NEWS
2000 NEWS STORIES
November
October
September
July/August
June
May
April
March
February
January
ARTICLES
LETTERS
ROAMIN' CATHOLIC
Contents © 2000
by Jim Holman.
All rights reserved.
NEWS
OCTOBER 2000
SAYING THAT HE CAME as a "Pastor, not a politician; an advocate of values, not candidates," Roger Cardinal Mahony opened the Democratic National Convention on August 14 with a prayer that included, "O God, we trust that you will keep us ever committed to protect the life and well being of all people but especially unborn children, the sick and the elderly, those on skid row and those on death row." Although some in the pro-life movement criticized the cardinal for lending the prestige of his office to the Democratic National Convention, other pro-life groups praised him for his affirmation of the sanctity of life at the Democratic National Convention.
Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life said in a prepared statement, "the defense of life is integral to the cardinal's life, and his prayers could not possibly have any contrary intention, no matter where they are said."
Yet when pro-lifers initially learned that Cardinal Mahony was scheduled to give the invocation at the Democratic Convention, there was a sense of outrage. Mary Mark Haggard, a long time pro-life activist, said that when she first learned that the cardinal was scheduled to give the invocation, she felt "betrayed once again." When asked how she felt after the Cardinal's invocation, which included the prayer for the unborn, Haggard replied, "I thought it was tragically and comically hypocritical, the king does not have his clothes on. The Democratic Party is not pro-life. This is not where he should be seen."
Ken Fisher, chairman of Concerned Roman Catholics of America, held a protest outside of the Archdiocesan Center on Wilshire Boulevard to let the cardinal know that his group was unhappy with the Cardinal's presence at the Democratic Convention. When asked for comment about the invocation's prayer for the unborn, Fisher replied that "It's too little, too late."
Bob Kennedy of Covina held a different point of view. "We should take the good where it is found. Mother Teresa of Calcutta herself addressed a pro-abortion crowd a few years ago at the National Prayer Breakfast. Even President Clinton and the First Lady were in attendance. Mother Teresa used the opportunity to urge those in attendance to protect the sanctity of the unborn. Cardinal Mahony did the same at the convention. We should give credit where credit is due."
Todd Tamberg, spokesman for the Archdiocese of Los Angeles did not return calls for comment.
"IN AN ERA WHEN POLLING techniques and focus groups sometimes seem to have replaced enduring principles and values to guide us, it is heartening that you are here to listen to God's Word and to allow God's plan for the human family to impact your views and decisions." So said Roger Cardinal Mahony in his homily at Mass said for delegates of the Democratic National Convention on Sunday, August 13. After Mass, the cardinal passed out copies of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops' document, "Faithful Citizenship," which calls for Catholics to vote in a manner that upholds a Culture of Life.
Addressing the Gospel reading for the day, John 6:41-51, where Jesus calls Himself the Bread of Life, the cardinal noted that "the Eucharist that we celebrate this morning calls us to establish a deeper relationship with God and with our neighbor." The love of God, said Mahony, is demonstrated by "how we interact with our neighbor." "Throughout the Catholic social tradition," continued Cardinal Mahony, "this is measured by how we treat 'the least among us'; how human life is protected and human dignity is affirmed, and how the common good is promoted and human rights are preserved."
Throughout the ages, the prophets, said Mahony, remind of us that the "quality of justice in society -- and the measure of our fidelity to the covenant relationship with God -- are measured by how the poor, the widow, single mothers, children, and the alien are treated." The same test, he said, applies today. As in times past, these, the most vulnerable, are threatened. Cardinal Mahony gave three examples of such threats.
"Human life remains threatened in our country," asserted Mahony, "most clearly because of legalized abortion, but also by the continued use of capital punishment, and the movement to allow physician assisted suicide." Threats to human dignity, said the cardinal, include "the growing gaps in wealth and income" and the "scarcity of affordable housing, healthcare, childcare, and a quality education" Finally, "human rights are jeopardized when immigrant workers are exploited, when the minimum wage cannot support a family in dignity, and when discrimination and racism are still evident in the workplace and in our neighborhoods."
"This Eucharist that we share this morning," said Cardinal Mahony, "not only sustains us spiritually. It can also guide us practically if our hearts are open and if we are willing to be people of compassion, forgiveness and mercy. In the end, God will not rely on polling data to judge our fidelity to the Gospels. God will not convene focus groups to determine our moral integrity or our ethical fitness. Instead, we will face a selfexamination that is both simple and stark: Whatever we did for the least of those among us we did for God."
IN AN EDITORIAL entitled, "Partnership is Still A Goal of the Catholic Church," (September 10 Los Angeles Times) Cardinal Mahony addressed concerns arising from the publication of Dominus Iesus, A Declaration on The Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and The Church. This document, issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and ratified and confirmed by Pope John Paul II, caused concern in some ecumenical circles for its clear and decisive statements that the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation. Because the declaration spoke of Protestant churches as ecclesial communities which "are not Churches in the proper sense," and stated that believers in non-Christian religions "are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation," many have concluded that the Catholic Church is backing away from her ecumenical commitment.
Not so, said Cardinal Mahony in his editorial. "The Roman Catholic Church in Los Angeles," he wrote, "remains fully committed to ongoing dialogue and partnership. Only in this way can we continue to move beyond the tragic estrangement that has characterized so much of our past."
The cardinal wrote that he found it "discouraging" to read certain "interpretations" in the press, "such as, 'Vatican Declares Catholicism Sole Path to Salvation,'" that followed the issuance of the document. "While clarifying the Roman Catholic Church's position," wrote Mahony, "the declaration does in fact affirm that those who are not formally part of the Roman Catholic Church can, indeed, be saved." The cardinal referred to paragraph 20 of Dominus Iesus, which states that "above all else, it must be firmly believed [italics in the original] that 'the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door'.... For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, 'salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation."
Dominus Iesus, as Mahony notes, does not discourage the continuance of inter-religious dialogue. The Vatican document says this dialogue "as part of her evangelizing mission, is just one of the actions of the Church in her misson ad gentes.... Indeed, the Church, guided by charity and respect for freedom, must be primarily committed to proclaiming to all people the truth definitively revealed by the Lord, and to announcing the necessity of conversion to Jesus Christ and of adherence to the Church through Baptism and other sacraments, in order to partcipate fully in communion with God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit."
"The declaration," wrote Cardinal Mahony, "is best understood within the context of this ongoing dialogue. The purpose of the declaration is to clarify the Roman Catholic Church's own position in view of disagreements within the church itself, offering a firm critique of those theological views that appear to relativize the Christian faith and the Roman Catholic Church. Nowhere in the declaration is there criticism of the fruits of bilateral agreements or of new initiatives taken in inter-religious dialogue. Nor is there any indication that such dialogues or initiatives are to be halted."
Cardinal Mahony conceded that "the tone of Dominus Iesus may not fully reflect the deeper understanding that has been achieved through ecumenical and inter-religious dialogues over these last 30 years or more. This deeper understanding has been prompted, in no small measure, by the initiatives of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965)." The declaration, wrote Mahony, "can only be understood" in the light of "orientations and affirmations" of the Second Vatican Council which" clearly affirmed the importance of religious freedom and called for deep and mutual respect among people of different religious traditions."
CARDINAL MAHONY'S EDITORIAL may have been written partially in response to letters in the Times that expressed dismay over the Vatican's document, Dominus Iesus. Donald A. Bentley of La Puente wrote in the September 8 Times that just after he got done apologizing to his Jewish friends for the beatification of Pope Pius IX that he had to apologize to his non-Catholic friends "for the Vatican's statement that the Catholic Church is the sole path to spiritual salvation for all of humanity." Now that his church has offended Jews and "all non-Catholic religious individuals" the only ones left to offend are the atheists and agnostics, whom it would not be "worth the trouble to offend," since Bentley is sure that the Church "has concluded their cause is most certainly lost."
Another writer, Leon Albert of Temple City, thought he found a contradiction in Dominus Iesus. Wrote Albert: "in flat out contradiction" to the "assertion* that she is the sole means of salvation, the Vatican stated "that salvation can result for non-Catholics and even non-Christians from a divine grace 'in some mysterious way.'" Albert wrote that he usually reserves his "laugh-out-loud reactions for the funny pages. But, when they are triggered by items elsewhere in the newspaper, it's almost always by the words of theologians."
David Eicher of Glendale wrote that he "could not believe in a God who would reject people because of their method of worship. It is the love of God that counts, not the religion, denomination or sect." Jane Bove of Fountain Valley, in the September 11 Times offered her "apologies to all other religions." Bove revealed her long-suffering spirit, stating that while "the issues I've had with my church are numerous," she has "always felt that it was like a dysfunctional family, and you don't leave your family because it has problems." However, Bove found "quite disturbing" and heartbreaking "this last 'declaration' by the Vatican, stating that other religions are 'gravely deficient' and have 'defects.'" These statements elicited from Nancy Mueller of Ojai the more pithy response, "Thank God for Henry VIII."
As the lone counterpoint to the other writers, Father Vivian Ben Liva of the Pontifical North American College in Rome, wrote that he welcomed the Vatican's declaration. His research as a doctoral student in ecumenical and interreligious theology "confronted ... a cacophony of divergent theological voices ranging from syncretism to philosophies of parallel theologies, all speaking in the name of the Catholic Church. This much-needed declaration sets to rest any ambiguities in the position of the church."
Father Ben Liva noted that the Church has only reiterated "the same position that all religious traditions in their orthodoxy believe about themselves." "The goal of interreligious dialogue," wrote Father Ben Liva, "is not to compromise, water down and reduce religions to their least common denominator."
DR. BRUCE STEIR, who went to jail for killing Sharon Hamptlon while performing a second trimester abortion on her, was scheduled to be released on September 17. Riverside Superior Court Judge Vilia Sherman had sentenced Steir, last May 26, to 365 days in jail, with six months of the term suspended (see "Caught Off Guard," July/August 2000 Mission). Mark Lohman, the public information officer for the Riverside County Sheriff's department, said that Steir was being released early because of "good time/work time credit." According to Lohman, inmates can be released from jail early if "they go along with the program" or work for the sheriff's department. When asked if the "good time/work time credit" applied to persons convicted of murder, he replied, "yup."
Assemblyman Steve Baldwin (R-El Cajon) added, "it's about time that we remove these dangerous doctors from continuing their practice of harming women." Ed Ryan, a pro-lifer in the Coachella Valley, said that his reaction upon learning that Steir was to be released was "one of sadness, deep sadness. It's obvious that he knew that the victim [Hamptlon] was in bad shape. This definitely puts women at more risk. They were more safe when he was in jail. I am especially concerned now because the state legislators are trying to revoke laws that allow for the repeal of laws that prohibit the prosecution of people who harm women. Women are in more danger now then before when abortion was illegal.
"What is peculiar," continued Ryan, "is that when I encountered clinic owner Dr. Joseph Durante while sidewalk counseling outside of his clinic the week of Sharon's death, I said to him, 'you better be careful, you're liable to puncture a uterus this morning.' He looked shocked. The next day I found out that his associate, Dr. Steir, had killed Sharon Hamptlon. This woman was a patient at Durante's clinic in Palm Desert the day before. I told Sharon and her mother that Durante had made a statement to me that was derogatory to blacks and Mexicans. 'I want to make sure that they don't end up on welfare and gangs,' he told me. I told Sharon and her mother that Durante was on probation in San Diego for botching an abortion. Sharon told her mother, 'Mom, maybe we should go away.' I remember the staff of the abortion clinic coming out and telling Sharon and her mother to disregard what I had said. They brought her in and Dr. Durante inserted the laminaria. Then he sent her to Dr. Steir in Moreno Valley the next day. Durante sent her to Moreno Valley because they would not have to go by that 'Ernie guy before your abortion.'"
The Riverside County District Attorney's office refused to comment for this story. When asked why Steir is being released early, Judge Sherman, said through her clerk, that "judges are prohibited by their canons of ethics from publicly discussing any aspect of [an on going] case."
CATHOLIC PARENTS, it seems, may not have to wait Confirmation until their children reach their late teens. In a letter from the Congregation for Divine Worship, posted in August, on the Eternal Word Television Network website (http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWCONF.htm), Prefect Jorge Cardinal Medina Estevez wrote that, where they conflict, a local Church law must give way to a universal Church law. This means that a bishop cannot refuse the sacrament of Confirmation to anyone based on age criterion alone.
Particular names were not given in the letter. Cardinal Medina wrote in reply to a bishop regarding a case where this bishop refused Confirmation to an eleven year-old girl. The girl's parents had appealed to the Congregation for Divine Worship after the bishop in question refused to dispense the girl from local law which requires that one cannot receive Confirmation any earlier than the sophomore year in high school. The December 18 letter conveyed the final ruling based on the girl's case and her bishop's response to the congregation.
The letter first lays out the congregation's competence in judging an appeal in such a case. According to Medina, the bishop's "refusal to grant this dispensation must be seen as having the juridic value of an administrative act denying an anticipated conferral of the Sacrament. Among the responsibilities entrusted to this Dicastery [the Congregation for Divine Worship] is the authoritative examination of appeals against such administrative actions."
The letter next considers two "arguments" made by the bishop to justify his refusal to dispense the girl from local law. "Though willingly admitting that the girl is well instructed and that her parents are very good Catholics," wrote Medina, "you point out that 'instruction is not the sole criterion for recognizing the opportune time for confirmation.... The evaluation is a pastoral one which involves much more than just being instructed.'" In reply to this point, Medina admits pastoral judgments may be made in such cases, but only "provided that by 'pastoral judgment' one is speaking of the obligation of the Sacred Pastors to determine whether those elements required by the revised Code of Canon Law are indeed present, namely, that the person be baptized, have the use of reason, be suitably instructed, and be properly disposed and able to renew the baptismal promises (cf. cann. 843, §1; 889, §2)." Based on the family's testimony, as well as the bishop's own testimony, "it is clear," wrote Medina, "this young girl has satisfied each of the canonical requisites for reception of the Sacrament."
Medina wrote that, in his second argument, the bishop stated that his right to determine an age policy for Confirmation is "inherent in the law in light of the legislation complementary to can. 891 for the Conference of Bishops" to which he belonged. While admitting that the bishop's policy is within his rights according to the above legislation, Medina stated that such legislation "must always be interpreted in accord with the general norm of law." The Code of Canon Law, said Medina, "legislates that Sacred Ministers may not deny the Sacraments to those who opportunely ask for them, are properly disposed and are not prohibited by law from receiving them (cf. can. 843 §1)." Since the girl in question possesses these qualities, "any other considerations, even those contained in the Diocesan Policy, need to be understood in subordination to the general norms governing the reception of the Sacraments."
"The Congregation," continued the cardinal, "considers it useful to point out that it is the role of the parents as the primary educators of their children and then of the Sacred Pastors to see that candidates for the reception of the Sacrament of Confirmation are properly instructed to receive the Sacrament and come to it at the opportune time (cf. can. 890). Consequently, when a member of the faithful wishes to receive this Sacrament, even though not satisfying one or more elements of the local legislation (e.g., being younger than the designated age for administration of the Sacrament), those elements must give way to the fundamental right of the faithful to receive the Sacraments. Indeed, the longer the conferral of the Sacrament is delayed after the age of reason, the greater will be the number of candidates who are prepared for its reception but are deprived of its grace for a considerable period of time."
AS THE ASSEMBLY SPEAKER called session to order on the morning of August 31, assemblymen were staring at a mountain of legislation while the clock moved towards the midnight deadline. The assembly convened at 9 a.m., giving members 15 hours to debate and vote on the approximately 294 bills remaining.
The 1999-2000 legislative session ended in the early hours of the morning of September 1 -- or did it? By law, the two-year session ends on August 31. According to staff computers in the capitol, the last bill was posted at 12:02 a.m. -- two minutes past the constitutional deadline. Speaker Robert Hertzberg (D-Sherman Oaks) successfully jammed his final item through -- an assembly bill that seeks to mandate the department of health services to provide information on the internet about health facility licensees. Presiding Speaker Fred Keeley (D-Santa Cruz) ignored Republican pleas that time had expired and asked the clerk to open the roles. If signed by the governor, Republicans hope the measure will be thrown out in court.
Pro-life forces were disappointed when Senator Burton's bill passed both houses in the final week. The measure repeals the penal code sections that enable the felony prosecution of illegal abortionists. Burton argued the bill was needed to do away with an antiquated law from the 1870s, which could imprison a woman and her doctor for seeking an abortion. If the bill is signed by the governor, the only provisions in law for prosecuting illegal abortions will be under the business and professions codes -- normally misdemeanors. California Prolife argued the need for the codes, pointing out the successful prosecution of Alicia Ruiz Hanna in 1995. While Hanna was convicted in Orange County Superior Court of killing Angela Sanchez in a botched abortion, a jury also convicted her of three counts of "unlawful abortions" under penal code 274, which will be repealed under Burton's bill.
Senator Burton put amendments in the bill on June 22 that would have allowed for criminal prosecution for surgical abortions performed by those who do not have a license to practice surgery, or a certificate obtained in accordance with some other provision of the law. California Prolife argued that the June 22 amendments, by narrowing the penalty aspect of the bill to surgical abortions, ignore the potentially vast number of drug-induced abortions by way of methotrexate (a cancer drug used for abortions) or soon by RU 486. The revisions also open up the ability of non-physician medical personnel, like nurse practitioners, or physician assistants, to perform drug induced abortions, despite the "physician only" provisions in the Therapeutic Abortion Act. The California Catholic Conference worked the bill hard, but they could not persuade enough legislators to kill the measure. By a party-line vote of 42-22, on August 29, the assembly passed the bill.
Assemblyman Bill Campbell (R-Orange) offered an amendment to retain the felony provision for those who perform illegal abortions. Democrats killed the amendment on a party-line vote of 37-21. Curiously, the California Medical Association supported the bill. Also in support of the bill was the California Commission on the Status of Women.
OVERWHELMING REPUBLICAN OPPOSITION helped doom legislation that would have given "de facto parents" visitation rights. A senate bill by Senator Vasconcellos, (D-San Jose) would have granted such rights to former domestic partners of custodial parents who for a time assumed the role of parent. Had the measure passed, it would have represented the first time that former girlfriends and boyfriends were given visitation rights to their former partner's children. In the opinion of many family groups, it also could have subjugated the rights of parents to decide what is best for their children to the demands of an adult who bears no legal responsibility for the child's welfare. According to an opinion written by the Coalition for Family Equity, "For years child development experts have warned of the damage done to children in high-conflict cases. [This senate bill would have widened] the circle of conflict, including protracted and hostile court proceedings and expensive evaluations, to an entire new category of families."
Assemblyman Rod Pacheco (R-Riverside) urged opposition to the measure, saying that the term "domestic partner" was ill-defined in the legislation and could have been taken to mean "long-time family friend." He also said the bill would only lead to more litigation.
PARENTS AND PRO-FAMILY lobbyists were also active in opposing a slew of bills intended for schoolchildren that would promote acceptance of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender behavior. A bill sponsored by Senator Tom Hayden (D-Los Angeles) called for school curricula that would promote greater educational understanding of "homophobia and other forms of bigotry." The measure failed in the assembly by a vote of 38 'ayes' -- three short of passage.
All Republicans voted against Hayden's measure, and many assemblymen thought to be in close races this fall either abstained or voted against the bill after being targeted by the Traditional Values Coalition, Campaign for California Families, the Catholic Conference, and others. Campaign for California Families purchased 20 full-page newspaper ads in the districts of eight targeted lawmakers. Other measures, mostly of the "hate crimes" in schools variety, were jammed through in the last two weeks. It remains a question whether these bills, which could make expressing a Catholic viewpoint in schools punishable, will clear scrutiny from the courts.