Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Catholic Living in the Modern World => Topic started by: PG on March 05, 2014, 01:46:18 PM
-
What do you think of trads going to his private chapel(and don't bother with any una cuŠ¼ vacantism objections)? I may be completely wrong, but I see his divorce and the relations that followed as a bit of a problem. Please share your thoughts, I would appreciate it.
-
I have a problem with Gibson's divorce and remarriage under the authority of his chapel.
That is the only thing I know about his chapel as it was a very public event. I do not know what his current status is, but I do know that we should not gossip about him or his chapel.
If someone has concrete facts about something untoward that should be revealed lest souls be led astray, they should be made known. Otherwise, it's simple detraction.
-
tkgs - I sure hope that you are not insinuating anything about me or the starting of this topic. And, surely his chapel did not approve of his divorce. You are going to have to prove that one! As for marriage, he has only been married once. He did not marry the Russian he had a child with.
-
+AMDG+
ASH WDNESDAY 2014
It becomes an issue because he is a public figure.
And weddings being public events, annulments and remarriages also fall into the public realm arena.
It is unfortunate that, as a public figure, the whole situation places him in speculation of being a public sinner because the explanations for annulment are never quite understood by most people.
They still think of it as "catholic divorce".
Some souls may be influenced in areas of divorce or annulment, basing it on the grounds that he got one.
More disconcerting, is the claim that the mother of his children, is some kind of orthodox Anglican, "high church" I think is the term that he uses, I heard him say it on a TV Interview, which actually came as a big surprise.
Anyway, you are right, their family life has no bearing on the salvation of our individual souls. But since he spat all this other information out there for people to digest, he may as well have put everything else out there, as clarification so as not to leave the impression of being a public sinner and receiving sacraments.
For if anything, giving the impression of making a mockery of the Church and Her Sacraments is of greater injury here than the possible detraction towards Mr. Gibson, especially since he has already deemed it necessary to discuss his affairs publicly.
Beyond that, this should really be a topic that is not discussed.
-
I have a problem with Gibson's divorce and remarriage under the authority of his chapel.
That is the only thing I know about his chapel as it was a very public event. I do not know what his current status is, but I do know that we should not gossip about him or his chapel.
If someone has concrete facts about something untoward that should be revealed lest souls be led astray, they should be made known. Otherwise, it's simple detraction.
Is it detraction to say that certain Catholics who said they did not approve of Mel's public sin of living with a woman to whom he was not married were told that they could not return to Mel's chapel? That's a public sin in itself, to tell people that they are not welcome to come there to Mass (since it's on private property, you see) just because their outlook is effectively too Catholic. Is that detraction?
... as clarification so as not to leave the impression of being a public sinner and receiving sacraments.
Who said that Mel was 'receiving sacraments'? In fact, when Fr. Procopio was offering Mass there, Mel did not come up for Communion, but remained in his pew.
tkgs - I sure hope that you are not insinuating anything about me or the starting of this topic. And, surely his chapel did not approve of his divorce. You are going to have to prove that one! As for marriage, he has only been married once. He did not marry the Russian he had a child with.
You're talking like "his chapel" is some kind of voting block or entity unto itself. He has had various priests come and go there. There are different people coming and going. So in what does "his chapel" consist? Is it the walls and the glass and the roofing tiles? He has had at least two different buildings so far, and if you include the Masses offered at the set of The Passion of the Christ, there would be several "chapels."
The only thing they all have in common is the fact that Mel Gibson sponsors them all.
Therefore, "his chapel" does not approve or disapprove of anything he does. There is no jurisdiction and there is no authority there. So Mel Gibson does what he likes, and if anyone doesn't agree with him, he tells them to get lost. Is that Catholic? It's much less the 'chapel' of Mel Gibson than it is the church of same.
.
-
Holysoulsacademy - thank you for your good post. And, I agree, I would be glad to not discuss these things, but they are indeed in the public. I am not obligated to go to his mass in CA where I live, despite objectively it being exactly what I am looking for. Therefore, I need to make a judgment.
Neil - thank you for your good post and info about his non reception of sacraments, and I am specifically referring to his Malibu hills chapel. The meaning of how tkgs uses "his chapel/authority" is what I wanted to know, that is why I repeated it. I do not know the Mel Gibson mass scene at all. This is why I am asking.
Give me some facts! I find it hard to believe that there was an annulment(erroneous rumors are not uncommon these days).
Show me the proof that Gibson got an annulment.
Show me the proof of multiple marriages.
As far as I can tell and reason, Gibson made a mistake of signing a divorce paper. I can forgive his relations with a woman, but divorce and annulment are different. However, due to the times, I can be very forgiving. But, I need facts and references!
-
If I was ever in the area, I would visit Mel Gibson's chapel for Mass one day. But I have never been anywhere near it.
-
Matto - it is a gated off chapel, but I am sure there is a way of being welcomed.
It seems to me to be different than the sspx resistance chapels where it is stated that all are welcome.
-
Matto - it is a gated off chapel, but I am sure there is a way of being welcomed.
It seems to me to be different than the sspx resistance chapels where it is stated that all are welcome.
So it is private and guests are not allowed? Oh well.
-
tkgs - I sure hope that you are not insinuating anything about me or the starting of this topic. And, surely his chapel did not approve of his divorce. You are going to have to prove that one! As for marriage, he has only been married once. He did not marry the Russian he had a child with.
No. I am not insinuating anything about you.
The news reports I remember reading about Mr. Gibson was that the private chapel's board of directors had somehow granted him an annulment so that he could be free to marry the Russian girl. I don't really keep up with the lives of actors. I just assumed he married her. Evidently, he did not.
The reason I called it "his chapel" is because there were many reports that the chapel is his personal, private chapel that he, personally finances. If this is all inaccurate, then I'll just bow out of this conversation because I really don't know anything about Mel Gibson's private life or his chapel.
I do not know the Mel Gibson mass scene at all. This is why I am asking.
Give me some facts! I find it hard to believe that there was an annulment(erroneous rumors are not uncommon these days).
Why is it you want to know? This is what is the most puzzling thing about this topic. If the chapel is private and gated, allowing no "off the street" visitors, I cannot understand any reason for your curiosity. It is not as if you might happen to be in the area and decide to attend Mass there.
-
tkgs - I have read and liked some of your posts, but you should bow out of this one!
Gibson did not marry the Russian girl, and you condemn yourself with your own words!
Lastly, take a hint, or better yet, read what I type. Do you really think that Gibson would build a church with seating for 100+ so that he could worship all alone?
-
Whoa Neil!
Hold your horses! that's why I said "impression of being a public sinner and receiving sacraments".
Because for those on the outside, TBH, most people - they cannot discern whether he receives the sacraments or not.
Clarification should be made since he has indulged us with details in other respects.
This is a great opportunity to explain how annulments are and how they are not a form of "catholic divorce".
Everybody around the world lauds the Philippines for being one of the last countries where divorce is illegal.
Well guess what, they found a way around it.
They call it annulment.
It's a legal procedure very similar to church annulment where the civil marriage is considered null.
I am not sure exactly what the grounds are, but the impression amongst most people is "divorce" by another name.
Then you see them marrying other people, etc.
And since these situations are not clarified, the common folk think of it as "another word for divorce" - because in their minds it achieves the same ends, separation of husband and wife, broken family, free to remarry.
An unfortunate situation that has arisen, that is not much discussed, is the fact that in those cases, upon annulment, the child is considered "illegitimate" and no longer enjoys the privileges of a "legitimate" child within civil society, especially where it pertains to inheritances.
If the couple happened to be married in Church too, they are still considered married and the child considered "legitimate".
Add on to that second marriages and second families.
Within civil society, as long as they are married, the children from the second family are considered "legitimate", but within the Catholic Church, it is the children from the second family that are "illegitimate".
So issues with receiving Sacraments for the children are brought into question because of this.
They were so much better off under Spain!
Imagine, a purely Catholic society for 400 years.
-
Matto - I think it is "private" because Mel Gibson is famous and Hollywood(paparazzi) is right next door. I think that it is likely that any trad in the area can go there(after introduction process) as long as rules are followed, and both parties are in agreement concerning the crisis. I doubt that it is much different from anywhere else.
-
Civil divorce is not necessarily a sin to say he shouldn't receive sacraments.
If a separation from his wife was necessary or if he was abandoned unjustly then a civil divorce may have been required to protect him. It's not recognized by the Church as dissolution to the marriage.
-
+AMDG+
ASH WDNESDAY 2014
It becomes an issue because he is a public figure.
And weddings being public events, annulments and remarriages also fall into the public realm arena.
It is unfortunate that, as a public figure, the whole situation places him in speculation of being a public sinner because the explanations for annulment are never quite understood by most people.
They still think of it as "catholic divorce".
Some souls may be influenced in areas of divorce or annulment, basing it on the grounds that he got one.
Because people don't understand Church teaching does not make a public figure a public sinner.
-
If I was ever in the area, I would visit Mel Gibson's chapel for Mass one day. But I have never been anywhere near it.
My understanding is that you will never get anywhere near it. Mel has sheltered his taxes by pumping tens of millions into it- it can seat hundreds yet I doubt there has ever been more than a couple dozen inside it. sounds like a tax haven.
My understanding is that it is off limits to the public.
-
If I was ever in the area, I would visit Mel Gibson's chapel for Mass one day. But I have never been anywhere near it.
My understanding is that you will never get anywhere near it. Mel has sheltered his taxes by pumping tens of millions into it- it can seat hundreds yet I doubt there has ever been more than a couple dozen inside it. sounds like a tax haven.
My understanding is that it is off limits to the public.
It is my understanding too.
Which is why the preoccupation of the opening poster into this chapel and Mr. Gibson seems rather unwholesome.
-
If I was ever in the area, I would visit Mel Gibson's chapel for Mass one day. But I have never been anywhere near it.
My understanding is that you will never get anywhere near it. Mel has sheltered his taxes by pumping tens of millions into it- it can seat hundreds yet I doubt there has ever been more than a couple dozen inside it. sounds like a tax haven.
My understanding is that it is off limits to the public.
It is my understanding too.
Which is why the preoccupation of the opening poster into this chapel and Mr. Gibson seems rather unwholesome.
I hold nothing strongly against Mel Gibson. With one movie he has done more for Christianity than any Pope since Pius X.
I do wish though that he would open the chapel to the public, even if access were limited.
-
I've done a little research on the subject and the paper/news trail is that he did get an annulment and "promised" to marry Oksana. IIRC she was learning the Faith and tradition with marriage in mind. It's Providence (imo) that things went south and they never married. I don't know if anyone can confirm whether there was an annulment and whether it was candy-coated or not. His wife was never Catholic so if they did get one, maybe they based it on that. Pure speculation. After so many years and so many children, it's hard to understand how it could be legitimately annulled, but if there was just cause then the years and children don't make a difference other than emotionally.
The church used to be open to the public but when his private life fell apart parishioners were commenting to the press and he closed it down to a select few. They had to fill out a form to be admitted as parishioners. The form was posted online but has since been taken down. I actually came across a couple who were married there not long ago (besides his daughter) so he does open it to others but selectively. Sad that it's gone that way but not surprising. It's the nature of our celebrity worship society. If he wants any peace in any aspect of his life, he has to close the public out.
It's probably used as a tax exemption vehicle as well. I don't blame him for that either. There is a private foundation attached that is meant to fund the church. He is the only donator and makes large donations every year although since the divorce and Oksana settlements as well as child support, they have dwindled a bit. It's hard to believe someone worth that much can be considered as having money problems (rumor, not something he has said personally as far as I have seen) but much of it is tied up in assets and isn't actual cash flow, so I guess it's conceivable. But barely!! I always have to remind myself that such people probably have as much debt as worth just to keep their projects going. They have high overheads.
-
There is no doubt that Mel Gibson's separation from his wife and children and his association to another younger woman came as a shock to many of us. Mel Gibson was publicly known to be a practicing Catholic, and he was, before this scandal, one of the few Catholioc celebs to give very good Catholic example throughout the world. His movie THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST depicted what Jesus Christ went through and was seen by millions.
I knew and met his father Hutton Gibson. He is a sedevacantist and his one weak link was his son's often not too Catholic behaviour in different movies. The publicity given to his son's walk out and affair must have broken his heart.
I know of other Catholic 'traditionalists' who have left their wives and children for other women and it is always hard to believe let alone understand.
The only positive think I can say is that we must include all of them in our prayers and that they find their way back to Jesus whom they all love.
-
I wonder if Oksana didn't set out to damage Mel Gibson's reputation, because he angered the jews, by his depiction of them in the film, "The Passion" and if she wasn't helped by them in that endeavor. Funny how relatively little money she got out of it though, but why should they care, the damage had already been done and she had served her purpose. Well, we may never know the truth, but it wouldn't be the first time a femme fatale was used as a weapon against an enemy.
Here's a fairly recent video of Oksana Grigorieva, appearing on the howard stern show, immodestly dressed and saying, she'd like to date a jew.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zF1NRbZT-bg
-
I wonder if Oksana didn't set out to damage Mel Gibson's reputation, because he angered the jews, by his depiction of them in the film, "The Passion" and if she wasn't helped by them in that endeavor. Funny how relatively little money she got out of it though, but why should they care, the damage had already been done and she had served her purpose. Well, we may never know the truth, but it wouldn't be the first time a femme fatale was used as a weapon against an enemy.
Here's a fairly recent video of Oksana Grigorieva, appearing on the howard stern show, immodestly dressed and saying, she'd like to date a jew.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zF1NRbZT-bg
What you say makes sense. She probably gave stern (Jew) a good time afterwards.
-
She lost the second half of her settlement with Mel over that interview. Part of their terms were that she was not to speak of him or their relationship publicly again. Stern did most of the talking but she went with it enough and didn't shut him down so that a judge ruled she had violated the terms and forfeited the rest of the settlement. She still gets 20K a month in child support though.
-
She's an idiot. She's already 43 and has wasted the best years of her life shaking down rich actors, instead of using her productive years to build a family and secure a good husband for her own future and the future of her children.
-
Her original allowance was 5k a month, until their daughter turned 18. That's pathetic! He's worth hundreds of millions of dollars! Her monthly allowance got bumped up to 20k, after she went bankrupt! Apparently, all the legal fees cleaned her out; what a moron! :laugh1:
-
Pretty and clever enough to get any guy she wants, but instead she goes after married men. What an idiot!