NEWS
2002 NEWS STORIES
December
November
October
September
July/August
June
May
April
March
February
January
ARTICLES
LETTERS
ROAMIN' CATHOLIC
Contents © 2002
by Jim Holman.
All rights reserved.
NEWS
APRIL 2002
A MOTION BY THE CITY OF MONROVIA, alleging that a group of Latino residents, Monrovians Against Planned Parenthood, were trying to stifle the free speech of the city, was denied by Los Angeles Superior Court judge, Dzintra Janavs in early February. The city of Monrovia had filed a motion to strike the residents' lawsuit, saying that they were infringing on the city's right to free speech in the course of allowing a Planned Parenthood clinic to be built in the city of Monrovia. [See, "It's Not Open Yet," January 2002 Mission] In a February 1 ruling, the court sided with the residents and said that simply asking for "judicial review" of how the city issued a building permit, did not constitute a challenge of the city's "expression of its opinion."
Greg Weiler who is representing the residents said that he was elated with the ruling. "The city and Planned Parenthood were asking for attorney fees which could have been overwhelming for my working-class clients," he said.
Now Weiler is the one asking the city of Monrovia for attorney fees. "I'm seeking in the neighborhood of $40,000 in attorney fees" he told the Mission. Weiler said that in the course of the lawsuit, he has learned that the city of Monrovia "secretly negotiated" the building of the clinic in the city. Now the city is looking into condemning the property and Planned Parenthood is indicating that they are no longer considering Monrovia as a location for their clinic.
Weiler told the Mission that since the condemnation process is underway, the city of Monrovia is telling him to drop the lawsuit. Weiler said that he is not sure he wants to drop the lawsuit even though the clinic will not be built in Monrovia. "We have existing civil rights violations. We think we are going to win. The city had some wrongdoings and we think we have a winner here".
Michael Colantuono, city attorney for Monrovia, said, regarding the denial of the SLAPP motion: "It's a split decision. The judge denied the SLAPP motion but also granted the demurrer. Right now we are in a stand-still agreement with the plaintiffs which may render the case moot. If this is successful, the suit will go away and so will Planned Parenthood."
FATHER FESSIO COMES TO LA. Father Joseph Fessio, S.J., will leave San Francisco to serve as chaplain at Santa Teresita Hospital in Duarte, beginning May 1, 2002. Fessio, the director of Ignatius Press in San Francisco, has been transferred by his Jesuit superior because of his involvement in the founding of Campion College, a two-year Catholic liberal arts college in San Francisco, that will open its doors in the fall. According to a press statement issued by Father Fessio, his superiors "confirmed" his "ongoing mission as director of Ignatius Press," but said he was "to have no role, public or private" in Campion, "the latest initiative of Ignatius Press."
Fessio told the Mission that he had kept in contact with his provincial throughout the planning stages of Campion College, which he and others, including John Galten, former director of the Ignatius Institute, undertook. Though Fessio assured his superiors that Campion would in no way compete with Ignatius Institute and its host institution, the University of San Francisco, in part because students interested in Campion would not be interested in Ignatius, his provincial, on March 11, told him he was to have no public or private role in Campion. "I asked my provincial specifically," said Fessio: "first of all, the clear intent here is to distance the Society of Jesus from Campion College by cutting me off from all contact with Campion College -- what is so terrible about Campion College being associated with the Society of Jesus? He didn't answer that question."
THE COVER-UP OF SEXUAL ABUSE by priests of minors in Boston and throughout the country has had bishops scrambling, it seems, to declare their condemnation of such episcopal neglect. In Los Angeles, Roger Cardinal Mahony has joined the chorus with a pastoral statement, "I Will Appoint Over You Shepherds After My Own Heart." Issued February 21-22, 2002, the statement declared that "all who dedicate themselves to ordained, consecrated, and committed service to God's People in the Roman Catholic Church must define themselves and their ministry fully in the image of Jesus the Good Shepherd." While "the vast majority of our priests, deacons and lay ministers serve with zeal after the example of the Good Shepherd," wrote Mahony, "a small minority of priests, deacons, religious, and lay ministers have behaved more like the hired workers Jesus identifies." Among these, "some who have ministered in the name of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles have preyed upon the most vulnerable members of the flock and have caused them incalculable harm."
Since "sexual misconduct," wrote Mahony, "is a human reality occurring in families, schools, prisons, other settings, and even Churches," it is "all the more crucial that the Church honestly confront the reality of abuse." Perhaps to dispel the opinion that, in the past, the Church has swept the "reality of abuse" under the rug, the cardinal said that the archdiocese has "striven and will continue to strive, to assure that such reprehensible conduct. be prevented whenever possible and dealt with promptly and responsibly whenever it emerges."
Indeed, the archdiocese, said Mahony, has, since 1988, had policies in place to deal with sexual abuse by the clergy. The archdiocese, said Mahony, does not deal with reports of sexual abuse by a priest "by simply moving him to another ministerial assignment." To prevent sexual abuse from occurring, the archdiocese, said the cardinal, educates people both clergy and laymen about the problem or sexual abuse and has "screening procedures and educational policies" on sexual abuse for those training for the priesthood." The archdiocese also has procedures for dealing with allegations of sexual abuse, which include "attentive listening," reporting of allegations to civil authorities for investigation, and removal from active ministry "if the circumstances warrant." "Let me state very clearly," declared Mahony: "the Archdiocese of Los Angeles will not knowingly assign or retain a priest, deacon, religious, or lay person to serve in its parishes, schools, pastoral ministries, or any other assignment when such an individual is determined to have previously engaged in the sexual abuse of a minor. If the archdiocese determines that a priest or deacon has engaged in such conduct, that person will be removed from all clerical offices and all pastoral or educational ministry and will not be reassigned. Since he will never return to active ministry, he will be encouraged to seek a dispensation from the obligations of the priesthood or the diaconate and to return to the lay state."
HEADS UP, LORD BISHOPS. When bishop of Stockton, Mahony did not follow such procedures, as those laid out in the 1988 Los Angeles archdiocesan policies, in the case of Father Oliver O'Grady, who was accused of molesting two young boys. Though Mahony allegedly knew that O'Grady had been guilty of pedophilia, he nevertheless reassigned him to another parish after referring him to a psychiatrist, who said O'Grady "reveals a severe defect in maturation, no only in the matter of sex, but more importantly in the matter of social relationships.... Perhaps Oliver is not truly called to the priesthood." In the hearings for a lawsuit brought by the two young men in 1998 against the diocese of Stockton, Mahony claimed that the psychiatrist in question never recommended dismissing O'Grady from the priesthood. Besides, said Mahony, "at that time, I did feel professional counselors and psychiatrists were capable of helping these people."
Nor does removal of pedophile priests from ministry seem to be a very long-standing practice of the archdiocese of Los Angeles -- despite the archdiocese's 1988 policies. In late February and early March of this year, the archdiocese, according to a March 4 Los Angeles Times story, dismissed six to 12 priests from the ministry who over the past decade were believed to have been involved in molestation cases involving minors. According to the Times, all these priests had remained in ministry after undergoing psychological counseling and none had been involved in any recent cases of molestation. A "knowledgeable law enforcement official," according to the Times, has said it was not clear whether any of the cases involving these priests had been reported to civil authorities. The official could remember only one case in recent years where the archdiocese had referred a priest for criminal prosecution.
The archdiocese refused to reveal, on March 4, whether any of the uncovered cases of molestation had been revealed to the police, as the cardinal pledged to do in his February 21 letter. On March 4, the Los Angeles police department and the Los Angeles County, Ventura County and Santa Barbara County sheriff's department said they had received no referrals from the archdiocese. Los Angeles County district attorney Steve Cooley told the Times that "under the penal code there is a duty to report within 36 hours of a specific incident of molestation. Among the reporters are clergy, except in the case of penitential communications [confidential confessions]." This mandate is based on a 1987 law; if the priests' molestations occurred before that time, the archdiocese would not be required to report them.
According to the Times, "sources familiar with Mahony's actions" (archdiocesan officials were unavailable for comment), said the pedophile purge was spurred not only by the recent molestation scandals in Boston, but by the pledge made by the archdiocese in the recent Ryan DiMaria trial that the archdiocese would rid itself of any pedophile priests and employees. (See "News," October 2001 and January 2002 Mission.)
Of the dismissed priests, those 62 years old or older will retire. Those younger will have their status changed to inactive. The archdiocese, which has asked the priests to consider laicization, will grant them severance pay.
According to the Times, in 1992 Mahony had expressed concerns over sexual molestation before a U.S. bishops' meeting. Mahony convinced the bishops to convene a private meeting to discuss the problem. The bishops' meeting had been picketed by alleged vicitms of clergy abuse.
THE DI MARIA CASE has had the diocese of Orange also combing through its files in search of records of pedophile priests, according to another Los Angeles Times story. So far, the only priest to be dismissed was Father Michael Pecharich, pastor of San Francisco Solano Church in Rancho Santa Margarita. On Sunday, March 3, Pecharich announced to parishioners at San Francisco Solano that he was leaving them after serving at the parish for 12 years. A letter written by Pecharich, handed out at the end of Mass, explained his departure. Nineteen years ago, he wrote, he had "transgressed the personal boundaries of an adolescent." The youth in question, a teenage boy, reported Pecharich to the diocese in 1996, but did not file suit.
Though Pecharich will be dismissed from the diocese, he will not be laicized. He will also receive monetary assistance from the diocese.
Though not implicated in the Di Maria case, the diocese of San Bernardino is also scrambling to weed out any pedophile priests it may be harboring. In what diocesan spokesman Father Howard Lincoln called a "precautionary measure," the diocese will search personnel files to see if there are any records revealing priestly misconduct. Priests or diocesan officials read a letter to the faithful on Sunday, March 3 announcing the diocese's action.
LAY MINISTRY CANNOT REPLACE PRIESTLY MINISTRY, said Pope John Paul II in his annual Lenten address to the priests of the diocese of Rome on February 14. Speaking of the "great missionary orientation that characterizes the life and pastoral work" of the diocese of Rome, the pope asserted that "the greater the number of lay persons who are involved, the more necessary become the presence and work of the ordained."
It is interesting to read the pope's words on this occasion in juxtaposition to similar utterances of Cardinal Roger Mahony. In his pastoral letter on ministry, As I Have Done for You, Mahony opined that "it has taken the shortage of priestly and religious vocations to awaken in us an appreciation of a broadly based shared ministry and a realization that it is in the nature of the Church as the Body of Christ to be endowed with many gifts, ministries and offices. What some refer to as a 'vocations crisis' is, rather, one of the many fruits of the Second Vatican Council, a sign of God's deep love for the Church, and an invitation to a more creative and effective ordering of gifts and energy in the Body of Christ." The pope, though, does not seem to see the vocations crisis as a fruit of the council. "We all know how necessary vocations are for the life, witness and pastoral action of our ecclesial communities," said John Paul. "And we also know that the decrease in the number of vocations in a diocese or in a nation is often the result of the weakening of faith and of spiritual fervor. Therefore, we must not be easily satisfied with the explanation that the scarcity of vocations is compensated for by growth in the apostolic commitment of lay people, nor even less that it is desired by Providence to foster this growth. On the contrary, the more numerous are the lay people who intend to live their own baptismal vocation generously, the more necessary are the presence and pastoral work of the ordained ministers."
According to the Holy Father, if the number of priestly vocations are again to rise, "a great common commitment" must exist on the part of laymen, priests and religious to rediscover "that basic dimension of our faith through which life itself, every human life, is the fruit of God's call and can only be positively fulfilled as a response to this call." The priestly call, said the pope, is a "gift and mystery, the mystery of God's free choice: 'You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide.' (Jn 15,16)."
The pope called on all the faithful to pray for vocations. Children, too, he said, should be reared so that they may discover "that life is a vocation and that God calls some to follow him more closely, in communion with him and with the gift of themselves." The personal witness of priests, said the pope, is crucial in inspiring vocations. "If children and young people see priests overwhelmed with too many things to do, quickly irritated and complaining, neglectful of prayer and the tasks proper to their ministry, how can they be fascinated by the way of the priesthood?" asked the pope. "If, on the other hand, they experience in us the joy of being ministers of Christ, generosity in the service to the Church, promptness in taking charge of the human and spiritual growth of the persons entrusted to us, they will be impelled to wonder whether this might not be, for them too, the 'good portion' (Lk 10,42), the most beautiful choice for their young lives."
In extemporaneous remarks given after his prepared talk, Pope John Paul noted that "the 'apple' of the bishop's eye is the seminary, because through the seminary, he sees the Church's future." The pope said he hoped "that all the bishops of Rome, those who will come after me, and all the bishops of the world, will maintain this principle and will look with hope at our seminaries. May vocations not be lacking!"
THE STRUGGLE BETWEEN THE CITY of Los Angeles and the Missionaries of Charity over the fate of the Nuestro Hogar ministry to the homeless and poor continues. As the October 2001 Mission reported (see "It Makes No Sense -- They Have Toilets Here"), the Los Angeles City Planning Commission ordered Nuestro Hogar out of Alvarado Terrace in Pico Union because the ministry violated zoning laws. Some Alvarado Terrace residents had claimed that Nuestro Hogar attracted "undesirable" elements to their neighborhood. The Missionaries of Charity Brothers countered that the ministry in no way attracted bad elements to the neighborhood, but, rather, helped young men escape some of the worse elements of street life. In January, the Mission reported that, after city officials had made no attempts (as they had promised) to help the missionaries find a new location for their ministry, the brothers decided to take the city to court.
According to Missionary of Charity Brother Joseph McLaughlin, the brothers have received help from the Washington, D.C.-based Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. Named after St. Thomas á Becket, the Becket Fund describes itself as a bipartisan and ecumenical, public-interest law firm that protects the free expression of all religious traditions." In defending the Missionaries' right to remain at Nuestro Hogar on Alvarado Terrace, the Becket Fund lawyer, said Brother Joseph, is appealing to the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. Congress passed the act, said Brother Joseph, to prevent cities from using their zoning laws to prohibit religious bodies from building their centers in either residential or commercial zones.
Brother Joseph said that their lawyers, along with those from the city of Los Angeles, appeared in federal court on Ash Wednesday, February 13. "By the end the day," said Brother Joseph, "the judge said we did not show enough burden of proof" to support the claim that the city's was violating the 2000 federal law or the U.S. and California constitutions. The judge, though, suggested a settlement: the brothers could remain at Nuestro Hogar for eight months and the city would have to pay up to $100,000 to the Missionaries either to help them move or to buy other property. The brothers were to return to court Thursday, February 14, to say whether they accepted the settlement.
Some of the brothers' lawyers, said Brother Joseph, thought the settlement "a good deal." The Becket Fund representative, however, suggested that the brothers appeal the case if the judge should rule against them. According to Brother Joseph, the Becket representative said that "if they had a choice of a case they would represent as being a good case under this new law, this is one they would definitely choose."
The brothers finally decided that the settlement "would not be the right thing to do," said Brother Joseph. "We know that the accusations that have been made are untrue, and we don't believe we should have to move. After eight months, we'd have to move anyway, and there was no promise from the city that they would help us with zoning in a new location, anyway. We believe we are doing God's work, and we believe we should continue doing it here, as well."
The following morning, the judge, said Brother Joseph, responded with some surprise to their rejection of the settlement. "'That's interesting,'" the judge said to the lawyers. "'Do they know that you could lose everything?' Our lawyer responded that we were not their normal clients, thinking of the money, but that we believed in the principle and also that they we're doing the right thing as well.' So, the judge decided to open the case up again."
As of March 7, Brother Joseph had not heard what the judge had decided. On February 14 he had said he was to go over the case again and re-study the new law to see if it spoke to the Missionaries' case. Brother Joseph said the judge might reach a decision by the middle of March. And if he should rule against the Missionaries? "We will appeal," said Brother Joseph.
JOHN WAYNE'S GRANDSON has answered the call, according to a February 25 Los Angeles Times report. Michael Munoz, 37, whose mother was the daughter of John Wayne and Josephine, Wayne's first wife, celebrated Mass for the first time at the "chapel of his youth," St. John Vianney on Balboa Island. "Me and my brothers raised hell here [Balboa Island]," said Munoz during his Mass, "and now we're goint go try to bring a little heaven back."
According to the Times, Munoz, who now sports a goatee, once let his hair and beard grow past his waist. He spent time in the seminary in early 1990s, but unsure whether he wanted to be a priest or get married, he left in 1993. He spent seven years teaching in high school and working with the poor in Mexico before returning to seminary.
GIL ARMIJO, a conservative Latino Republican from Santa Maria, has been selected to head up the California Central Coast Republican Assembly. "I'm honored by the overwhelming vote of confidence I have received. The Santa Maria Valley is a place where good people believe in traditional values and that is what the CRA is all about," said Armijo. The California Republican Assembly is the party's leader for conservative issues.
Armijo, who is well-known in the northern Santa Barbara County region, has been involved in local politics -- sparring with liberals in the Republican party for many years. Earlier this year, a trio of liberal Republicans from Santa Barbara County led a coup that tossed Armijo out of the Republican Central Committee. In spite of this Armijo said that he would not be deterred from his efforts to get the Republican Party to keep true to their roots. "It is important that we present coherent, well-articulated issues before the voters," Armijo said. "When voters actually realize what Republicans stand for, they vote for our candidates and support our positions."
Armijo says that one of his focuses will be reaching out to conservative Democrats who are not comfortable with the ultra liberal bent that marks the Democratic Party. "I think what we know through registration numbers that there are a lot of Latinos who are registered Democrats who are looking for candidates with a conservative platform," said Armijo.
THE WOMEN'S CONTRACEPTION EQUITY ACT does more than violate religious liberty, it effectively establishes religion in California. So wrote Thomas Curry, auxiliary bishop for the archdiocese of Los Angeles (Santa Barbara region) in the March 3 Los Angeles Times. The law, passed in 1999, requires all employers who offer health plans to provide contraception coverage. Though the law exempts religious organizations, through a narrow definition of what constitutes a religious employer, certain entities, such as Catholic hospitals and Catholic Charities, are not exempt. In September 2000, the California superior court denied Catholic Charities' injunctive relief from the law. The ruling has been appealed.
The state's claim to define which organizations are secular and which are religious, argued Bishop Curry, "represents a new and dangerous claim to power." By making "an even bolder argument: that the purpose of Catholic Charities is not to inculcate 'religious values,'" said Curry, the state sets itself up as "the definer of religious teaching and values."
The Women's Contraceptive Equity Act, wrote Curry, states that, in order to apply for a religious exemption, an organization must hire mostly members of their own religion and limit their outreach to co-religionists; thus, if the state wins the appeal, "the government will have the right to define which employees of Catholic Charities are Catholic." It will also have the power to punish "churches whose service to the poor involves no religious requirement. In attempting to define religion and to confine it within narrow sectarian boundaries, California is in effect establishing religion."
Bishop Curry argued that in seeking to preserve fairness towards, and the rights of, women, the Women's Contraceptive Equity Act violated the fundamental rights of religious liberty and the independence of churches. "Yes, the Catholic position on contraception is controversial," said Curry. "Yes, many Californians are opposed to it. It would be tragic, however, if this opposition is allowed to obscure an attack by the state of California on the shared American treasure of religious liberty."
THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS on March 6, 2002, heard oral arguments in the matter of Parks vs. LAUSD. The lawsuit, filed by student Ruth Parks on behalf of herself and her fellow classmates, seeks to stop displays of "excessive profanity and homosexual pornography" in Los Angeles Unified School district schools. A similar case, Downs vs. LAUSD, was unsuccessful in its attempt to quell what critics are saying is a rising tide of homosexual propaganda in the public school system in California. (See "Downright Pornographic," March 2002 Mission.)
Plaintiffs complain that the lower court judge was too hasty in dismissing the Parks case. In his December 1, 2000 order dismissing the case, United States District Court judge Dean Pregerson said that the length of the complaint was simply too burdensome for the defendants to respond. The lead attorney for the plaintiffs, Rick Nelson of the American Liberties Institute in Florida, told the Mission that the ruling was contrary to legal precedent. "There is nothing in the rules to preclude the complaint," he said. Nelson said that he offered to amend the complaint but the judge would not allow it. Nelson then took the case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, which heard the oral arguments in Pasadena.
Robert Downs, the plaintiff in Downs vs. LAUSD, attended the hearing and said that there were several basic issues that the appellate court discussed. "On the issue of immunity," he said, "the Los Angeles Unified School District is not immune from proscriptive relief -- that is, the court believes it may direct the district to change their policy and/or practice." Downs said that the court also discussed "compensatory relief," which Downs said was not an important issue to the lawsuit. "The important thing is to stop the LAUSD from harming children. They seemed to side with us on this issue."
Downs said that the appellate judges did not seem to worry about the length of the complaint. On this issue, the appellate court "seemed to not be concerned with this issue. They seemed to side with us on this issue."
Downs was not as confident about the court's questions regarding the alleged personal injury. "There was a lot of discussion on the issue of this being a challenge to policy rather than an actual injury, and I don't think they bought our theories. I think they will rule against us on this issue."
Downs said the justices did not seem to side with the plaintiffs about the last issue the court reviewed -- Judge Pregerson's denial of the plaintiff's request to amend the complaint. On this issue, said Downs, "I think they will probably find against us based upon one (or more) of the above issues and then state that their decision does not set any precedent regarding this issue -- which it does actually, but this will probably be the best they can come up with."
Parks' appellate lawyer, Fredrick Nelson of the American Liberties Institute, said it would be months before the court issues a ruling.
THOUGH THE AMERICAN ACADEMY of Pediatricians announced February 4 that the children of homosexual parents are as well adjusted psychologically as children from natural families, many experts do not agree, according to a March 2 Zenit News report. In January 2001, the Marriage Law Project and the Ethics and Public Policy Center published a study by Robert Lerner and Althea Nagai, entitlred "No Basis: What the Studies Don´t Tell Us About Same-Sex Parenting." In this study, Lerner and Nagai, quantitative analysis experts, evaluated 49 studies that have been used to promote the idea that parenting by homosexuals does not adversely affect a child. According to the Zenit story, Lerner and Nagai concluded that "all 49 studies were found to have at least one fatal flaw. Among the deficiencies were unclear hypotheses, missing or inadequate comparison groups, invalid measurements, non-random samples, samples too small to yield meaningful results, and missing or inadequate analysis. For example, 21 of the studies had no heterosexual control-group."
Another study by Patricia Morgan, a "United Kingdom family expert," also faults studies on homosexual parenting. In Children as Trophies? Examining the Evidence on Same-Sex Parenting, published by the Christian Institute, Morgan says many of the studies that support homosexual parenting are "little more than anecdotal." Public bodies and research institutes, said Morgan, uncritically accept as evidence material that other less politicized fields would reject. For instance, she says, self-testimonials by homosexuals as to the effectiveness of their parenting are enthusiastically received, while meticulous research espousing contrary theses are coldly rejected. The press, says Morgan, often accepts uncritically assertions made by institutes based on flawed studies.
"Much campaigning for homosexual parental rights involves the use of children by activists to make political statements," says Morgan.
THIS YEAR'S RELIGIOUS EDUCATION CONGRESS, sponsored by the archdiocese of Los Angeles, was to feature an internet chat with Cardinal Mahony. The cardinal, though, was unable to make the Friday, February 15 cyber event on account of a death in the family, and auxiliary bishop Edward Clark served in his stead. Those who, previously, knew little of Bishop Clark, discovered that, a native a Minneapolis, Minnesota, he had attended St. John's Seminary in Camarillo and was ordained in 1972 by Cardinal Timothy Manning. Clark served as rector of the archdiocesan seminary and was ordained bishop by Cardinal Mahony in 2001.
Bishop Clark fielded a number of questions: about the internet, about what he enjoys most in being a bishop, about the possibility of an American pope, about the Church's role in politics, and about September 11. One participant, Elizabeth, asked Bishop Clark whether he thought Islam an "inherently intolerant faith"? "No, I do not think that Islam is an inherently intolerant faith," said Clark. "Among the Islamic leaders that I have met through interfaith dialogue, I have come to appreciate the real striving for tolerance and cooperation that exists among them. We have great relationships with the Islamic community in Los Angeles. The Cardinal has even joined them on important occasions for prayer with them in their Mosques. What I heard recently, as part of a panel on Martin Luther King Day, was very uplifting. It involved myself, as a Catholic, a Protestant minister, a Jewish rabbi, and an Islamic leader. What marks the difference between Islam and Christianity it [sic] that Christianity rejects retribution in all forms. Islam allows for just retribution, but then clearly states that God prefers forgiveness and will reward forgiveness over retribution. So, I would have to say that Islam is not at all an intolerant faith when it is practiced in such a manner." Lisa, another participant, agreed with the bishop. "I think a lot of them [Moslems] are brainwashed," she said, "and they need to be reprogrammed, because the real Islam religion is very peaceful."
Another participant, Michael, asked Bishop Clark whether there were "anywhere online that someone could go to confession?" "Sorry!" replied the bishop. "Sacramental actions involve person-to-person prayer experiences. When the telephone was invented some people thought that it would be a great instrument for going to confessions, but the best theologians expressed the concern that it would not create the prayer involvement that sacramental experience requires. As a result, the telephone was not accepted as a sacramental medium. The web would be in the same category."
Bishop Clark's reply to one John Anderegg revealed a surprising gap in knowledge for one so long involved in the archdiocese. "In the past years," went Anderegg's question, "the Religious Education Congress has had speakers (Fathers Michael Crosby and Patrick Brennan, and Diana Hayes) associated with Call to Action, a group that dissents from Church teaching. Diana Hayes is associated with Women's Ordination Conference. Why does the archdiocese invite such speakers?" To which, Bishop Clark: "John, I'm not so well informed as to presume to answer this question, being only a neophyte bishop. However, I do know that every speaker must have the endorsement of his or her local bishop and we rely [o]n that endorsement. I know that this is common policy throughout the United States because I have filled out forms this past year for endorsing speakers from Los Angeles to speak in other dioceses. I cannot really give you a better answer than this."
Lisa, who could not remain for the duration of the chat, perhaps spoke for a number of participants when she said, "I think this chat is very cool. I hope this will be on again."