, suffer with us and rejoice with us, worry with us and trust with us, share our beings, our lives, our faith. We ask that You give them this day the gift You gave Your chosen ones on the way to Emmaus: Your presence in their hearts, Your holiness in their souls, Your joy in their spirits. And let them see You face to face in the breaking of the Eucharistic bread. We pray to You, O Lord, through Mary the mother of all priests, for Your priests and for ours. Amen.” – Cardinal John O’Conner
Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 6:31 AM By Prof Helen
My parish is Our Lady of the Angels.The Archbishop and all the Church are in my prayers. The Bishops have been lax in teaching the flock about sins the originate below the belt , so to speak. This is the fruit of that poisonous tree. Sexual sin is at the root of a myriad of others including murder and sexism.”It’s not nothin'” as a former student used to say.
Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 7:00 AM By Maryanne Leonard
And . . . ???
Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 7:53 AM By Jerry Bellamy
All of us are wounded healers. God somehow uses our worn out tools and in spite of our imperfections and through them glory is given to God. We just celebrated the Epiphany involving followers of astrology and dream interpretations who were the ones who gave honor to our King of Kings.
Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 8:36 AM By MD
What a beautiful letter full of love and hope.
Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 8:56 AM By FormerAltarBoy
How long until he’s defrocked?
Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 10:02 AM By RON C
The bishop is the father of two teenage children and no one knew until now !! wow!! I understand the Archdiocese is looking into monetary support for his Children — How much is Bishop Zavala contributing!!!
Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 10:22 AM By Juergensen
Yes, let us all convert, convert to the Catholic faith, and deny abortionists and homosexualists the Holy Eucharist. See Canon 915.
Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 10:26 AM By scub
It is becoming increasingly evident that priests need to be permitted to marry. Having a ‘call’ to the priesthood and a ‘call’ to marriage are not mutually exclusive of each other. I have not had contact with a priest I could relate to in human terms in as long as I can remember. In order to better minister to Christ’s flock, priest’s need to come out from behind the secluded walls of their rectories and into ‘reality.’ I’m sure that there are really good celibate priests out there, but I haven’t met one since I left the military nearly 2 decades ago. No, allowing priests to marry won’t solve all problems, and will certainly create some others, but at least the door will be opened to a vast array of well qualified, called, motivated, energetic, pious, approachable, and family oriented men. Over the past 40 years or so, priests have essentially become irrelevant for anything other than consecration of the Eucharist, weddings and funerals. I’ve had several incidents were I was asked to get a priest to come after hours to visit the dying… even those who requested conversion on their death bed. We couldn’t even get anyone to answer a phone at any parish or the diocese… another person made a quick phone call to a protestant church, the phone was automatically forwarded to the ‘married’ pastor’s residence, and he was there baptizing my dying friend and his family within 15 minutes. Archbishop Gomez’s letter was nice, but at this point, almost ‘canned.’ I’ve heard and read so many letters like this recently that they are essentially meaningless. All talk, and no action. It’s getting really old.
Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 11:33 AM By Maryanne Leonard
So much prayer, love and hope going around, and so little condemnation of this bishop’s betrayal . . . my, how times have changed. I am aghast, and I want something more from our hierarchy, but it feels as if I am virtually standing alone here. At how high a level in our Catholic hierarchy does this kind of duplicitous betrayal have to occur before the lay faithful are outraged? Am I expecting too much from those who are telling us how to live while they go about doing the opposite? If I kept a secret family composed of a mister and kids without telling my husband, there would be hell to pay. If a bishop keeps a mistress and kids without telling anyone, it is time to gather round and pray for him and send his kids to college? I don’t get it. Whatever happened to old-fashioned morality and actions having consequences? We were all duped, so now let’s all pray and pay?
Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 12:13 PM By Sawyer
What good did Bishop Zavala actually do? Pax Christi? Pfffft. Speaking at the Religious Ed Congress? Pffft. Was there anything noteworthy about his priestly or episcopal service?
Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 12:28 PM By Actual charity
This situation is both a challenge and opportunity for the people of God to act charitably. I have confidence that Bishop Gomez is making it clear Zavala has all of our prayer and all the personal support we can offer. I hope that includes supporting him in his duty to GET A JOB that supports his children and their mother and to pay back any money the Church may have spent or be spending to do so. We must greet this siution with an attitude of forgiveness that doesn’t run away from, or paper over, the reality of the situaiton.
Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 1:16 PM By goodcause
Prayer is necessary and salutary at this time for all concerned. At least Bishop Zavala gave his children life without sustenance rather than no life at all.
Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 1:53 PM By Abeca Christian
goodcause — it would of been better if he remained faithful, now the children will suffer too! and have suffered for having to stay a secret!
Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 2:15 PM By Mateo
My respect for Abp. Gomez is growing. He clearly dealt with this issue quickly and directly but he’s also trying to be a healing voice. Imagine if (for example) if Bernard Law and Rembert Weakland had been dealt with in the same manner. There certainly would have been a lot more healing and it would have sent the right message. I am praying for you, ABp. Gomez — you should have been named a cardinal along with Tim Dolan another favorite of mine…
Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 2:18 PM By Mateo
“Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 10:26 AM By scub It is becoming increasingly evident that priests need to be permitted to marry.” —— For what it’s worth, BISHOPS have NEVER been allowed to be married in either the West OR the East (Catholic OR Orthodox.) This convention has been in place since Pentecost.
Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 2:37 PM By BETH
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” – GK Chesterton. We should never tolerate sin.
Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 2:41 PM By Fusion
For those who keep insisting that priest are allowed to marry: If you are truly involved in your parish in any manner , then you know that priests have a heavy schedule and getting appointments is very difficult. You often have to wait days or even weeks. If you think unmarried priests have a heavy workload now, can you imagine if they now had the stresses of a married life w/ children. They cannot do both!!! WAKE UP!!
Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 6:13 PM By J
WHAT? This man, Zavala, has been living a lie for over a decade, taking money from poor people who piously contribute week after week, innocently believing they supporting Christ’s Church, telling others how to live their lives while his own life was a dishonorable mess! And WE’RE supposed to convert and do penance? AND pay for his kids! Are we crazy? It’s one thing being charitable, it’s another being a chump. Where is the outrage? This is not about whether priestly celibacy should be jettisoned, it’s about the absence of any shred of integrity on the part of a man with questionable theological credentials in a position of power and authority taking advantage of good, faithful Catholics! Period. Let HIM convert and do penance!
Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 7:03 PM By Cody in Tucson
The article published 1/5 on this site describes Bishop Zavala’s involvement with hard left groups and those undermining Catholic teaching. Why wasn’t he dealt with much earlier by Arch Gomez or Card Mahoney?
Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 7:17 PM By Xavier Rynne
Give a guy a break. At least it shows “family values” on both parts. Only when he started slippage into the “deadbeat dad” zone did anyone get upset. From what I hear, he functioned pretty well as a bishop for the past decade or so.
Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 7:25 PM By jovinian
so there were never married bishops? read i timothy 3:1-5. there were also married popes.
Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 7:39 PM By Maryanne Leonard
In the news recently we have Father Alberto Cutie of Florida sunbathing with a woman he later married. In living memory we have several American bishops also getting cozy with the ladies too: Auxiliary Bishop James McCarthy of New York, Archbishop Robert Sanchez of Santa Fe, and Archbishop Eugene Marino of Atlanta. For all the “Well, at least ” folks, we can say, well, at least the latter was secretly married to his lady, though I wonder if that marriage was valid under canon law. Hmm. The other two bishops were womanizers, and well, at least they were chasing the female parishioners, hm? So it looks as if we in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles are joining several other Catholic dioceses in contributing one of our own to the American Bishops Hall of Shame. I’m wondering if it is standard practice to protect the identity of the paramours of bishops in these cases, and to reward the offspring with college educations using funds contributed by parishioners? Does the ex-auxiliary archbishop still get his retirement paid?
Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 7:50 PM By Jeff
There will undoubtably be more house cleaning for Abp Gomez. Lord give him strength!
Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 8:16 PM By Traditional Angelo
I do not condemn Bishop Zavala personaly, that is God’s job.. His actions though are to be condemned with full force. This situation greatly saddens me. But nothing surprises me anymore and that is not a good thing. Perhaps we are becoming accustomed to these sins, such that it no longer fazes us anymore. When the sexual abuse scandal broke out, there was a priest who’s zeal was the salvation of souls and love for the Church. He shouted from the pulpit, “These are the fruits of the liberals, they have destroyed the good name of the Church.” This priest was ferociously furious. I liked that sermon, I was elated. But now its, so what else is new.
Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 8:29 PM By Ann Cinquina
The pity of this falling from vows that are made is that this bishop was in a leadership position. Non-Catholics can never learn of the beauty of our faith because of these terrible sins against it. Our divine beliefs are once more attacked, We must keep our doors open to all the frailties of our human weaknesses,
Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 9:07 PM By Maryanne Leonard
According to the Los Angeles Times, Zavala “is no longer in ministry but remains a priest and bishop.” If this is indeed the case, it would seem logical to presume that Zavala is still collecting a salary. If the message to the faithful is “Break your vows, live in secrecy, ‘fess up, and you will be mightily rewarded. You get to leave the work behind, gain enormous benefits for your illegitimate children, keep your title and position (and we will send you your salary wherever you want us to?), and we will all pray for you.” Do I understand this correctly? I would appreciate someone shining some light on this. Does the Los Angeles Times have this right?
Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 9:23 PM By Paul
Maryanne: It is true that sacramentally this man is a priest, at the highest possible level, forever. It will be up to the Leadership of the church, possibly as high as the Vatican to decide for what period of time the continuation of his salary will be. I did not read the times, but what I have said is based on the law of the church.
Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 10:12 PM By k
Maryanne, Holy Orders is a sacrament. It cannot be “undone”. He will always be a priest and a bishop.
Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 10:20 PM By bev
Maryanne: There are many of us standing with you! I am wondering who among the hierarchy came up the rationale as to how to address this problem? The Vatican? Someone is sorely out of touch.
Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 10:34 PM By JLS
jovinian, the early Church fathers such as St Augustine realized that a priest should be concerned with the laity and not with his own family. St Paul explains it clearly, as does Church history. He taught not only what you posted, but also on the necessity of celibacy for priests. So it is also necessary to keep in mind all of what he wrote. I recall reading Gospel or Acts where St Peter had a wife, although it is not clear if she was still alive or anything about her. Jesus takes men where they’re at and converts them to His will.
Posted Monday, January 09, 2012 10:44 PM By bev
Fusion 2:41p: There are priests who are workaholics just as in other professions. Priests are given one day off per week in which they visit friends, have dinner. A lot of lay people have to work two jobs as well as raise a family.
Posted Tuesday, January 10, 2012 5:33 AM By Mary
Paul, I don’t think the Diocese is required to give benefits or continue currently salary to anyone who has been required to leave his position due to mortal sin, breaking his vow of celibacy, and scandal. In fact, it continues the mortal sin of SCANDAL. The decision for benefits etc., lies with Archbishop Gomez (of the LA Diocese) in this case.
Posted Tuesday, January 10, 2012 8:47 AM By Brian S
We can’t throw this man into the street any more than any other. Of course he will have to be supported until his natural end. Kick him to the curb? Now that would be a scandal.
Posted Tuesday, January 10, 2012 10:24 AM By k
JLS, Matthew 8:14 mentions Peter’s mother-in-law so it assumed that he had a wife but there is no mention of his wife so he may have been widowed.
Posted Tuesday, January 10, 2012 12:46 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
For those truly and sincerely interested, both Fr. Aloysius Elacuria, CMF and Fr. Thomas Matin, CMF, both highly saintly priests and mystics, told me that St. Peter was indeed a widower, after him there has never been a validly married Pope, Bishops yes, Popes no. I believe that “Mystical City of God” and “Anna Catherine Emmerich” reveal this as well. God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher
Posted Tuesday, January 10, 2012 2:49 PM By scub
It is obvious that our clergy have no idea how to manage a household… much less God’s house. [1 Timothy 3:1-5:] 1 This saying is trustworthy: whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task. 2Therefore, a bishop must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not a drunkard, not aggressive, but gentle, not contentious, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, keeping his children under control with perfect dignity; 5 for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of the church of God? For those who indicated that priests are always so busy… sure… at all the parishes I’ve been to – sorry – no, they aren’t busy… but they are unavailable. Yet, I know numerous protestant ministers who are not only married, but run their churches and serve their congregations after hours and on the weekends. Why? because they work full time at secular jobs and take no money for their ministry. Seemingly the busier they are, the more time they have to be of service. Their families are supportive and involved as well. And yes, I and my wife are very involved in our parish. We see exactly how busy our priests are. (not). Believe me, there is no one waiting to in the waiting room to see them – because they are not available. Without writing a dissertation on the subject, suffice it to say, if priests were permitted to marry, they would be much more available to parishioners and much more well versed in ‘reality.’ Thus, in compliance with 1Tim 3:1-5, they would be much more capable of caring for God’s house and for God’s children.
Posted Tuesday, January 10, 2012 11:16 PM By JLS
The solution to the adultery problem among clergy is to do what the Pope has said to do, and what Jesus told the harlot to do. Couched in (like the pun?) different terms, both say the say thing. Pope to bishops: “Become holy”. Jesus to harlot: “Go and sin no more”. Notice also, scub, that marriage is not a problem solver; see Genesis, where you can see God’s purpose for it, which is to get children and raise families. This is not the purpose of a priest. The purpose of a priest is to offer sacrifice to God; Catholic priests offer the ultimate sacrifice, and thus it is a sign of the meaning of ultimate to do so shorn of all temporal things … as much as possible. What you describe of the nature of a priest has nothing at all to do with the essense of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. You present priesthood as hobknobbing with parishioners … scub, simply go to the nearest shopping mall and hobknob. If you have a notion to find out what God is all about, then go to Mass and ask Him. But just guessing off the cuff does not quite line up with the gravity of the situation.
Posted Wednesday, January 11, 2012 1:52 AM By jovinian
ILS: 1 corinthians 5 has paul saying that the apostles travelled about with a “woman/wife sister (greek: gyne adelphe). it is disputed whether this means a wife who was a christian woman, or a companion who was christian woman. the early christian imagination created saint thecla to be paul’s travelling companion. she is not presented as paul’s wife, but the meaning of corinthians 5 remains moot. when discussing the question of married clergy in the early church, it is very important to realize that one must take into consideration time and place. paul urges celibacy and gives himself as an example: but this is because he believed that the end of the world was about to take place. such is not the case in 1 timothy.
Posted Wednesday, January 11, 2012 2:58 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
Scrub, If you can’t find priests who are not too busy to visit and minister to the sick, perhaps you should carefully examine where you are finding your priest. Every time I call any parish, and I call many, if the priest is not in, I get a message explaing where to call for a priest on call in case of emergency. God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher
Posted Wednesday, January 11, 2012 3:09 PM By Anne T.
Jovinian and others, women were chaperoned back then. If a woman traveled with St. Paul, you can “bet your sweet life” there were other Christian men and women traveling along with them, usually a married couple or married couples. Most likely the women were boarded together and the men in their own section or each had separate accomodations while traveling, usually at the houses of other Christians. Also, many think that after they were ordained, the Apostles lived celebate lives with the permission of any of their remaining wives, especially since they did a lot of traveling and, like the married priests of the Old Testament, they were not allowed intimate realtions with their wives while serving at the altar. The wives were supported by the Church. This is all explained by Cardinal Stickler in his book, “A Case for Celibacy”. By the way, I worked with a married man at one job whom everyone thought was a great human being. He even got an award. Well, later he was accused and convicted of sexual abusing children, mostly or all boys, so marriage is not always a cure all.
Posted Wednesday, January 11, 2012 3:11 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
jovinian, 1:52 PM, “the early christian imagination created saint thecla to be paul’s travelling companion”, imagination! Since when are the writings of St. Paul imagination, and where oh where do you get the idea that she may have been considered St. Paul’s wife? God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher
Posted Wednesday, January 11, 2012 3:15 PM By scub
JLS… did you not read 1Tim3:1-5? Words directly from the Bible are not “guessing off the cuff” nor “hobnobbing.” Never-the-less, now that you mention it. I do believe Christ did much “hobnobbing” as He made Himself available to us simple sinners. Priests might wish to consider conducting themselves in similar fashion. After all, isn’t that the reason they are supposedly ‘celibate’? To be more available to the people? Well, it isn’t working… and hasn’t for quite some time. So, I would suggest returning to 1Tim2:1-5 and making some serious changes. Certainly, if a priest felt called to “actual” “celibacy” – great, but celibacy means “NO SEX” – It does not mean that sex is okay for priests as long as he is not validly married. This makes no sense whatsoever. As for the “go and sin no more” – I assume it’s okay for an actively homosexual priest to consecrate the Eucharist (even though he has been told to go and sin no more), but it’s not okay for a divorced and remarried person to receive it?
Posted Wednesday, January 11, 2012 5:51 PM By The Rose
Really, reading some of your comments, I believe some of you will not be satisfied until this man is hanged, drawn, and quartered. Are you really sincere in your lamentations that he “betrayed” people or are you really just contemptuous of him because the the Church, unlike you, is merciful to sinners? Which is it? I would think it is the latter, not the former. Check yourselves people. Check yourselves.
Posted Thursday, January 12, 2012 3:34 AM By jovinian
fisher: when i used the word “imagination” i was not referring to any work which the church recognizes as canonical. i was talking about,an apocryphal work concerning paul and a woman named thecla..apocryphal means a work that is not what it claims to be; in the case of paul and thecla, the church taught that this was neither written by paul nor canonical, rather, like all the apocryphal books, paul and thecla is an example of popular piety recounting what it thought was missing in the canonical scripture. somebody fabricated a story about paul and thecla to explain the verse 1 corinthians 9:5 which states that certain women accompanied the apostles on their journies; and if this was permitted to these other apostles, paul says that he too should have the same right. as for the question of who these women were, this is an exegetical problem concerning the meaning of an ambiguous phrase. i did not state that paul had a wife. i stated that the exact meaning of a greek phrase is uncertain. the apocryphon does not present thecla as paul’s wife, but the greek phrase can still have more than one meaning.
Posted Thursday, January 12, 2012 4:07 AM By jovinian
anne: the question of the female travelling companions of the apostles certainly deserves further study. aquila and prisca were certainly a married couple. the corinthian passages says the other apostles, including cephas, had women-sisters accompanying them. paul says that he and barnabas should have the same right. in romans 16:7 paul greets andronicus and junia. there are good grounds to believe that junia is the name of a woman, and that, like prisca and aquila mentioned in 16:3, andronicus and junia were a pastoral couple. this verse is particularly interesting because paul refers to the couple as being “distinguished among the apostles”. if junia is indeed the name of a woman, this text suggests that a woman could preach with apostolic authority.(yes, i know “let your women keep silence in church.” but this romans passage cannot simply be dismissed.) fisher: maria de agrada and catherine emmerich are not the magisterium. whatever their private opinions may have been about peter’s wife, they do not and cannot count as magisterial teaching.
Posted Thursday, January 12, 2012 4:10 AM By Traditional Angelo
The Rose, Your Charity sounds great. But I must say it is misguided. Pope Benedict XVl has made it clear that there can be no Charity without Justice, and no Justice without Charity. We must pray for mercy for Bishop Zavala in the hopes he’ll truly repent. But his actions, for the good of the Church must be condemned with full force. Hate the sin, but never the sinner, this is true Charity in Justice!
Posted Thursday, January 12, 2012 9:34 AM By The Rose
TradAngelo, you said yourself in a previous comment that you do not condemn the man, but but the sin. Therefore why not you act on that by criticizing instead the comment shown above by another poster which question if he should still receive a salary and retirement? What would they have him do, live in the street?
Posted Thursday, January 12, 2012 10:23 AM By Maryanne Leonard
Where is the justice in the case of Bishop Zavala? I see reward, and I suspect that there could be more than we know about. Who among us wishes him drawn and quartered? I see no one asking for him to be punished, but many of us are outraged that his long-term duplicity, which harmed many specific people grievously and all of us to some extent, is not being sufficiently denounced, and in fact is being rewarded. I am all for forgiving this man, but not for paying him another dime in direct salary or family benefits. He has damaged the Holy Roman Catholic Church definitely and directly and by rights should be asked to pay retribution for that, but of course he will not be. The decision by Archbishop Gomez to pay for the college educations of each of Zavala’s children, which can easily cost upwards of $100,000 or more for each child is misguided compassion at best. The most daring among us could justifiably characterize this gift to the Zavala family as a misuse of funds contributed in trust by parishioners who never would have countenanced such a seizure to reward even longtime faithful lay families, let alone a dishonest poser who took his salary and many benefits all those years, pretending to be a worthy leader of souls. Such unearned rewards of shocking betrayals of the magnitude if Bishop Zavala’s further erode lay confidence in Church leadership and thus cause further direct harm to us all.
Posted Thursday, January 12, 2012 10:48 AM By JLS
scub, whenever you read anything, even the word “stop” on a stopsign, you are engaging in the act of interpretation. It is for this reason among others that we have popes and bishops to make sure our interpretations are not faulty.
Posted Thursday, January 12, 2012 10:53 AM By JLS
jovinian, St Paul taught the Church to have only celibate priests; since he was not a magician who could change things with the wave of his wand, it took a long time, maybe centuries, for the Church to figure out the will of God and how to conform to it.
Posted Thursday, January 12, 2012 1:33 PM By Maryanne Leonard
Yes, The Rose, I would have him live in the street if that is the best he can do for himself. The key is, he needs to do for himself now, and for his family. He needs to work at an honest job and try honesty for a while and see how that works for him. It works for the rest of us, who work for an honest living wage. There are many honest, hard-working family men and women and their children living in our streets now, having lost jobs and homes they worked, good honest people I would rather help out of the streets than for someone who basically lost his job due to dishonesty and in a contrary position to his employer’s requirements. I do not believe he deserves another dime of ours, and I do forgive him and respect his finally coming clean, so please don’t misunderstand – I think he should have done this years ago. He should be with the family he created. I think he has a lot of fences to mend and needs to get a job. Maybe as an actor? He’s got the talent, that’s for sure.
Posted Thursday, January 12, 2012 2:24 PM By The Rose
With the statement, “Yes, I would have him live in the street,” you have validated my assessment that it is not hatred for the sin, but rather contempt for the man that is at work in you. I believe this contempt is also proven by the last sentence in the comment identifying him as an actor — a comment which to me betrays malicious contempt.
Posted Thursday, January 12, 2012 8:34 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
The sins of this man, since he was a public figure, can easily be said to be “public sins”, such sins require public pennance. Where is this happening? The scandal is growing even more now that journalist are speculating on just how much Cdl. Mahony knew and when he knew it, especially since Bp. Zavala once took a mysterious sabatical. I agree with Abeca, let him now join the job market and pay for his actions. God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher
Posted Thursday, January 12, 2012 9:08 PM By jon
Very good assessment, Rose. You champion mercy, and charity, even when a man is fallen. Class. Total class.
Posted Thursday, January 12, 2012 10:41 PM By Abeca Christian
Why are we even discussing this in more detail. We already know it was a terrible situation and sinful as well. We may even say things that can be hurtful or even things we may regret. Lets pray for this situation and for healing and move on. We don’t want to get caught up in too much discussion on it because we may say things that can lead us to sin.
Posted Friday, January 13, 2012 1:19 AM By jovinian
jls: could you please cite the verses in which paul, as you claim, taught that the church could have only celibate priests? and what shall we make of the fact that the eastern churches in communion with rome have a married clergy?
Posted Friday, January 13, 2012 12:32 PM By scub
JLS… I agree some things require interpretation, but then some things are pretty blatantly clear. How would you interpret the word “Stop” on a stop sigh?…. The Rose…It’s wonderful to forgive someone for breaking your window. The appropriate thing for that someone to do would be to pay for it. Part of my consternation with the “Bishop” is that he is taking no responsibility for his actions or for support of his family. His total lack of character and his lack of concern for anyone but himself make him contemptible in my eyes. He gets to choose how he is going to respond. Is he going to ask God for forgiveness, “Man up,” change his ways (go and sin no more), and take responsibility for his actions? Or is he going to wimp out, and let you and I pay for his family’s expenses. I’d bet on the wimp out side. I hope he proves me wrong. Such would be a Godly example to those who have followed him.
Posted Friday, January 13, 2012 12:35 PM By Maryanne Leonard
The Rose, it is fine for you to condemn my character because of my statements condemning Bp. Zavala’s behavior, but it is not okay for me to condemn his character because of his behavior? I think you confuse responsibility with compassion. I have a great deal of compassion for his children, less for his mistress, who is just as responsible as his children, and less for him, who knowingly perpetrated this betrayal against all Catholics, lay faithful, his fellow priests and bishops, and his superiors, all the way up to the Pope, and by his duplicity harmed us all – for years and years! I do hope his confession came under his own volition and was not as a result of being discovered, or being threatened to be reported, but that is not known. I do hope he is not receiving a salary, but that is also not known. I don’t wish to raise any questions about your character, as that is not the subject under discussion. I’m not sure you are qualified to judge me based on my postings, but if you feel you are, go ahead and indulge yourself to your heart’s content, and see if you then feel better. I want to discuss the way his fakery is being rewarded. He’s already taken a great many years of salary for work for which he was not competent, as is evident by his duplicity and betrayals of his solemn vows to God. I wonder if that is still going on? I also solemnly disagree with the misuse of parishioner’s funds to reward his family with two college educations, something with which the lay faithful are not rewarded. Forgiveness is one thing, but that is for God. I am concerned about the negative effects on children, at least one mistress, every member of the entire Catholic Church, and our society. Every report of deceitful bishops makes us increasingly cynical and and non-Catholics less interested in conversion.
Posted Friday, January 13, 2012 7:18 PM By JLS
scub, interpreting “stop” on a stop sign: A. stop. B. look for cops, and if none, then roll through it (the notorious “California stop”), c. honk loudly so everyone else stops while you gun it through, d. terrorists on following me so I cannot stop, e. etc. The word, “context”, comes to mind. Yes, this evokes theological nightmares of “situational ethics”; however, one cannot off hand dismiss context.
Posted Friday, January 20, 2012 5:07 PM By Abeca Christian
Maryanne Leonard you are doing just fine, The Rose is not so rosy if you ask me.
Posted Saturday, January 21, 2012 10:08 PM By Maryanne Leonard
Thank you, Abeca Christian. I submitted a post suggesting that when this person transforms himself/herself into another new posting identity, he or she changes his/her name to The Thorn. I thought that fit better, but I think the editor saved me from myself by not posting my mean-spirited post! Probably a good idea, but I cracked myself up when that name came to mind! I have to fight my devilish side all the time. Thank God for God, hm?
Posted Monday, January 23, 2012 5:46 PM By Abeca Christian
Maryanne Leonard facts are not mean spirited posts, may be if we are wrong when we assume, but proofing them on a website, well that is another story. Again I just say you are doing fine. : )
Posted Tuesday, January 24, 2012 5:48 PM By pjdjmj
Our sympathy should be with Zavala’s children. What a mess Zavala has made for them and for us.