Insulting, California Catholic Daily [California], March 30, 2007

Insulting

California Catholic Daily [California]
March 30, 2007

http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=459832c8-8da5-4153-aadd-9f0fc35b2c47

Are Catholics — especially their clergy — predisposed to lie under oath? The Los Angeles archdiocese vs. the Los Angeles Times.

Are Catholics more likely to lie under oath? Yes, the March 26 Los Angeles Times seems to say.

Catholic clergy and religious, in particular, are a particularly cagey bunch, according to the Times, because they ascribe to the "doctrine" of mental reservation. Though admitting that mental reservation "is not sanctioned by canon law" and "is infrequently invoked," "in litigation arising from clergy sex abuse cases in the Los Angeles Archdiocese, at least half a dozen lawyers representing victims report having encountered it," the Times said.

Ira Zalkin, lawyer for alleged victims of clergy molestation, said he asked an elderly nun about mental reservation, and "she explained in her own way that it is 'to protect the church from scandal.'" Because of mental reservation, Zalkin said, "you really don't know" if a Catholic under oath is telling the truth. "It complicates that process when there is a doctrine that allows for a lie to avoid scandal to the church."

But, quoting Father Thomas Doyle, a canon law expert consulted by clergy-abuse victims' lawyers, the article asserts the doctrine has been used in modern times to "claim that it is morally justifiable to lie in order to protect the reputation of the institutional church."

Doyle said new cardinals vow never to tell secrets "the revelation of which could cause damage or dishonor to the Holy Church."

In a March 26 statement, the Los Angeles archdiocese took the Times to task for its story, calling it "insulting to Catholics." The story, said the archdiocese, "gives attorneys suing the Church over sexual abuse unchecked reign to define Church teaching and to assert that all bishops, priests, nuns and church employees are predisposed to lie under oath in order to protect the Church."

The newspaper, said the statement, should have consulted the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which forbids lying under oath. Mental reservation is not found in the Catechism — even Father Doyle "a priest who serves as an expert witness on behalf of" the lawyers the Times interviewed, "admits in the story that mental reservation is "not accepted church teaching," said the statement — which adds that the Times "apparently did not consult a moral theologian or expert in church law who was not connected with lawyers" suing the Church.

The Times story noted how lawyers will question clergy (Cardinal Mahony in particular) about mental reservation, only to have their lawyers tell them not to answer. The archdiocesan response acknowledged this, but said, because the lawyers think clergy cannot be trusted to tell the truth, the question "is not really a question at all. It is an unprofessional and insulting remark dressed up as a question."

And as for the oath cardinals take, the Times selectively paraphrased it, said the archdiocese, and "distort[ed] its true meaning." "The oath begins with a promise to live forever faithful 'to Christ and his Gospel,' and ends with a pledge to serve the Church 'in accord with the norms of the law,'" said the statement. "There is not one word to suggest that the cardinals be anything other than truthful under oath, as the Catechism plainly states."