Posted on 12/05/2006 12:32:44 PM PST by Alex Murphy
What did he know and when did he know it? Reporters, plaintiff attorneys, the DA, the grand jury, insurance companies, victim advocacy groups and victims themselves all want a look at Cardinal Mahony's archdiocesan files. He's been outstandingly nimble in avoiding disclosure. Herewith a brief overview of his moves.
November 2003. Citing a First Amendment right to freedom of religion, Mahony's lawyers claim it's "a simple matter of law" that the priest-penitent privilege extends to priest-superior communications. We read: "Lawyers for the archdiocese said Cardinal Roger Mahony had favored openness, but his legal advisers had overruled him."
January 2004. Mahony's lawyer Michael Hennigan asserts a "formation privilege" between a bishop and his priests, stemming from a bishop's ecclesiastical duty to provide a lifetime of formative spiritual guidance to his clergy.
March 2004. Asked about why legal experts had never heard of the "formation privilege," Attorney Hennigan answered, "Because it doesn't exist. I used the phrase once, a year and a half ago, in a different context, and discarded it." Then why continue to withhold the archdiocesan records? Because it would be illegal to do so, as they are the subject of court proceedings. "Even if we decided it is in the best interest of the church to distribute these documents, we could not do so. It is prohibited by law."
January 2005. Attorney Hennigan claims disclosure would "breach" the priest-bishop relationship and thus "would be a grave interference with the practice of Catholicism."
January 2005. The files aren't sacred after all. Attorney Hennigan claims the insurance companies suing to see the records "have full access to the files ... They are supposed to be on our side."
Spring 2005 The Archdiocese announces its willingness to make "proffers" -- i.e., summaries of contents of priests' personnel files -- available on its website. Was the sacrosanct nature of the priest-bishop privilege respected? The priests didn't think so. Attorneys for the priests attempted to block the proffers in the California Court of Appeal and later the state Supreme Court.
March 2005. Mahony insists, "The files are not going to be released publicly, no matter what happens." Asked why the fight to without the records, if they don't contain incriminating information, he answered, "Because it's the principle, the privilege. You've got to keep in mind the priests involved -- it's their files. The priests have protection under the California Evidence Code."
July 2005. Ordered by an appellate court to comply with grand jury subpoenas personnel records of two priests, Archdiocesan attorney Donald Woods said he hoped a higher court would take a different view of the priest-penitent privilege and allow three-way communications between the bishop, his vicar and an accused priest to fall within it. "It's like having two priests in the confessional instead of one," he said.
December 2006. Mahony argued that he can't release the files because a priest owns his own file, and state law forbids disclosure without the priests' consent. "If I took someone's file and released privileged information, I could be sued," he said. "The argument isn't with me, it's between the priests who own the files and the plaintiffs and the judges."
In sum, to make the Archdiocesan records public violates the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, the priest-penitent privilege, the formation privilege, the California Evidence Code, Grand Jury confidentiality requirements, the priest-bishop bond, and the priest's property rights. And the employees of Archdiocesan insurance companies have full access. Clear, I hope?
There is no such thing as "priest-bishop" privilege or "formation privilege" or any such rot.
And using a sacrament as a tool to avoid worldly consequences is simoniacal.
There are reasons why Mahony is the least-respected prelate in Catholic America.
Wit h the ugliest church.
This is in a little-known codicil to canon law called the "Mahony Appendix" [rolls eyes].
Gee, who knew there was an exception to the seal of the confessional for insurance companies?
Golly, if one were inclined to freep to a conclusion, one might conclude the Cardinal has something of substance to conceal. Perhaps it's not just the principle.
Well, the settlements have been done on the cases that took place when Mahony was in charge. Nobody's gonna be lookin' at those personnel files.
I think that's the least of Mahony's problems. He has publicly and from the pulpit urged people to encourage, aid, and give sanctuary to illegals. He's also denounced Sensenbrenner and the House immigration bill. His archdiocese should lose tax exempt status if he engages in secular partisan politics as well as abetting illegal activity. This isn't hearsay - CNN has his whole rant on several film clips.
You must have gotten a F in theology.
His archdiocese should lose tax exempt status if he engages in secular partisan politics as well as abetting illegal activity.
And an F in constitutional law as well.
You are too ignorant to give a grade in either category. The Supreme Court in a 1943 stare decisis decision ruled that "according to tax law, religious organizations which receive tax exemptions as charitable trusts can not directly or by implication affect political campaigns and must avoid statements about individual candidate."
You don't know enough to assess my fitness to grade you.
The Supreme Court in a 1943 stare decisis decision ruled that "according to tax law, religious organizations which receive tax exemptions as charitable trusts can not directly or by implication affect political campaigns and must avoid statements about individual candidate."
Clergy, like all other Americans, are free to criticize legislation they disagree with.
You don't get to remove their tax exemption because you don't like Mexicans.
Judging from you "about" section perhaps you first learn to spell before you pontificate.
Even if I had misspelled anything on my about page, this would be a pathetically trivial point to make.
However, you should note that the only misspelling on my about page is in a direct quote from Servantofthe9 - I have reproduced his original words verbatim without correcting them.
Does this yawning gap in your reading comprehension surprise me?
I have to say: not really.
Now that's the most charitable thing I ever heard said about the man.
Sure - the old "I was quoting somebody else" line. You and Mahony think alike. The point about the Court case eludes you despite your great comprehension.
Hint: Knock off the personal attacks
It's a precise quote.
I cannot help it if you do not know what the symbol " means.
This refers to campaigns for public office, i.e. by individuals who are running for an elected position. It does not bar speaking out for or against proposed legislation, proposed ballot initiatives, etc.
There are dozens of legitimate and serious reasons to criticize Mahony, as I have also done on this FR forum. He is not, however, violating his tax status if, however unwisely, he speaks out against proposed legislation. His political unwisdom for opposing Sensenbrenner has been hashed out plenty on FR.
Actually, Mahony not only condemned the House legislation but personally attacked Sensenbrenner and urged his defeat. This is not subject to interpretation because Lou Dobbs showed a film clip of him making these statements in his cathedral. By the way, several tax attorneys on that program said it clearly violated the rules governing charitable tax exemption. At the very least we should have a trial to clarify the matter.
I stand corrected. You're right. Doing what you describe, he clearly overstepped the legal bounds. This needs to be clarified-- if necessary, by trial ---so the matter can be resolved in public.
Bump for lalter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.