NEWS
2006 NEWS STORIES
November/December
September/October
July/August
June
May
April
March
February
January
ARTICLES
LETTERS
ROAMIN' CATHOLIC
Contents © 2006
by Jim Holman.
All rights reserved.
NEWS
June 2006
"WE ACCEPT THE COURT'S RULING," said a statement issued by the archdiocese of Los Angeles. "This ruling will have no effect on the ongoing efforts of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles to settle the civil cases through mediation."
The court in question was the United States Supreme Court, to which the archdiocese had appealed last year to halt a subpoena requiring it to turn over to the Los Angeles County grand jury personnel files of two priests accused of molesting minors. The files, 21 pages, contain information on former priests Michael Stephen Baker and George Miller and may cast light on how Cardinal Roger Mahony handled their cases. The cardinal has fought the release of the documents, claiming they violate the Church's First Amendment rights.
The communications between a bishop and his priests, the archdiocese has argued, have a protected confidentiality. In 2002, after agreeing to cooperate with civil authorities, Mahony's lawyers presented arguments for alleged legal privileges attaching to churches to keep 3,000 pages of personnel documents from the grand jury. In 2003, however, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a California law removing the statute of limitations in criminal cases involving molestation of minors was unconstitutional, forcing Los Angeles County prosecutors to drop charges against ten priests. The grand jury investigation, then, focused on two priests -- Miller and Baker -- who have been accused of molesting minors since the statute of limitations cutoff date of 1988.
To resolve the impasse between Mahony and the grand jury, the archdiocese retained retired judge Thomas Nuss, who would look over the disputed files and decide whether they were protected by any First Amendment privileges. In 2004, Nuss ruled that the archdiocese had to turn over the documents to the grand jury. Following Nuss' decision, an appellate court ruled against the cardinal. The archdiocese then appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which on April 17 let stand the appellate court's ruling that "religious believers and institutions" must follow "the rules of civil society, particularly when the state's compelling interest in protecting children is in question."
Whether the Supreme Court's rebuff of Mahony will have any bearing on the 500 or more civil cases involving molestation of minors against the archdiocese remains to be seen. Attorneys representing alleged victims have asked the archdiocese for priests' molestation files but, according to the April 18 Los Angeles Times, have said they have yet received no response. But, according to Erwin Chemerinsky, a Duke Law School professor of constitutional law, "the bottom line is, the same [legal] principle will apply in the civil and criminal cases."
STRANGE OMISSION. The April 20 Los Angeles Times implied that the archdiocese of Los Angeles has been less than forthright in its reporting of its past handling of clergy sex abusers. Cardinal Mahony, said the report, "acknowledged to Los Angeles Catholics in his 2004 'Report to the People of God' that he left five priests in ministry despite complaints that they had molested children. But a Times analysis of church records released since then shows that he left 11 other priests in ministry for periods up to 13 years after parishioners raised concerns about inappropriate behavior with children." Of these eleven cases, the Times continued, several "were not detailed in the People of God report" while the "other four were mentioned incompletely."
Though the Times story might lead the unwary reader to think that it had uncovered an archdiocesan cover up, the paper gleaned its information from, as it acknowledges, "edited summaries of personnel records written and posted on a public website by the archdiocese in October." These edited summaries were found in an "Addendum to the Report to the People of God," found on the archdiocesan website. The Mission found that all the eleven cases and their details cited by the Times could be found in the published addendum.
But if 11 rather than five priests were kept in ministry after being accused of molesting minors, why did the 2004 Report to the People of God not admit this? At the time, Cardinal Mahony said the Report offered the "fullest possible disclosure" of how the archdiocese handled abusive priests. According to an April 20 archdiocesan press release on the Times story, the seeming discrepancy is no discrepancy, since the 2004 report was not meant to detail every instance of priest abuse. "The Report was never intended to provide a full and complete discussion of the case of any priest," said the press release. "Instead, it features brief descriptions of cases of several accused priests to illustrate a half-century's development of policy and practice concerning allegations of clergy sexual misconduct in the archdiocese."
"The bottom line," said the archdiocese, is that the Times story "is based solely on information released by the archdiocese."
AN APPEALS COURT OVERTURNED the 2005 conviction of a priest accused of molesting boys, the April 14 Los Angeles Times reported. A court convicted Father Fernando Lopez, 41, in March 2005 on charges of molesting three males, ages 14, 15, and 19 while Lopez was associate pastor at St. Thomas the Apostle church in Los Angeles' Koreatown. A Colombian citizen, Lopez was on temporary assignment at the parish while on leave from his home diocese, Tivoli, Italy. The archdiocese of Los Angeles suspended him from duties in July 2004 after one of the alleged victims came forward.
However, on April 13, 2006, a state court of appeals overturned Lopez's conviction because of prosecutorial misconduct. During the trial, it seems, the prosecutor in particular made comments alluding to the Church's molestation scandal, thus suggesting by association," according the appeals court.
RETIRED PRIEST Michael Wempe, 66, convicted of molesting a 16-year old boy between 1990 and 1995, was sentenced on May 5 to the maximum sentence of three years in jail. Los Angeles County judge Curtis Rappe told Wempe that he would have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life. Since Wempe had already served about 600 days in jail, he had only to serve about another year more in prison.
Wempe has admitted to molesting about 13 boys during his 36-years as a Los Angeles archdiocesan priest; however, since these cases are beyond the statute of limitations, he cannot be tried criminally for them. (Civil cases against him are proceeding.) In the late '80s Cardinal Roger Mahony referred Wempe for treatment after learning of molestation charges against the priest. Then, in 1988, Mahony made Wempe chaplain at Cedars-Sinai hospital without informing the hospital of accusations against the priest. The plaintiff in the recently concluded trial, known only as "Jayson," claims he was molested by Wempe at Cedars-Sinai. Mahony later admitted that transferring Wempe to the hospital had been a mistake and that he should have reported Wempe to police when the accusations against him surfaced.
Wempe continues to deny the allegations of his latest victim. "Jayson" is the brother of two of Wempe's other victims, and the priest's counsel has claimed that the plaintiff lied to take avenge his brothers. But Wempe will not seek an appeal. The jury in the trial were unable to agree on four other counts of molestation, and prosecutors said they would not seek a new trial against Wempe on these counts if he agreed not to appeal or seek a new trial.
DON'T BOYCOTT. Admitting that "people of good will, desirous of enacting fair and just immigration legislation, can differ on which strategies will help bring about the immigration reform needed," Cardinal Roger Mahony in an April 21 Tidings article voiced his opposition to a call to Latinos to boycott school and work on May 1. "Personally, I believe that we can make May 1 a 'win-win' day here in Southern California: go to work, go to school, and then join thousands of us at a major rally afterwards," wrote Mahony.
In order "to help enact immigration reform that is just, humane and workable," said the cardinal, we must "channel our energies in ways that educate the people of our communities and help influence in positive ways our Representatives and Senators in the U.S. Congress." Cardinal Mahony pointed out that May 1 is the feast of St. Joseph the Worker, who "most likely ... taught Jesus the same trade, and both helped sanctify and dignify human labor." Instead of a boycott, Mahony recommended that "Catholic parishes, schools and other entities devote time on May 1 to help our employees and students appreciate the dignity of work, the value of education, and the important role immigrants play here in the Southland. Other employers and schools may wish to consider some similar positive alternatives," he said.
The cardinal offered various suggestions of what different groups could do on May 1. Employers could set "aside an hour or so during the day for your employees to gather in small groups to discuss their knowledge about immigration reform and their feelings towards immigrants." This could include going to the "'Justice for Immigrants' website set up by the Catholic Church" and printing out "some of the excellent materials for your employees to read and discuss: www.justiceforimmigrants.com." Parents could help their children "to understand the great value of learning about immigration, and its vital impact upon their entire lives" and encourage them to go to school on May 1. Principals and teachers should see May 1 as "an excellent 'teachable moment' for the young people in our Catholic Schools." Students should "understand that boycotting school on May 1 will not bring about just and humane immigration reform. Sometimes, boycotts could even work against positive reform." Instead, they should "be sure to go to school on May 1, but make it a very exciting and informative learning day."
Though he discouraged the May 1 boycott, the cardinal encouraged workers and employers to "consider joining thousands of us after work on Monday afternoon, May 1, from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. at the grounds of the La Brea Tar Pits ... where a coalition of religious, labor, civic, community and student organizations will gather to promote just and humane immigration reform at a Day of the Worker celebration."
MORE SIGNIFICANT THAN GOLDIE? In the April 26 Loyolan, the newspaper of Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, the executive editorial board praised university administration for inviting Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa to speak at commencement on May 6. The editorial thought the mayor an improvement over "recent speakers" such as Goldie Hawn and Mel Gibson, whose messages, "while they created a significant buzz ... were not nearly as socially significant as that of a political leader."
Who would be "better to empower the LMU graduating class than Mayor Villaraigosa, a man who has risen from hardship to lead the second most populous city in America?" asked the editorial. "Villaraigosa's presence at graduation is a step in the right direction," it continued. "At the least, inviting more politically, socially and ethically enabling speakers better serves the LMU graduates. More fundamentally, it embodies LMU's spirit in a much more significant way." The mayor, said the editors, "cares deeply about education, spirituality, and connections with his most important constituents -- the citizens of the future."
THE LOYOLAN EDITORIAL, however, failed to point out that Mayor Villaraigosa, a Catholic, supports legalized abortion. This fact James Hanink, Loyola Marymount professor of philosophy, pointed out in the May 3 Loyolan, in a letter to the editor. The paper's editorial board was "conned," wrote Hanink, into praising Villagraigosa's appearance at the university. Hanink offered several points for their consideration. First, though Loyola Marymount president "Robert 'Booster Bob' Lawton, S.J. claims to be dedicated to justice," and, in April, "Pope Benedict XVI referred to abortion as 'today's gravest injustice,'" still the "aggressively pro-abortion" Villaraigosa would be addressing the university's graduates. "Lawton and company know precisely what they are doing: marketing LMU," said Hanink. "That's why the Mayor is coming for commencement."
But, Hanink admitted, there should be limits to even Father Lawton's boosterism. If Villaraigosa, for instance, was able "to make the freeway system work," still, "if he were to deny the right to life of LMU administrators, why then they'd speak up. They would, that is, if they had a chance. Sadly, 'the least little ones' (as in Matthew 25) do not."
"EASTER IS AT THE CENTER of the Church's liturgical year," wrote Father Richard McBrien in a column published in the April 14 Tidings, the newspaper of the Los Angeles archdiocese. Why? Because "it celebrates what is also at the center of Christian faith and hope, namely, belief in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead and in its redemptive significance." Why does McBrien say Easter celebrates the belief in Christ's resurrection, and not the resurrection itself? It seems because McBrien doubts the traditional understanding of the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.
"It must be acknowledged," McBrien says, "that belief in the Resurrection makes exceedingly heavy demands upon one's intelligence and common sense, even for a committed Christian." Hence the reason various explanations have been offered "to take some of the dogmatic sting out of the belief and to make it seem a bit more 'reasonable' to sophisticated non-believers whom we count among our friends and associates." One of these explanations is that the resurrection signifies only "the extraordinary transformation of the disciples from weak, cowardly followers of the crucified Lord into courageous proclaimers of his Gospel." Another, writes McBrien, says the resurrection was not an historical event "but a myth (albeit in the best sense of that word) bearing the message that Jesus' life was not in vain, that he still lives in those who accept him as their risen Lord and who seek to abide by his teachings in their own lives."
It seems that McBrien finds these explanations problematic, for he writes, "no less problematical is the interpretation given at the opposite end of the theological spectrum, namely, that the Resurrection consisted of the resuscitation of Jesus' corpse in such a literally real fashion that it could have been photographed, if the technology had existed in those days." McBrien calls this the "literalist, or fundamentalist, interpretation" of the resurrection, and it "ignores," he continues, "the metaphorical character of the biblical language about the Resurrection and the symbolic imagery used by Paul, who describes the risen Jesus in terms of 'a spiritual body' and 'a life-giving spirit.'"
What, then, was the resurrection? Was it a metaphorical/psychological event? Was it a literal raising of the body of Jesus that hung on the cross? It seems for McBrien, it is something else, but he won't say what. The real meaning lies "somewhere in between these two approaches -- the one denying, in effect, the supernatural character of the Resurrection, and the other denying its uniquely spiritual dimension." The resurrection, says McBrien, "is something that happened to Jesus, but beyond the normal limits of human experience, that it is at the heart of his redemptive work on our behalf, and that it is the foundation of our hope in our own bodily resurrection into eternal life."
But is our "bodily resurrection" a literal or metaphorical, a supernatural or spiritual event? Another question, perhaps, for another column.
THE NINTH CIRCUIT U.S. court of appeals in Pasadena on April 4 heard a challenge to a federal marriage law brought by an Orange County homosexual pair but issued no ruling. Instead, the panel of judges questioned whether the case even belonged in court, said the April 5 San Francisco Chronicle. Christopher Hammer and Arthur Smelt, both 46, who have been together since 1997, filed suit in Orange County in September 2004 after the county twice refused them a marriage license. At issue for Hammer and Smelt was the federal Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996, which reserves federal benefits such as joint-tax filing and other marriage rights to opposite-sex married couples. Hammer and Smelt argue that the law violates their fundamental rights to equal protection, privacy, and freedom of association. But U.S. district court judge Gary Taylor did not agree with Hammer and Smelt and on June 16, 2005 upheld the constitutionality of the federal act.
One judge on the federal appeals panel suggested that Hammer and Smelt may have lost their legal standing to challenge the federal law, since they formally ended their domestic partnership in December 2004 as a protest against being refused marriage. Judge Taylor had ruled that their domestic partnership gave the couple legal standing to challenge the federal law. Said federal appeals judge Sidney Thomas, "standing was predicated on the legitimacy of the domestic partnership." And Thomas asked, "why shouldn't we abstain and let the California courts decide all this?" Another judge on the panel, Jerome Farris, suggested that current marriage laws are valid when he noted that the definition of marriage could include the ability to conceive a child. And besides, he said, with something like California's domestic partnership law, "you can unite, you can do anything else you want to do. You just can't call it marriage."
Several homosexual rights groups welcomed the appeals court's seeming reluctance to take the Hammer-Smelt case. Equality California, the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and the city of San Francisco want the marriage issue decided on the state level. They fear an unfavorable federal ruling could hurt the cause of homosexual marriage. But Hammer said he and Smelt are unwilling to wait for the issue to be decided by state courts. "I want things done in my lifetime, not somebody else's," Hammer told the Chronicle.
"I REFUSE TO SERVE as a priest in a church environment that is increasingly sending a false and destructive message that my LGBT brothers and sisters and I are little more than immature, defective sex addicts," the Rev. Chris Carpenter, former pastor of Christ the King parish in Mesa, Arizona, wrote in a letter he sent to newspapers, according to the May 3 Arizona Republic. In this letter, Carpenter, who took a leave of absence from the priesthood in January for health and "other" reasons, blamed Phoenix bishop Thomas Olmsted for alienating lesbian, homosexual, bisexual, and transgendered Catholics. In January 2003, Carpenter and eight other Phoenix diocese priests signed an ecumenical, pro-homosexual statement that Olmsted, after becoming bishop in late 2003, required them to disavow. This move, said Carpenter's letter, "irrevocably damaged hopes for open dialogue and a truly collaborative relationship with our new bishop." Only three of the priests who signed the statement remain in ministry. Of the rest, two have been suspended for reasons not having to do with the declaration -- one is on leave, one for refusing to remove his name from the declaration, and one is dead. Several other priests have resigned, according to Carpenter, because of the bishop's stand on homosexuality.
Because of the resignations and suspensions, said Carpenter, the bishop has fallen back on "foreign-born priests with little to no knowledge of the local language or culture." This, said the priest, has led to Catholics leaving the Church. As for himself, Carpenter said, "where I will ultimately end up, only God knows."
THE LA TIMES TOOK ANOTHER stab at Catholic theology in an April 27 unsigned editorial. Writing about recent reports that the Holy See was looking to allow married couples to use condoms in order to halt the spread of AIDS, the editorial made the surprising claim that "there is a precedent in Catholic teaching for allowing the use of condoms to prevent disease." And what is this precedent? The "doctrine known in moral theology as the 'double effect,'" which "says that an individual may engage in an act that has both good and bad effects if the good effect compensates for the bad effect and the act itself is 'morally good or at least indifferent.'
Though one might question the completeness of the editorial's account of double effect (for instance, double effect requires the bad effect be an incidental effect), one cannot question the imbecility of its final conclusion. "The use of condoms to contain the spread of AIDS seems to fit squarely into that doctrine," according to the editorial. For, "if birth control is an evil (a proposition that even many Catholics question), it is certainly a lesser one than contributing to the scourge of AIDS." But if birth control is moral evil, then it cannot be considered "morally good" or even "at least indifferent." It cannot, then, be justified by the editorial' s own definition of double effect.
A BUSLOAD OF "GAY" CHRISTIANS with their supporters traveled across the United States visiting Christian schools that, the homosexuals said, have hostile policies towards them, the April 5 San Francisco Chronicle reported. These hostile policies include prohibiting homosexual relations on campus and on-campus support of homosexual rights. The tour was sponsored by a homosexual religious organization called Soulforce. In some states their reception was not friendly -- in Virginia and Oklahoma some Soulforce demonstrators were arrested for trespassing on school property, and in Tennessee, someone painted "Fags-Mobile" on the bus. But at Christian colleges in Southern California, the reception was different. Biola University in La Mirada welcomed the homosexual delegation. "We're at a place where we really want to learn from these students," John Back, Biola dean of students said. "We've realized we have some things to learn." A year ago, he said, the school might have responded differently; but now, "we're praying for other institutions that they be at a place where they're able to do this." Azusa Pacific University' s spokeswoman, Maureen Taylor, said of the visit of the Soulforce bussers, "we thought this would be a wonderful opportunity to allow for interaction and conversation for folks who share different viewpoints." However, Taylor said, this does not mean that conservative churches are about to change the way they view homosexuality.
Josh Matlock, minister to college students at Calvary Church of Santa Ana, told the Chronicle that there is an emerging trend among conservative Christians to engage homosexuals rather than reject them. "There's a willingness to say we've burnt some bridges and not shown the love of Christ," Matlock said. "It's a new thing happening more and more in the church."
THE LOS ANGELES POLICE Department's Skid Row policy took a hit on April 14 when a federal appeals court ruled that the department could not arrest people for sitting, sleeping, or lying on public sidewalks, the April 15 Los Angeles Times reported. The police department's policy was initiated when William Bratton became police chief in 2002. Bratton's aim was to remove homeless tent cities. However, in 2003, the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit against the city on behalf of six homeless people, one of whom was cited for sleeping on the street in 2002 and again in 2003. In the latter case, the man was searched, handcuffed, and arrested because he did not pay his fine from the previous arrest. He lost all his personal affects, spent a night in jail, received a 12-month suspended sentence, and was ordered to pay $195 in restitution and attorney's fees. The case was first heard in U.S. district court, where Judge Edward Rafeedie in December 2004 held the city's policy was constitutional. It was then appealed to the ninth U.S. circuit court of appeals in San Francisco, which overturned Rafeedie's decision.
The 2-1 decision cited the Eighth Amendment, ruling that penalizing the homeless for sleeping on the streets when there were not enough shelter beds for them amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. Writing for the majority, Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw said that given the lack of shelters, sitting, lying, or sleeping on public streets was "an unavoidable consequence of being human and homeless without shelter in the city of Los Angeles." To the city's contention that sleeping on city streets was voluntary, Wardlaw responded, "the city ... apparently believes that [the plaintiffs] can avoid sitting, lying and sleeping for days, weeks or months at a time to comply with the city's ordinance, as if human beings could remain in perpetual motion. That being an impossibility, by criminalizing sitting, lying and sleeping, the city is in fact criminalizing [the plaintiffs'] status as homeless individuals."
Judge Pamela Rymer, however, dissented from the majority. The Los Angeles policy, she wrote in her dissent, "does not punish people simply because they are homeless. It targets conduct -- sitting, lying or sleeping on city sidewalks -- that can be committed by those with homes as well as those without."
STILL APPEALING. Guadalupe Benitez, 33, a San Diego woman who charged two San Diego doctors, Christine Brody and Douglas Fenton, of unjust discrimination against her because she is a lesbian, has taken her case to the state supreme court, LifeSiteNews.com reported on April 26. A San Diego court had ruled that the two doctors had violated the law in refusing to treat Guadalupe Benitez, 33, because she is lesbian. But the doctors said that Benitez's sexual tastes were not the issue, but her unmarried state, and state law did not speak to marital status at the time; furthermore, they had referred her to another set of doctors. In December 2005, an appeals court overturned the lower court's decision, saying the doctors could cite religious reasons for refusing treatment. Benitez's further appeal reached the state supreme court in April.
THE LARGEST AND OLDEST LATINO organization in the United States has come out against a California assisted suicide bill, said an April 9 LifeNews.com report. The national board of the League of United Latin American Citizens "was unanimous in its opposition to this assisted suicide proposal," said a statement by Angel Luevano, state director of the California league. "Once again, the Latino community doesn't want assisted suicide," the statement continued. "The disability community does not want assisted suicide. The poor and uninsured do not want assisted suicide."
The legislation, Assembly Bill 651, would make physician assisted suicide under certain circumstances legal in California. It is based on Oregon's assisted suicide bill. The bill's sponsors are Eureka assemblywoman Patty Berg (D) and Assemblyman Lloyd Levine (D-Van Nuys).