The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
PDF versionL.A. needs progressive Latino archbishop
by Mario T. García on Mar. 16, 2010
A few weeks ago, Cardinal Roger Mahony of the Los Angeles archdiocesan announced that he would be retiring shortly. The L.A. archdiocesan is one of the largest if not the largest community of Catholics in the country. It is also one of the largest collections of Latino Catholics in the United States. It is a microcosm of the profound ethnic transformations that are affecting the church.
It is estimated that anywhere between 40 and 50 percent of all Catholics in the U.S. are of Latino descent. Not only is the Latino population among American Catholics growing, this is also ushering important cultural and liturgical changes in the church. Latino religious influences including popular religious traditions such as Día de los Muertos and the devotion to Our Lady of Guadalupe are being integrated within Catholic churches throughout the country.
Because of this Latinization of the Church, some have speculated that Cardinal Mahony’s successor should be a Latino. I agree with this. Such an appointment would represent recognition by the Vatican that the future of the Church in the U.S. -- to quote from Fr. Virgilio Elizondo -- is mestizo or Latino. However, I would also add that it is not enough to just have any Latino appointed to this august position. It needs to be a Latino who is progressively in tune with the needs of the mostly poor, working class, and immigrant status of many Latinos in the Los Angeles area. It must be a Latino who emulates the strong position that Cardinal Mahony has taken in defense of working class Latino immigrants and against the measures by immigration officials to round up the undocumented and deport causing havoc and separations within families.
There is a limit to the politics of identity and it is not enough to just appoint any Latinos; they must be progressive ones who challenge the status quo rather than apologizing for it.
Yes, I'm sure Pope Benedict
Yes, I'm sure Pope Benedict and the bishops committee that makes recommendations on these appointments will be sending a "progressive" bishop to LA to please the NCR, Commonweal and Voice of the Faithful constituencies of dissenting (and rapidly aging) Catholics.
I feel bad you folks can't see the writing on the wall....there won't be anymore liberal or progressive bishops appointed by Rome. The days of Pope Paul VI, Archbishop Weakland, and Cardinal Bernadin ended a long time ago.
Please prepare yourself because all future appointments will be orthodox bishops, faithful to the unchanging teaching of the Catholic Church and faithful to the successor of Peter. It is going to be this way for a long time....and those of us that love the Church for who She is (rather than what we'd like Her to be) are overjoyed. You lost the "battle for the Church."
Maybe you could join the Anglican Church....they seem to be open to accepting you no matter what you believe and they change their teachings and rules as often as the wind shifts to keep up with modern society.
"There is a limit to the
"There is a limit to the politics of identity and it is not enough to just appoint any Latinos"
Perhaps the new archbishop should not only be a Latino but an illegal alien as well.
Then it's Richard Garcia from
Then it's Richard Garcia from Monterey ca
as we sing at the Spanish
as we sing at the Spanish Mass:
Amen.
" --- the unchanging
" --- the unchanging teaching of the Catholic Church --- "
Justin from Ohio: your ignorance of church history is appalling. If you'd get your nose out of The Wanderer and Our Sunday Visitor you would learn of the myriad of changes the your "unchanging" Catholic Church has made ----
• It was OK to own slaves. In 1866 Pope Pius IX declared, “It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given.”
• Earning interest on loaning money was wrong. The church condemned usury at the Second Lateran Council in 1139, the Third Lateran Council in 1179, and the Council of Vienne in 1311.
• Anyone who wasn’t a Catholic was doomed to hell. You know, the old “extra ecclesia nulla salus” thing.
• Almost anything the church said about Jews prior to Nostra Aetate.
• It was OK to kidnap a Jewish child who was clandestinely baptized and not let the child go back to his parents to be raised as a Jew.
• Women are a near occasion of sin.
• If you ate meat on Friday and died before confessing, you would go to hell because to do so was a mortal sin.
• You were not allowed to read the Bible without prior church permission.
• You were not allowed to read any book on the Index of Forbidden Books.
• Do you remember the Galileo Affair?
Post new comment