ARTICLES
May 2004 ARTICLES
Contents © 2004
by Jim Holman.
All rights reserved.
Thumbs Up, Mahony
Just More Phony PR?
BY CHRISTOPHER ZEHNDER
The Los Angeles Council of Priests, a body of 20 clergy which represents archdiocesan clergy, passed a resolution in late March praising Cardinal Roger Mahony for his handling of the clergy sexual abuse crisis. According to the March 27 Los Angeles Times, the priests' resolution declared, "Cardinal Mahony has shown a consistent desire to protect children, while at the same time has been solicitous that no priest's reputation be ruined by irresponsible or utterly unsubstantiated allegations."
Father Timothy Nichols, pastor of St. John Vianney in Hacienda Heights, leads the priests' council. Father Nichols said the cardinal, though president of the council, did not initiate the vote of confidence and was not present for the discussion. "We felt it was time to take a position to stand with him and behind him," Nichols told the Times. The priests' council took issue with the National Review Board's criticisms of Mahony. The board, a group of prominent laymen investigating reports of sexual misconduct by priests, in a February 27 report singled out Mahony and three other bishops for special censure. "After allegations were made that Cardinal Mahony had allowed numerous predator priests to remain in the ministry," said the board, "the archdiocese engaged in a very public spat with law enforcement agencies who questioned his level of cooperation in the criminal investigation. The archdiocese resisted grand jury subpoenas ... by arguing that communications between priests and bishops were privileged." But the Los Angeles priests council's resolution said, "we disagree with the attitude that equates 'transparency and cooperation' with the assumption that the actions of government authorities may not be questioned. The board reached these conclusions in secret without providing Cardinal Mahony and the archdiocese an opportunity for a fair hearing and defense."
But one archdiocesan priest called the priests' council's vote an "outrage." "I do not know personally of any priest that was in support of that resolution," said Father X (who requested anonymity). "That was done by the priest council group, some of whom are appointed by Mahony, though the press made it sound as if the council represents all the priests in L.A." Father X called the number of archdiocesan priests (850 cited by the Times "utterly ridiculous;" that number, he said, includes all the religious order priests and the retired priests, most of whom knew nothing of this."
But, Father X said, neither did he or other priests he knows even hear about the vote until it was announced in the media. The priests' council, he said, "did it on their own." And, said Father X, the vote wasn't so unconstrained as the Times made it sound. "The resolution was written by Auxiliary Bishop Tom Curry. The Times said the cardinal was not present during the vote, but that's utterly meaningless; the auxiliary bishops were there, the vicar general was there, all the top dogs in the diocese were there. Who in their right mind was going to vote against that resolution?"
To Father X, what was wrong about the resolution was not so much the support it evinced for Cardinal Mahony's continued refusal to release priests' personnel files, but the blanket approval it gave of his handling of molesting clergy. "There is some truth" in the archdiocese's argument that that the files "are confidential and no other organization has had to do this," said Father X. "But the resolution was only partly that -- it said the council supported the cardinal in his entire handling of the sexual abuse crisis."
Such support, said Father X, "was entirely wrong."