Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony certainly deserves his rightful share of criticism and rebuke for his handling of the church abuse scandal. However, a front-page headline in today's Los Angeles Times (Saturday, December 2, 2006) delivers an unfair and misleading impression over supposed "inaction" by the Cardinal.
Yesterday the Los Angeles Archdiocese announced it will pay a $60 million settlement to 45 people who say they were abused by Catholic priests. Today's Times reported the news with five articles, five photos, and 5078 words. (Two articles are on the front page: one is the major headline at the top of the page, and another is at the fold. The five articles I've counted also include a 'Q&A' piece and a Church-bashing commentary by staffer Steve Lopez.)
One of the front-page articles is, "She can't forgive Mahony's inaction," by Times staffer John Spano. It is the sad and horrific story of 67-year-old Mary Dispenza Esfahan, who was raped at age 7 by her priest, George Neville Rucker. ("Rucker, now 86, was criminally charged in 2002 with 29 counts of molesting seven girls in Los Angeles during the 1970s.")
But what is "Mahony's inaction" that is spoken of in the headline? Is the Cardinal accused of covering up for Rucker's crimes? Is he accused of shuffling the criminal priest to other parishes where he abused other minors? Did Mahony ignore allegations that Rucker had molested kids? The article says none of this.
After a lengthy and heart-wrenching account of Ms. Esfahan's decades-long story, we don't learn of "Mahony's inaction" blared in the headline until the fourth-to-last paragraph of the article.
She [Esfahan] says she's forgiven Rucker — "He's sick, he's a pedophile" — and "I can forgive the church." But she can't forgive Cardinal Roger M. Mahony.
She said she wrote to Mahony two years ago and has yet to receive a response. "I'd like to tell him what this meant for me. I'd like to tell him how he's hurting the church," she said.
Dispenza has retired and is living in Seattle. She said there are long periods of her life of which she has no recollection.
It turns out that "Mahony's inaction" blared in a headline on the front page of the newspaper is the allegation that the Cardinal has not responded to a letter. Did Spano question the Cardinal or the archdiocese about the letter? Do we know if the Cardinal actually received and read the letter? The article doesn't say.
Again - Cardinal Mahony has a lot to answer to regarding the church abuse scandal. However, a front-page article trumpeting "Mahony's inaction" alongside major front-page news of a multi-million dollar settlement in the church abuse scandal gives a misleading impression. The headline would certainly give the casual reader the impression of a much more serious criminal "inaction" than not responding to a letter. According to the Times' own article, up until two years ago, Cardinal Mahony played almost no role at all in the decades-long story of the woman (Ms. Esfahan) whose picture graces the front page.
As sad and tragic as Ms. Esfehan's story is, the episode of "Mahony's inaction" - not answering a letter, apparently uninvestigated by the Times - is unworthy of its prominent front-page headline. It appears the Times' desire to attach a well-known name to a sad story outweighed their better judgment.
—Dave Pierre is the creator of TheMediaReport.com and a contributor to NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Being a Roman Catholic, I'm s
December 2, 2006 - 20:07 ET by ncstevemBeing a Roman Catholic, I'm supposed to be charitable towards others and most certainly towards those in the hierarchy of the Church.
However I can't think of anything charitable to say about Mahoney. He's about as Catholic as my neighbor's dog. I think the 'cathedral' he had built says it all. It's a pagan shrine.
act like you believe
December 2, 2006 - 20:25 ET by tumblerDear Steve,
I dislike what the Cardinal does too. But if we have to fall back on vituperation and supercilious judgment, we can't call ourselves true believers either. It requires us to persevere in our faith; because we know God is watching out for His own.
Within the physical confines of this cathedral is gathered the People of God, not just a prelate without good taste. Or good sense. Jesus Christ is enshrined, not some pagan god.
Since the matter of externals bothers you, just offer up your discomfort and depression. That's what I do when something lets me down about today's Church. My faith is being tested, sometimes as in a devil's grip. I believe the devil tries to make me curse and protest. He once made the most of that opportunity with Savonarola. Fury and intolerance destroyed an otherwise holy man. He became obsessed, denouncing and burning art and books.
Nothing is new under the sun; it's all passing. Catholics must learn seriously; to carry the cross and follow Jesus. It's a great challenge, when we see abuses. Pray for the soul of Cardinal Mahoney. I assure you, better times are coming.
Is it possible that the inact
December 2, 2006 - 21:45 ET by balboaIs it possible that the inaction referred to in the headline is Mahony's general poor handling of the whole situation?
Could be boa..... although it
December 2, 2006 - 21:58 ET by bigtimerCould be boa..... although it is constant from the left, the put down of the Catholic Church every chance they get...that is sad to me...but hey, it makes headlines.
Btw...I am not saying that the guilty should not have to pay for their sins whatsoever. I am just tired of the obvious anti-Catholic bias, unless of course it applies to a politician with a 'D' behind their name, example, Kennedy, Kerry, Pelosi.
"Once the coffers of the federal government are opened to the public, there will be no shutting them again." - Grover Cleveland
we only know resulting consequences
December 2, 2006 - 23:26 ET by tumblerDear Balboa
It's always easy when the results are known. Then all of us take for granted what nobody knew when decisions had to be made. Nobody was excited, or bothered. Everybody later on jumps to the conclusion that a headman (a bishop, or Cardinal) KNEW every detail, had it figured out, FAILED because he didn't exert his authority. And, it may well have been so.
But hindsight is always 20/20 . Inaction by definition means he didn't know, he wasn't sure. He was a weak leader or a stupid leader. We are all human. A bishop can hesitate out of caution or shame, maybe if he's being LIED to. Then, he must take blame, because he supposedly stands for truth, impeccable judgment, holiness. He's an innocent bystander, holding the bag! Evil men have suckered him, since he isn't prepared for combat with evil.
His personal life may be deficient in prayer, self-denial; HOLINESS. This is the "armor" Saint Paul tells us we must put on, against the powers of darkness and evil. Without this strength, all of us are prone to serious mistakes and sin.
A base and indecent priest can play this kind of man like a fiddle. A perverted clergyman who swears he didn't mean harm, or that he repents, or that he would rather DIE than repeat these evil acts. (Father, forgive me!) Priests are after all, supposed to absolve a sinner. It's in the resume. It isn't so cut and dry. So, because of moral insecurity and sloth, he cuts the offender some slack. Except it cannot be seen until it's time to pay the piper. The piper is the devil.
That's the point ...
December 3, 2006 - 20:17 ET by Dave Pierrebalboa: "Is it possible that the inaction referred to in the headline is Mahony's general poor handling of the whole situation?"
That's the point of my post, balboa. You see, by just looking at the headline, the impression that you'd get is the one that you actually got! But if you read the article itself, the only mention of "inaction" by Mahony is not responding to a letter. The headline is very misleading and unfair. (Note also that the woman was molested in East LA in 1946. Mahony was appointed Archbishop in 1985. The article makes no mention of any direct involvement by Mahony in this particular woman's case.)
Frankenlies.com: Al Franken debunked ...
TheMediaReport.com ...