The Archdiocese of Los Angeles is publicly voicing its strong objections to two recent columns in the Los Angeles Times regarding the priest abuse scandal. Both articles contained substantial falsehoods, according to the Archdiocese.
1. A March 26, 2007, article in the Times claimed that Church officials and employees, when questioned in legal proceedings, could invoke something called "'mental reservation' — a 700-year-old doctrine by which clerics may avoid telling the truth to protect the Catholic Church." The article quoted Irwin Zalkin, a lawyer for abuse victims, as saying of church officials under oath, "You're never going to know the truth, one way or the other."
The truth? There is no such doctrine, and the term "mental reservation" is found nowhere in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
In fact, had the author of the article taken the time to pick up a Catechism (does he even own one?), he would have found the following:
2476 False witness and perjury. When it is made publicly, a statement contrary to the truth takes on a particular gravity. In court it becomes false witness. When it is under oath, it is perjury. Acts such as these contribute to condemnation of the innocent, exoneration of the guilty, or the increased punishment of the accused. They gravely compromise the exercise of justice and the fairness of judicial decisions. (emphasis mine)
In other words, the Times has thrown truth and honest reporting out the window.
What's (almost) even worse is that the Times issued a "correction" to the article. Yet the rambling and oddly worded paragraph hardly comes across as anything resembling a forthcoming and apologetic correction. In fact, the Times repeats the erroneous use of the word "doctrine"!
The article also contains a "gratuitous slap at the College of Cardinals" by horribly distorting a public oath that cardinals take at the time of their appointment.
The Archdiocese cited this article in particular as "insulting to all Catholics." Read the full statement from the Archdiocese here.
2. A top-of-the-front-page March 20, 2007, article in the Times claimed that Cardinal Roger Mahony wrote two different descriptions of a videotape discovered in 1992 related to a priest's misconduct. In fact, says the Archdiocese, "Cardinal Mahony did not write, edit or otherwise supervise the production of the 'proffer' on Lynn Caffoe [the ex-priest], as the Los Angeles Times has claimed. The Archdiocese's legal team wrote the proffer as part of a Court-ordered mediation process" (emphasis mine).
Again, the Times' (false) story of two different versions was placed on the top of its front page. Meanwhile, the central premise of the article appears completely false! So far, there has been no correction or apology from the Times, and almost all readers will only assume that what the paper printed was true. Shame on the Times.
There were also more problems with the article, so read the full statement from the Archdiocese here at The Tidings, the weekly newspaper of the Archdiocese.
+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_
Both fallacious articles were written by Times staffer John Spano. What is the policy at the Times when a writer commits such journalistic malfeasance in two articles on the same topic in one week? Maybe Spano should be replaced on this story by a more competent and honest writer?
The entire abuse scandal has certainly been a sad and tragic episode - most especially for the victims. However, the pervasive lack of honesty at the Times in reporting on this issue (see several more examples at LA-ClergyCases.com) only leads one to believe that there is an anti-Catholic and anti-Christian agenda at the paper. At NewsBusters, we have cited several examples of dubious reporting in this regard. See here, here, here, here, and here for just a few examples.
+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_
Maybe Spano and others at the Times should take a listen to this balanced presentation that aired on KCRW radio in December 2006. Kudos to host Warren Olney for orchestrating the interviews with fairness and decency.
—Dave Pierre is the creator of TheMediaReport.com and a contributor to NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Unfortunately, fabrication
April 2, 2007 - 01:00 ET by robert108Unfortunately, fabrication of phony news is a fairly common practice in our MSM.
Being a South Central Texan
April 2, 2007 - 02:30 ET by MBConservBeing a South Central Texan and being Hispanic (not to mention a surfer), most people are utterly surprised that I am a registered Republican. But what really surprises me is the fact that Hispanics generally gravitate to the Democrat side (i refuse to say Democrat"ic") when the left villifies Catholicism, which is by far, a huge staple in the Hispanic culture, I know, I have seen it first hand.
"Before I refuse to take your questions...I have a statement.." Ronald Reagan
In the original article, ther
April 2, 2007 - 02:27 ET by KC MulvilleIn the original article, there's a remarkably duplicitous paragraph on the idea of mental reservation:
This would leave a careless reader with the impression that "mental reservation" has support among scholars and moral theologians, even if it isn't accepted church teaching. But, substitute the word [abortion] as the topic, and you see the difference. Abortion is also not accepted church teaching, but scholars and moral theologians discuss it all the time ... yet no one imagines that the discussions are a sign of secret support for abortion. This is rhetoric, not reporting. It is persuasive speech, not informative speech.
The other rhetorical device is that whereas there is no proof that this "doctrine" was used to justify lying, the reporter suggests that credible experts have discovered a secret trend:
Look at the experts cited: six defense lawyers, who complained about testimony unfavorable to their case. They believe the witnesses were lying. Imagine that! Lawyers believe that unfavorable witnesses were lying.
Oh the humanity.
Seriously, does anyone fall for this crap?
[quote]Seriously, does anyone
April 2, 2007 - 03:44 ET by tracheostomy"Seriously, does anyone fall for this crap?"
:raising hand:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10195b.htm
The article cited sez it isn't doctrine. The encyclopedia does. Note that I deliberately failed to cite wiki, as a gesture of good faith.
Am I looking at unauthorized material or something? Also, what standard should I use when doing research on this?
-PJ
This was also an interesting
April 2, 2007 - 03:57 ET by tracheostomyThis was also an interesting read as well. . .
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/is_it_okay_to_lie_sometimes
Even more confusing is the wiki entry under Catechism of the Catholic Church, specifically under "Points of Controversy".
-PJ
trach, the article you ci
April 2, 2007 - 06:10 ET by motherbelttrach, the article you cite also says:
A sin is committed if mental reservations are used without just cause, or in cases when the questioner has a right to the naked truth.
I submit that this would be in a court of law trying a case of sexual abuse: the questioner indeed has a right to the truth. So the Church is not advocating lying under oath. The only time a Catholic is advised, indeed required to withhold facts under oath is in the case of a priest asked to reveal something that was told to him under the seal of confession. And the article you cited gives an example: the priest saying "I do not know" meaning "I don't know other than what was said in the confessional" is a mental reservation.
Saying "No" to the question "did you see Father Jones talking to the boy? " when the truth is "yes" is not "mental reservation." It is a lie, and under oath, perjury.
Thanks ...
April 2, 2007 - 09:21 ET by Dave PierreThe L.A. Times refers to it as a "a 700-year-old doctrine by which clerics may avoid telling the truth to protect the Catholic Church."
The article you cited says no such thing: that one may "lie" to "protect the Church." The whole "mental reservation" "thing" says nothing about lying to protect the Church. This is where the Times has misinformed and misled their readers.
New Advent is a reliable source, but I'm surprised that they would refer to it as a 'doctrine' since it is not identified as formal Catholic teaching. Their use of the word "theory" would appear more accurate.
(An example of the theory in the article: There is a murderer at the front door. You know he wants to kill an innocent person inside the home. One can use the expression, "He is not at home" and not commit a sin.)
The article you cited makes it clear that lying in court cases and perverting justice and truth would clearly be a sin.
trach: You're right. I should
April 2, 2007 - 10:29 ET by KC Mulvilletrach: You're right. I should have specified the context. Catholics may indeed argue that "mental reservation" is sometimes moral, but certainly not in this case. To understand where "mental reservation" might be morally justified, you have to conjure up a situation where telling the truth will certainly lead to a death. Think of Socrates' example where a man asks you to hold onto a weapon for him, but then later comes back drunk or in a crazed mental state. He demands his weapon back so he can kill a man that you know is innocent. Should you give him the weapon? (Socrates says yes, you must always tell the truth, regardless of the circumstances. Most of us would feel that a timely white lie using "mental reservation" would serve the greater good.) However, that's not an issue here.
It's important to remember that we're talking about civil testimony about pedophile priests. In that context, it is absolutely not allowable to lie to protect the public reputation of the church. The article suggests that people are obstructing justice, and that the Catholic doctrine supports their efforts. To be clear: church doctrine and teaching does not support that.
The rhetorical device here (the "crap" that I hope people don't fall for) is to insinuate that six lawyers have "spotted" instances where witnesses relied on this "church doctrine" to justify lying under oath. That presents the lawyers as disinterested, objective social observers, which they certainly are not. Second, it means that these lawyers can reliably label the testimony as a lie and that the witnesses are justifying themselves with this "church doctrine." That's quite a stretch.
Standard ...
April 2, 2007 - 10:37 ET by Dave Pierretracheostomy: "[W]hat standard should I use when doing research on this?"
Excellent question! You can never go wrong with The Catechism of the Catholic Church; it is the formal teaching of the Church, from the Church itself.
New Advent's Catholic Encyclopedia is generally reliable, but, if I am not mistaken, it is a privately owned entity not directly affiliated with the Church. (Although it says it has an imprimatur from an Archbishop "under whose jurisdiction [the encyclopedia] is published.")
If you wanted to research the history of a saint or a pope or something, New Advent is good, IMHO. But for anything related to Church teaching, your starting place is the Catechism. That's my say.
tracheostomy: "Note that i deliberately failed to cite wiki ..." Thank you for that!
All of what you say is true,
April 2, 2007 - 11:30 ET by KC MulvilleAll of what you say is true, with some caveats. Roman Catholic canon law isn't statutory, in the same way as American civil law. You can't derive a final answer by reading any text, even the catechism. For all intents and purposes, the bishop gets to make the final call on matters of faith and morals. If the bishop says one thing and your interpretation of the text says another, your interpretation doesn't trump the bishop. That's what his authority is, after all - he has the right to make those calls.
General questions are one thing, but personal questions are another. I've seen too many people who have a personal crisis, and who then read the text, and they inevitably assume the worst. (We Catholics are like that.) Catholics may read that masturbation is a serious and grave sin, and they immediately assume they're condemned to hell. Be careful with the text, even the catechism, when it comes to personal issues.
Authority in the Catholic church is invested in real live people: the bishop, and by extension, the priest. It's not in the text. If you have a personal question, go to the priest or bishop first. Don't assume you'll be burning for eternity just because of something you read. Go to the priest first.
Besides, about anything personal ... for almost any sin, the priest can forgive it. Go to the priest first.
KC: "Roman Catholic cano
April 2, 2007 - 21:13 ET by Dave PierreKC: "Roman Catholic canon law isn't statutory, in the same way as American civil law. You can't derive a final answer by reading any text, even the catechism. For all intents and purposes, the bishop gets to make the final call on matters of faith and morals."
Canon law is law like any other "law." You can derive answers in the catechism, and the bishop does not get "to make the final call on matters of faith and morals." The Church/ the catechism does not teach what you say.
Yes it does teach that. There
April 3, 2007 - 12:01 ET by KC MulvilleYes it does teach that. There is a difference in the kind of law involved. Catholic law isn't like American law. Canon law is not statutory.
The authority of statutory law is in the text; the authority of ecclesial law is in the bishop himself. Now, ordinarily, the two should not conflict, especially since the text (e.g., the catechism) is approved by the bishops anyway. That’s what an imprimatur is, after all: it’s the approval of the bishop. The catechism only counts because the bishops approved it. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, the bishop and the catechism will agree perfectly. But if there ever is a conflict, the bishop’s decision trumps anyone’s interpretation of the text. The text doesn’t govern the bishop; instead, the bishop governs the text.
Consider this: when a person is sworn into elected office in America, he swears to uphold the constitution (a text). But when a Catholic cleric takes his vows, he swears loyalty to his “ordinary” (the bishop or abbot). I speak from experience here. Americans swear to the text, Catholics swear to a person.
The difference tells a tale. You use statutory law because you don’t trust the officials. American law limits the powers of elected officials, and the legal system is built on the premise of distrust. The Founding Fathers didn’t trust the British magistrates to look out for the colonists best interests, and rightly so. Catholic bishops, on the other hand, are supposed to be primarily interested in the care of their subjects. Catholics are supposed to trust them. (That’s why the pedophile scandal is so serious.) Catholic law is based on the authority and trust of the bishop. American law, for good reasons, is based on a different principle.
The LAT is tabloid garbage
April 2, 2007 - 08:46 ET by daveinbocaThe LAT is tabloid garbage disinformation dressed up like the NYT. Come to think of it, so is the NYT!
It is never okay to lie about
April 2, 2007 - 13:16 ET byIt is never okay to lie about anyone or any group. As a born again nondenominational Christian, I am against the teachings of Catholicism and I shed light on a lot of things that the Catholic church does and teaches; but would never stoop to lie about it. I love the Catholics and am related to many. People can make mistakes, but to out and out lie, is simply wrong. Also, when one is speaking the truth, one does not have a need to lie –mmm…makes sense.
But, I have to agree with the frustration towards the Catholic church having in a large way tried to cover up much of the wrong done by some of its priests. And such has nothing to do with that I don’t agree with its teachings, it is simple logic to say that trying to cover up sexual abuse of children, is simply wrong. I believe that it is this frustration that is behind any lying being done by the mainstream media about the Catholic church, but for whatever reason, lying is simply wrong. –If they in fact truly did lie. Though, I have never seen where it was written for priests to lie, I do believe that they lie, but my beliefs stem from Biblical reasons. So, maybe this mainstream media person should just say he ‘believes’ priests lie 'to protect the Catholic church,’ or produce the writing that says it.
And I wish that people, who are not Catholic, would stop judging Christianity off of Catholicism. Christianity was around for nearly 400 years before Catholicism came to be and Catholicism is simply a belief of what a group feels Christianity is. Gosh, many groups call themselves Christian; Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Catholics, Baptists, Presbyterians, Born Again Believers, some Unitarians, and the list goes on and on and on. And we all believe that our beliefs go straight back to Jesus. I will be the first to say, that mine do and my beliefs are the right beliefs. Who’s right? Who’s wrong? If a person cannot say that he is right and all other beliefs that conflict with his beliefs are wrong, then that person does not really believe what he claims to believe.
Debra...
Debra: "Christianity was
April 2, 2007 - 21:29 ET by Dave PierreDebra: "Christianity was around for nearly 400 years before Catholicism ... many groups call themselves Christian ..."
"The combination 'the Catholic Church' (he katholike ekklesia) is found for the first time in the letter of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, written about the year 110." (source, New Advent)
It's true that many call themselves Christian, but until Martin Luther came along, it was widely understood that the Church was the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has an unbroken apostolic line of succession straight back to Peter, whom Jesus appointed as the earthly head of the Church.
Hi Dave, That is what I mean.
April 3, 2007 - 00:30 ET byHi Dave,
That is what I mean. We all believe that our own faith-beliefs go back to Jesus. And we disagree with much of each other's church's history, as to how each one came to be, etc. For example, I believe that Jesus is the head of the Biblical church, on earth and in heaven, not Peter. I don't believe that Jesus made Peter the head of the Biblical church, at all. I believe that Jesus was referring to Himself, not Peter.
And those of us, who believe strongly in our faith-beliefs, believe that all beliefs that conflict with our faith-beliefs are wrong. We cannot go west and east, at the same time. This is one of the reasons, I am so against this 'global tolerance,' that the UN, the ACLU, and the UUC, and so many others, want to push on everyone. For some of us, tolerance of that which goes against our faith-beliefs is a sin. Let's hope we keep our freedom, to disagree. :o)
Debra…
Once again, Debra is misinforming
April 3, 2007 - 13:44 ET by tumbler_2007No, Ma'am; please do NOT speak as if you spoke from authority.
That's totally misleading. Priests, like any sinner, may sometimes lie. They have the obligation subsequently to confess their sin; same as the many PEDERASTS (not pedophiles, as commonly described,) must confess their sin or be damned for eternity. THAT is what the Catholic Church teaches from the days of the holy apostles. Also, nobody onboard here realizes that doctrine is always that teaching that the apostles learned at the feet of none other than Jesus Christ. There is nothing whatever theoretical or scholarly about doctrine. -- Dogma is likewise, a teaching held from the beginning, which when it comes to a controversial juncture in time, is clarified and declared TRUE by the Pope for all Christian believers, which he does ex cathedra, officially in authority coming to him from Christ, who gave Peter our first Pope primacy in His Holy Church. No other teachers have the authority Christ gave to His apostles. Certainly no Bible scholar so-called; who places him/her self in opposition to the doctrines of the Catholic Church.
Is Jesus her founder or not?
April 3, 2007 - 19:14 ET by tumbler_2007You very glibly announce that there was a biblical Church before Catholicism, and after that a succession of others. There is as always was, but ONE Church. Jesus founded that Church. What Debra wants to call "the biblical church" --is our Holy Catholic Church 2000 ago, in her infant stages. Throughout history her docrtines are all intact and unchanged and come down to us straight from Jesus Christ through the apostles. He founded NO MORE Churches.
In the gospels not once did Christ ever prophesy that HIS Church would be "reformed" after 1,400 years due to some new doctrines of men. Nor has Jesus failed to keep His first and only Church from falling into error, (as He promised) or replace her with private interpretations of scripture. He was NEVER known to break a promise, and the Church was assured, "Whoever hears you hears me, and whoever hears me hears the words of my Father who is in heaven."
That meant the Church coming down through history from the apostles; of whom Peter was the chief shepherd in this world. This was and remains now, the Church of Rome. Look at Paul's epistle to the Romans, chapter 1, v. 8 He writes to the Catholic Church. Not Lutheran, not reformed, not the church of England or any other.