1
   

Catholic Rift Over Panel Widens

 
 
Reply Fri 13 Jun, 2003 10:12 am
Catholic Rift Over Panel Widens
Mahony calls claim that bishops are obstructing the church's sex-abuse inquiry 'the last straw' and hints at an effort to remove the lay overseer.
By Larry B. Stammer - Times Staff Writer - June 13, 2003
Times staff writer Julie Tamaki contributed to this report.

A serious split at the senior level of the U.S. Roman Catholic Church widened Thursday as Cardinal Roger M. Mahony questioned whether bishops should remove the chief overseer they appointed last year to monitor their efforts to prevent sexual abuse by priests.

Earlier this week in an interview, the overseer, former Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating, sharply criticized Mahony and other bishops, comparing unnamed bishops who have opposed his efforts to "La Cosa Nostra."

Thursday, Mahony, who is one of the most influential members of the Catholic hierarchy, fired back, calling Keating's statements "off the wall."

"All I can say is, from the bishops I've listened to ?- and several called me this morning ?- this is the last straw," Mahony said in an interview. "To make statements such as these ?- I don't know how he can continue to have the support of the bishops. I don't know how you back up from this."

The U.S. bishops created the National Review Board, which Keating heads, last June at the height of the sex abuse scandal. The idea was to repair their credibility, which many bishops thought had been badly undermined by the scandal.

The panel of prestigious lay Catholics would reassure the faithful, the bishops hoped, that the hierarchy was carrying out new policies against sexually abusive priests in good faith.

Given the panel's background, a move against Keating now could risk further damage to the church's already troubled public image. Almost from the beginning, however, the relationship between Keating and some bishops has been tense. Mahony's remarks have brought that tension to the surface.

Mahony said he intends to raise the issue of Keating's job performance next week in St. Louis when the U.S. bishops hold their semiannual meeting.

And at least one member of the review board said Thursday that Keating's remarks were threatening the panel's continued ability to do its job.

A spokesman for Keating said Thursday that he stood by his comments, which were made in an interview with The Times.

How many of the more than 350 U.S. bishops share Mahony's opposition to Keating remains unclear. Several, however, are on record as being critical of the review board. They include Archbishop Alex J. Brunett of Seattle, Bishop Donald W. Wuerl of Pittsburgh and New York's Cardinal Edward Egan, who in January refused to celebrate Mass for the National Review Board when it met in his city.

Mahony said Thursday that the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Most Rev. Wilton D. Gregory of Belleville, Ill., had not consulted other bishops before appointing Keating.

"It would have been better" had Gregory asked for recommendations and set up a screening committee before making the appointment, Mahony said.

A spokesman in the U.S. bishops office in Washington said Keating serves at the pleasure of Gregory and was not appointed to a specific term.

Gregory was not available for comment Thursday.

Within the review board's own ranks, Keating's sometimes outspoken statements have caused concern.

Jane Chiles, a member of the board and the former director of the Kentucky State Catholic Conference, said that several members of the panel held a conference call Thursday to discuss Keating's recent remarks and that she and some fellow board members have "significant concerns" about them.

"It is extremely unhelpful for the heat to be turned up with this use of rhetoric at a time when we are really launching a number of very significant initiatives to assure accountability on the part of the bishops," Chiles said.

She added that some bishops also have made inflammatory comments during the past year.

Members of the review board remain committed to the work they are doing and will do whatever it takes to maintain their credibility with the bishops, as well as with the rest of the church, she said.

"I think we have to recognize that Gov. Keating is someone who has been in public office for some time. I think he has become accustomed to using sound bites ?- to some extent rather effectively ?- but in this case the work we are doing and the issues are way too complicated for sound bites."

"There's substantial concern that this kind of comment makes our work almost impossible," Chiles said.

But others came to Keating's defense. Los Angeles Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley applauded Keating's criticism of the bishops. "He apparently has been as frustrated as we have been in our efforts to secure information in possession of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles," Cooley said.

In St. Louis, David Clohessy, national director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, said that, if anything, Keating has been too restrained in describing the extent of sexual abuse and the past cover-ups by bishops.

Mary Grant, western states director of the group, urged Catholics to redirect the money they would have given the Los Angeles church this week, giving it directly to charities as a protest against Mahony's behavior.

Father Thomas Reese, editor of the Jesuit magazine America and an authority on American bishops, said, "I personally think that Keating needs to control his vocabulary." But he also said the dispute proves they "did not appoint a bunch of lap dogs."

Reese concluded, "He ought to apologize for using the Mafia word and get back to work."

Mahony has taken a public stance as an outspoken reformer who has sought to oust all sex offenders from the priesthood. As head of the Los Angeles Archdiocese, he has been more aggressive than many U.S. bishops in dismissing clergy members.

During the last decade, he quietly removed 17 priests from ministry who had either admitted or had been credibly accused of molesting minors.

But he has also been criticized by victims' advocates and law enforcement officials for seeking to limit prosecutors' access to church personnel records. And like many other bishops, he has sought over the years to keep sexual abuse cases out of the public eye, in some cases moving those accused of molestation from one job to another and, during the 1990s, discouraging some alleged victims from reporting their cases to police.

One item at the heart of the dispute between Mahony and Keating is Mahony's refusal until this week to participate in a national survey commissioned by the review board to determine the number of priests accused or found guilty of sexual abuse in the United States, going as far back as 1950.

The study was required by the charter approved by bishops last year. So far, 134 of the nation's 195 Catholic dioceses have responded to the survey, in whole or in part, according to Leon A. Panetta, the former White House chief of staff who is a member of the review board.

But California's diocesan bishops, including Mahony, refused to participate until this week. They argued that the study's methodology was so seriously flawed that it would not produce valid or credible data. They also said that answering the survey's questions would require them to violate California's privacy laws.

Mahony insisted he had not attempted to block the study, but, instead, he had supported the most effective study possible. The $250,000 study commissioned by the review board would not begin to answer questions, Mahony said, estimating that a valid study would cost from $4 million to $6 million.

The current study, being conducted by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, is so flawed that it must be followed by another, Mahony said.

He agreed this week to participate after his office said researchers at John Jay had agreed to make some changes in the study's protocol.

But "whatever they've done isn't going to overcome what I consider an inadequate and totally incomplete instrument," Mahony said.

"We are not going to get the comprehensive picture that we need from this study," he added.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-mahony13jun13,1,6367289.story?coll=la-home-headlines
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,465 • Replies: 9
No top replies

 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jun, 2003 10:17 am
If you are use to doing whatever you want whenever you want -- with no questions permitted -- it is not easy to have someone looking over your shoulder.

These guys will never learn.

But since I am opposed to organized religion -- GOOD.

It'll cost 'em.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jun, 2003 10:19 am
This is exactly the sort of thing which lead to the Protestant Reformation . . . arrogance and hubris . . .

Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad . . .
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jun, 2003 08:34 pm
the bishops would do well to remember what happened to richard nixon after he fired archibold cox.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Jun, 2003 07:46 pm
Aerodynamically a bumblebee can fly. How do we know this? Because it flies. If someone says it can't because aerodynamic rules say it can't then, obviously, not enough rules are known to know or understand what can cause flight.

Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.
[Lord Kelvin, 1895] Embarrassed

Radio has no future. Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. X-rays will prove to be a hoax.
William Thomson, Lord Kelvin English scientist, 1899 Embarrassed

There will never be a bigger plane built.
Boeing engineer, after the first flight of the 247, a twin engine plane that carried ten people. Embarrassed

The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives.
Admiral William Leahy, U.S. Atomic Bomb Project. Embarrassed

By the way, that Lord Kelvin was a mathematician and physicist. He was one of the leading physical scientists of his time. He developed the idea of absolute temperature (Kelvin). He was responsible for the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Now what brilliant scientist says aerodynamically a bumblebee can't fly?

http://plus.maths.org/issue17/news/bumble/

Science has a lot more to learn.
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Jun, 2003 11:06 pm
well, after all that is what separates science from religion.

every scientist's opinion is open to verification by experimentation. if the data shows it is proved wrong, modifications are made based upon new evidence and one moves on to the next hypothesis. an opinion found incorrect does not throw the scientific method into question, it throws the original hypothesis into question.

religion allows for no such thing. divine revelation is it. no opinion can be tested, or verified, no nothing but wishful thinking.

anyone pointing to the incorrect opinions of a person, or scientist, in this case kelvin, as some sort of substantiation that the sciencific method is not valid as a tool for helping describe the universe has an agenda that is undermined by scientific method and is trying to dipute its effectiveness, and has a basic ignorance of what scientific method is all about.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jun, 2003 06:45 am
My aim of pointing out Lord Kelvin's and others misstatements was not to deride scientific method but to show that scientists will never know all. There is always an unknown factor out there. I view Lord Kelvins statement about aircraft as I view scientist today who say we can never travel beyond the speed of light. When making predictions never say never regardless of what your current science says. You never know if there will be something out there that will surprise you.

Religious "science" takes the position of knowing without the benefit of evidence. All hypotheses are divinely given. Therefore the effort should be to find the evidence to support "god's hypotheses" even if it has to be fabricated. Any evidence to the contrary must be destroyed, belittled, or be excused in some manner.

Creationism and biblical archeology are examples of "religious scientific method."

As for the primary question at hand it should be pointed out that 68.7% did respond. Catholic bishops are like the world in general; they come in all shapes ad sizes. There are many out there they are truly trying to do the best they can for humanity and there are others who are arrogant self-centered pompous asses. The only people they have to answer to are themselves (Council of Bishops) and the Pope.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jun, 2003 07:11 am
Xingu and Kuvasz

Excellent observations. Thanks.
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jun, 2003 09:26 am
xingu wrote:


Religious "science" takes the position of knowing without the benefit of evidence. All hypotheses are divinely given. Therefore the effort should be to find the evidence to support "god's hypotheses" even if it has to be fabricated. Any evidence to the contrary must be destroyed, belittled, or be excused in some manner.

Creationism and biblical archeology are examples of "religious scientific method.".


as there is no dry water, there is not religious science, the two terms are antithetical to the other. nor is there any religious scientific method. the use of the term hypothesis in a system of analysis that denies the ability to prove or disprove the hypothesis precludes its use as a descriptive term.

what religion does is declare truth without the willingness to subject its truths to verification. it may be a thesis, but it is not a hypothesis, it is dogma.

associating religion with science and attempting to legitimize religious dogmatism by using "religious" as a qualifying adjective to "scientific method" produces an oxymoron and attempts to legitimize religion as equal to sciencetific method as a method of logical and reasonable analysis which the former term fails by its very nature.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Jun, 2003 07:41 am
Here is an interesting viewpoint from Andrew Greeley, a priest and author.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/greeley/cst-edt-greel06.html
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Catholic Rift Over Panel Widens
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/12/2026 at 08:25:15