The Cardinal Speaks, Friendly Fire, July 16, 2007

The Cardinal Speaks

Friendly Fire
July 16, 2007

http://www.insidesocal.com/friendlyfire/2007/07/the_cardinal_speaks.html

Los Angeles — Just got off the phone with Cardinal Roger Mahony. Below are my notes from the conversation:

On what he means when he says he's taking responsibility:

I found in visiting with victims that unless you accepted responsibility in the name of the Church for what happened to them, you cannot authentically offer them an apology. And as I met with many victims, most of whose cases, practically all, took place long before I came here .... (I saw the) need to take responsibility in the name the Church so that I can personally take responsibility.

I pressed him further: What is he taking responsibility for? What specifically did he do wrong?

That's not the issue ... for victims, they just need the official voice of the archbishop to say whatever happened to you shouldn't have happened. It's sinful, it's wrong, and I apologize.... I'm sorry what happened to you in the life of the church, and I apologize....

I tried to stress the difference between "I'm sorry about what's happened to you" versus "I'm sorry for what I have done." Isn't there an important difference between the two?

That's true, but that's not what (victims are) looking for. They would love to meet the offender and hear him say that. They're looking for an apology from the Church.

What about the victims who say his apology is inadequate?

I'm sorry, I really am. We'll continue to work closely with the victims. I've arranged that this morning again. Victims are all in a tad different place on their journey. Some are doing really very well, some have had good counseling and are very independent.... Some less so. Some are still having trouble. I don't expect everybody to say this is great....

What about the charge that the problem is a lack of discipline and orthodoxy in the seminaries?

Well, first of all that's one of the things that we still are studying. As you know, the bishops are conducting a study of causes.... In our case, many of the priests came out of the "good old days" — Latin-only, cassocks-only.... Most of our cases did not come out of post-Vatican II, they came out of pre-Vatican II.

Of course today, our screening process, our evaluation process, the fact that we take in older men, we don't take in guys out of high school or even grammar school — it's a whole different frame of reference for the process of choosing seminarians. There's psychological evaluation, constant monitoring. We do everything we can to make sure that the people being ordained don't have a problem.

On why he didn't call the police when he learned of abuses:

Unfortunately, in those times we just didn't do that as readily, we didn't understand the depth of the problem.... The McMartin trial was first time in the state of California that this whole issue came into the spotlight, into the light of day...

In those days we didn't think of it in those terms. We would send (offenders) to a licensed psychologist, psychiatrist, or therapist we knew and we told the police that if they discovered there really was an abuse that they would notify law enforcement....

On the perception that he "dragged his feet" about entering into a settlement:

This was an extremely complex case, in terms of offenders, plaintiffs, those that were being abused. Up until even a week ago we had list of John Doe 1 through 1,000 with no names. We ended up with a lot of wrong identifications. For example, "Fr. John," "Br. Steve," or "Br. Mike," that kind of thing. It took an enormous amount of time. A lot of people were on lists who had never been in that school or in that parish. ... And then there were the insurers. We have a lot of insurers, some of whom are out of business, some have been sold to someone else.... We had to hire a specialist to find out who the insurance company was....

On whether he had been trying to keep personnel files a secret:

(The files) have been in the hands of judges for years now. That wasn't the issue. The issue was which questions on those personnel files were privileged under California law, and which ones are not. ... (Now, if someone wants to see a file, he) petitions to review a file to (retired) Judge Pinelli (sp?), and he decides what is privileged under California law, and what is not. He is empowered to give (the files) over. We think that is a fair process. The plaintiffs think that's a fair process.

No personnel file belongs to me.... Rights to files belong to the employees, and therefore employees, or priests, if they want, they can raise objections.

About the perception that he was afraid to testify in trial:

Actually, in the trial that would have started today, (the priest) was very seriously ill when I came here in the end of '85, and ended up in a rest home somewhere in '86. He died in '87. I don't know anything about his conduct in those case, nothing. In fact, in almost all the cases set for trial, especially those involving religious orders, I don't even know who those people are. There's nothing about testifying that's frightening me. All I can say is, I wasn't here and I didn't know.

All in all, the Cardinal's comments seem to boil down to: I'm sorry people were hurt, but I didn't do anything wrong.

I can see why victims would find that unsatisfactory.