G
GloriaPatri4
Guest
Grievously Sinful
National Review Board Rebukes Cardinal Mahony
BY CHRISTOPHER ZEHNDER
**The National Review Board, **a group a prominent laymen investigating reports of sexual misconduct by priests, in a February 27 report castigated the American bishops in general for their handling of the sexual abuse crisis, but singled out four bishops by name. One of these was Cardinal Roger Mahony. “The inaction of those bishops who failed to protect their people from predators was. grievously sinful,” said the report. “Somehow, the ‘smoke of Satan’ was allowed to enter the church, and as a result the church itself has been deeply wounded.” But addressing the archdiocese of Los Angeles, the report said that “after allegations were made that Cardinal Mahony had allowed numerous predator priests to remain in the ministry, 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 in a “Report to the People of God: Clergy Sexual Abuse in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, 1930-2003,” the archdiocese of Los Angeles defended itself against charges of obstructing investigations, saying it “has cooperated and will continue to cooperate with law enforcement authorities in connection with grand jury investigations in Ventura and Los Angeles Counties.” The report, published in the February 27 Tidings, said that all personnel documents subpoenaed by the Los Angeles County grand jury had been turned over to "a retired judge “acting as a referee.” (This was done late last summer.) This “referee,” said the archdiocesan report, “is resolving the claims of privilege but to date has not issued a decision regarding any of the objections by the Archdiocese or individual priests.” The “privileges” about which the archdiocesan report speaks refer to claims made by the archdiocese that “all personnel files are private, protected by the California Constitution, and may not be produced over the priest’s objection until a court has weighed the need for production against the individual’s privacy rights.” The archdiocese, too, says the report, “has objected to production of records that disclose the spiritual, pastoral and psychological counseling of the priests. The Archdiocese believes that the particular needs of the Catholic faith and the deeply private needs of its priests demand the right to private communication between Bishop and clergy on any topic, no matter how personal, without fear of intrusion by criminal or civil litigants. The Archdiocese believes the privilege goes to the heart of every Catholic’s ability to practice the religion.” According to the report, “the Archdiocese believes that many of these sensitive records are covered by California Evidence Code privileges for communications with psychotherapists and clergy. Others, the Archdiocese believes, should be free from government interference under the First Amendment guarantee of the free exercise of religion.”
National Review Board Rebukes Cardinal Mahony
BY CHRISTOPHER ZEHNDER
**The National Review Board, **a group a prominent laymen investigating reports of sexual misconduct by priests, in a February 27 report castigated the American bishops in general for their handling of the sexual abuse crisis, but singled out four bishops by name. One of these was Cardinal Roger Mahony. “The inaction of those bishops who failed to protect their people from predators was. grievously sinful,” said the report. “Somehow, the ‘smoke of Satan’ was allowed to enter the church, and as a result the church itself has been deeply wounded.” But addressing the archdiocese of Los Angeles, the report said that “after allegations were made that Cardinal Mahony had allowed numerous predator priests to remain in the ministry, 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 in a “Report to the People of God: Clergy Sexual Abuse in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, 1930-2003,” the archdiocese of Los Angeles defended itself against charges of obstructing investigations, saying it “has cooperated and will continue to cooperate with law enforcement authorities in connection with grand jury investigations in Ventura and Los Angeles Counties.” The report, published in the February 27 Tidings, said that all personnel documents subpoenaed by the Los Angeles County grand jury had been turned over to "a retired judge “acting as a referee.” (This was done late last summer.) This “referee,” said the archdiocesan report, “is resolving the claims of privilege but to date has not issued a decision regarding any of the objections by the Archdiocese or individual priests.” The “privileges” about which the archdiocesan report speaks refer to claims made by the archdiocese that “all personnel files are private, protected by the California Constitution, and may not be produced over the priest’s objection until a court has weighed the need for production against the individual’s privacy rights.” The archdiocese, too, says the report, “has objected to production of records that disclose the spiritual, pastoral and psychological counseling of the priests. The Archdiocese believes that the particular needs of the Catholic faith and the deeply private needs of its priests demand the right to private communication between Bishop and clergy on any topic, no matter how personal, without fear of intrusion by criminal or civil litigants. The Archdiocese believes the privilege goes to the heart of every Catholic’s ability to practice the religion.” According to the report, “the Archdiocese believes that many of these sensitive records are covered by California Evidence Code privileges for communications with psychotherapists and clergy. Others, the Archdiocese believes, should be free from government interference under the First Amendment guarantee of the free exercise of religion.”