Since July, Katy Perry has been duking it out with some nuns over the sale of a former convent in Los Feliz. Katy wanted to buy the whole property for $14.5 in cash (crazy!), but the elderly Sisters of the Immaculate Heart of Mary were fighting tooth and catechism. One of the sisters apparently researched Katy’s body of work and didn’t approve of her Super Bowl halftime show because she was gyrating on Lenny Kravitz and singing about kissing girls. For shame. Katy still wants this convent, which features sweeping views of LA. She’s wanted to buy the property for at least three years, and it will be a home base for her mom and grandma as well.
To recap, Katy’s reputation upset the nuns. She showed up late to their first meeting, which didn’t help matters. Then one of them confronted her about an interview where she said she sold her soul to the devil. Katy reassured the nuns by saying it was all a joke. Then she showed off her “Jesus” tattoo and discussed plans to meditate in the garden. The planned sale was halted, and the nuns want to sell the property to a commercial developer. But the archdiocese wants Katy to purchase the old convent. The real-estate war continues, 86-year-old Sister Catherine Rose Holzman sat down for an interview with Billboard. The article is quite lengthy, and apparently, the nuns were kicked out years ago by the archdiocese, who used the property to house priests accused of molestation. But the sisters are holding firm and insist the property is theirs to sell as they please:
Holzman’s rationale: “Katy Perry represents everything we don’t believe in. It would be a sin to sell to her. Even mentioning that she would sell her soul to Satan is against our principles and beliefs. In selling to Katy Perry, we feel we are being forced to violate our canonical vows to the Catholic Church.”
The nuns will go to Popeland for this fight: “It’s interesting she has all this girl power and she’s running over a woman and five nuns. We are going to Rome. We are not quitting now. We are just getting warmed up.”
[From Billboard]
Well, this is righteous mess if there ever was one. The law still isn’t clear on whether the nuns or the archdiocese truly own the convent. The sisters have filed suit and even plan to get Pope Francis involved if they have to. Can you see the pope getting involved in this mess? The sisters consider the convent to be sacred ground, and they don’t want some skimpily-dressed pop star sinning it up there.
Photos courtesy of WENN
I can understand why Katy wants it on a superficial level (property is property), I can’t understand why the nuns want it if they were both kicked out by the organization that they are ruled under and the location was used to house priests that molested the youngest and most vulnerable of their flock.
That to me seems a whole lot more important than whether someone said something dramatic in a magazine interview.
Priorities ladies. Your archdiocese ran you over first, maybe take your battle up with them?
This.
The assumption here is that it is ok to sell to a commercial developer, who may very well decide to turn it into a resort where all sorts of *gasp* lewdness would occur.
Nuts.
That bothered me, too, or turn it into another “gated community” with 20 houses on it. At least she wants to keep the land in one piece.
Exactly!
Yep, I was bothered by that as well. I can understand them considering it sacred grounds and such and wanting it to stay/become “pure/sacred” again. But they lost me when I read that they want it to be sold to commercial developers because that might end up being worse than Katy Perry. What do the nuns know about the company they want to sell to – and the people within it? What will be developed there? It just doesn’t make sense.
Religious orders–such as the Sisters of the Immaculate Heart of Mary–are NOT “ruled over” by the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. Religious orders are part of the Rpman Catholic Church separate from the hierarchical structure of the churches with thwir own hierarchy. So this group of women religious are part of a larger group of the Sisters of the IHM who have a head of their organization and that woman works with Rome.
In older times, a diocese or Archdiocese would make a request–either directly of an Order or to the Pope who would then match the request to an order–and part lf an order would be sent to start or run a school, hospital, etc. The Jesuits, Franciscans, Benedictines, are all examples of male religious orders. The Sisters of the IHM, the Little Sisters of the Poor, and the Sisters ofnthe Sacred Heart of Jesus are all female religious orders separate from the (Arch)diocesean structure that work with that structure.
So as to the sale itself, the question really boils down to, did the Archdiocese agree to host the Sisters, or did they actually give them the property? If it is theirs, then they can sell it to whomever they’d like within federal housing laws.
Nuns in general are pretty interesting. I would thimk that groups of single women who pledge to live communally, usually in poverty, change the world (Sisters are still starting schools in Africa, central Asia, etc.), and shake up the Church from time to time in big and small ways would get a little more respect from a group of self-described feminists than they are getting here. But hey, Katy Perry, amiright?
1. Feminism doesn’t mean the worship of every single woman. We are not a mindless herd who trample to the sounds of a fellow vagina. People may or may not agree with/sympathize with/or pity the nuns and it has nothing to do with feminism or Katy Perry.
2. However they define their leadership and structure the fact is the housing was taken from them. Not only was it taken from them despite all their charity it was used to keep the child rapists and molesters corralled. If there’s any fight to be had its with the Archdiocese who gave them a nonverbal middle finger.
3. Property is property. They’re apparently willing to sell it to a commercial developer who could well turn it into a sex toy shop or what have you but they’re more worried about an interview with a young woman who’s business is obviously on getting attention? Priorities ammiright?
I think you are mischaracterizing the Catholic Church structure. At the end of the day nuns don’t have a fraction of the power or say as priests and they are treated abominably.
The Catholic Church doesn’t allow women to be priests. How feminist is that? We are not Holy enough, apparently, like the perfect men who are priests.
I respect anyone who devotes their lives to helping others, but I will never understand why a woman would choose to do so in the confines of a religion that considers them less than men. It’s ok that I don’t understand; they don’t owe me an explanation. But I think in this case, they are being self-righteous and silly. Why should I support that?
I was raised in an a Children’s Home by nuns. There are an awful lot of misconceptions about nuns. I have nothing but respect for the Sisters that gave me a good life and a good foundation.
@The Eternal Side-Eye:
“We are not a mindless herd who trample to the sounds of a fellow vagina. ” <<<<<<<< This needs to be on a shirt ASAP.
HOWEVER: I think the nuns are being a little ridiculous here. Katy Perry wants to keep the property intact. I would think that SHOULD matter more than her being a pop star.
+10000000000000000
I actually reading about this yesterday and its a pretty messed up story, the sisters bought that house back in the seventies, they used up all of their saving and donations and money they raised to pay for it. They alone maintained the convent until they archdiocese contacted the vatican, unbeknownst to the sisters, asking to be allowed to take over the convent claiming that the sisters were too old to be able to take proper care of the place.
After that the archdiocese financially supported the convent with the condition that the property could not be sold without their approval. And there lies the problem, even though the sisters paid for the property themselves they are not being allowed to sell the property to whom they wish.
The archdiocese tried to sell the property behind the sisters back and its simply not ok that the sisters are not being allowed to have a say in who the property will be sold to.
The way I see it the sisters are taking their battle up with the archdiocese, thats one of the many reasons they are opposing the sale of the property to Perry. Another big reason is that if the archdiocese sells the property there is no guarantee the sisters will receive any of that money, after all the backstabbing and neglect its difficult to imagine the church giving the sisters any sort of fair share of the profits. If the sisters are allowed to sell the property to the commercial developer then they alone get to keep the money, which is what should happen since they are the ones that own the property to begin with.
Point of rant, its not ok what the archdiocese is doing and has done to the sisters (not to mention the hiding of several pedo priests in the convent behind the sisters backs) and its not fair of the media that they are reporting this as if its a simple issue of old nuns behind the times being cranky and rejecting a pop star. Its their right to fight this and I don’t judge them at all.
Also, theres no way Katy Perry doesn’t know any of this and she’s an asshole for continuing to try to buy the property. As is the Archbishop of Los Angeles.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/inside-katy-perrys-real-estate-834017
All of this. Team nuns. They’re not the only order, either, done wrong by the archdiocese in favor of hiding/bailing out pedophile priests.
Just cause she kissed a girl and liked it?
LOL…WAY more innocent than a “priest” kissing underage kids and liking it…gosh! talk about doulbe standards…ever watched the movie “The Magdalene Sisters”? If you haven’t i really recommend it, based on true events.
Heaven forbid that a pop singer should taint the sacred ground used to shelter child molesters from prosecution – after everything came out. Before that, they were just sent to new parishes to molest the children there. Get off your high horse, nuns. It’s a piece of land. It has already been desecrated.
THIS. You said it better and more succinctly than I could.
On another note, I do feel bad for the nuns that they were kicked out to begin with and then to have their home housing pedophiles!
GNAT – I’ve had the honor of being educated by this order of nuns. Believe me, they are one inch away from sticking it to the Church. Their motherhouse is in Monroe, Michigan. When Detriot Edison (the major supplier of energy for SE Michigan) wanted to built the Fermi nuclear plant near the motherhouse, those nuns took their money and bought as much stock in Detriot Edison as they could, in an attempt to block the building of that plant. It didn’t succeed, but concerns they had were addressed.
Today, the IHM’s grow their food hydroponically. They’re on top of issues. And they own that convent!
It sounds like the nuns you knew were great, and I’m glad they are sticking up for themselves. In this case, from what I know (which is limited to what I read on here) it seems they are being very judgmental about something because they don’t understand it.
Here’s one thing I don’t understand – why is there a question as to who owns the property? Aren’t there records of who paid for it?
+1
In Michigan, the sisters own their mother house, not the Archdiocese of Detriot, so yes, there should be records. And, if the link works, here’s something about these amazing women –
http://www2.aiatopten.org/hpb/overview.cfm?ProjectID=661
After learning that little tidbit I got really confused about why it mattered so much that a pop star wanted to buy the child molester shelter. Excuse me, I mean “convent”. It really sucks they were kicked out of their home and sacred space only to have it desecrated by a bunch of gross men, but that should be the issue, right? Not the fact that now, even though they haven’t lived there since they were removed, a pop star wants to buy the property. What else could Katy Perry do that would be worse than housing a bunch of child molesters? And don’t famous people usually do everything by proxy anyway? Why did Katy even bring herself into it in the first place?
Sorry, but why is Katy’s face so Kaley Cuoco-esque all of a sudden? Am I dreaming it?
*I know I’ve asked before, but I can’t get over it, it drives me nuts. What’s different with her eyes/eyebrows?!*
I’ve always thought they look alike. No one else seems to see it, so thanks for validating me 🙂
This post represents precisely why I won’t ever darken a catholic church door again, worried about a “pop star” buying their property meanwhile having given refuge to child molesters?!?
The hypocrisy runs deep with these “holy” ones.
Clearly the dictat about not judging others lest you be judged bypassed the good nuns.
And they want to bring up the reputation of the church vs one harmless popstar??!!
They didn’t willingly give up the property to house those priests. They were kicked out. It wad also used as a student retreat before the scandal. It was nice, very peaceful. I was taught by one of the nuns in that particular order — she died a few years ago but I learned quickly that IHM nuns are STRICT. No sense of pop culture. Another IHM nun from a convent in the westside tore up a Sweet Valley High book when she caught a friend of mine reading it and called it “p 0 r n” and would call some of the dresses celebs wear to award shows vulgar and sinful.
Sweet. Valley. High. LOL
BVM nuns are much nicer and modernish. Lol
With the Nuns on this one.
I think Katy should back off and respect the wishes of the Sisters. As for Katy herself, I cannot find much about her to recommend. Her music is crap, her choices in her personal life are questionable, and I can understand why the sisters do not want to sell to her. She is everything that is abhorrent to their lifestyles and their faith.
The laws covering real estate transactions are crystal clear. If the property was publicly listed. you don’t get to pick and chose who buys. Otherwise racist sellers could be racist.
I think the issue may be more about who actually owns the property to be able to sell as opposed to know wants to buy it.
Any CA Realtors in the house? Because this all sounds crazy and possibly the basis for a lawsuit.
I agree. Remember that heart shaped island that Angelina was supposed to have bought for Brad. Just some PR to get the property out there.
They are things like zoning bylaws that regulate property use not nuns.
Or maybe it’s code for they want more money…….
If you look at this property, you will see why the surrounding neighbors don’t want this beautiful place turned into a hotel or condos. It’s mind-bogglingly lovely and serene. There can’t be another place like this in the world. I think any efforts to alter it, like chopping it into pieces for use other than one whole should be resisted. It would be grotesque to carve up this lovely place. Also, those nuns need a sense of humor, but I expect it’s too late for them to get it. I don’t like Katy Perry either, but she wants to keep the place intact. Sounds like they might need King Solomon to sort this out.
I have fallen in love with the place, and this unholy kerfuffle will be over as soon as my Sisters and I show up at the Diocese with 15 million dollars in ~cash. ~
Don’t the famous have people who make these deals on their behalf with numbered companies etc? It’s just the sort of thing to build some fanfic on or blow up interest in the property in the press.
Clearly she’s not too boring to offend the nuns! Take that, Grumpy Journalist!
yea the’re shooting themselves in the foot by saying they don’t want to sell to her b/c of X behavior and yet they are willing to sell to a commercial developer. if they weren’t selling at all, that’d be one thing, but you generally can’t pick and choose who you sell to once you list it openly.
This. If Katy was just being annoying about buying a property that’s not for sale, I’d be with the nuns. I’m not sure how law works in the USA, but here once you make a public offer to sell a property, you’re obligated to accept all possible buyers. If they wanted to sell it to a commercial developer, they should’ve made private offers. By our law, at least.
I just can’t with these judgemental, hypocritical, sex shaming nuns! This is why I can’t stand religion. They’ve made this into a gross crusade against a woman who they deem evil for ridiculous reasons when she’s looking for a sanctuary for herself and her family. Two thumbs down to these elderly bigots.
I’m no fan of the Church, but I’m rolling my eyes at Katy Perry who no doubt thinks having her own convent is, like, the quirkiest and kewlest thing ever.
Imma not comment on this, because I don’t know what to think or who to side with. I’m just going to say Katy looks incredibly pretty in that photo with the bustier and choker. What a great smile!
Bad Ju Ju Katy
I live in this neighborhood, and I as well as other neighbors are well aware of Ms. Hollisters intentions as to this Convent. She wants to do the same thing with it as she did the Moreno mansion on Micheltorena that also became a convent after it was sold. She wants to develop it into a hotel/spa, and she wormed her way into the nuns good graces to try to purchase it. She was unsuccessful in her efforts to do so there, and she thinks she has another opportunity in Waverly. If she’s determined to purchase this property as she says, then she’ll have another battle on her hands with the residents surrounding this convent. This property cannot be developed into a commercial property. It will totally destroy the tranquility of the neighborhood. It will be a nightmare. Katy Perry wants to keep the property as-is, as a personal residence. I hope that she will be able to be victorious in her plans to buy it.