LA's Mahoney and denial

I've never been a fan of Cardinal Mahoney.  The same bishop that once "served" my home diocese and set in place the various policies on accused pederasts that ended up getting the diocese sued for millions, though that is extremely minor as compared to the children that men like my former parish pastor harmed.  

Cardinal Mahoney is the one who spent hundreds of millions of dollars to complete a notoriously hideous new cathedral just in time for the sex abuse law suits to slam the diocese for money it no longer had.  The diocese then went on to sell hundreds of millions of dollars worth of real estate to pay for its legal settlements.  

I once attended Mahoney's infamous LA catechetical congress for a weekend...the two+ hour opening prayer ceremony was void of two striking things: not a single crucifix in the arena and not one priest, nun, or the cardinal himself led us in the sign of the cross.  The Cardinal did find time to enter into the "liturgical dance" portion of the opening ceremony, he lacked style-but, again, that's minor.  

Today the good Cardinal made the following declaration, as told by AP: LOS ANGELES (AP) — Cardinal Roger Mahony on Tuesday took the unusual step of banning Holocaust-denying British Bishop Richard Williamson from any Roman Catholic church, school or other facility in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.

"Holocaust deniers like Williamson will find no sympathetic ear or place of refuge in the Catholic Church, of which he is not — and may never become — a member," said a commentary signed jointly by Mahony, head of the nation's largest archdiocese, and two officials of the American Jewish Committee.

Since when does this diocese censor people?  Name one excommunicant in the the last 20 years.  Name five of his high school theology teachers that would accept the oath of fidelity.  To claim that a leader of the SSPX is not and may never become a member of the Catholic church is preposterous.  Was he validly baptised?  Is he currently under some form of excommunication?  (no, that was lifted!)  How can a cardinal declare that a baptised catholic is not catholic?  Does he have some special insight into his soul's disposition and belief?  

So, for questioning historical evidence he is persona-non-grata, but a cardinal that wastes hundreds of millions on his pet-cathedral and shuffled around pedophiles for years is some how a good catholic???  Oh, my!

I could say more on Mahoney, but will refrain.  I do not think much of Williamses remarks, but his remarks question history as Mahoney's question prudential judgement and the safety of his flock...which is worse?