AmericanPapist Comments
He's a prince of the Church... In all things charity.
I'm not sure exactly how the truth is being spoken uncharitably in this situation..?
I don't think speculation is "truth." It is a hatchet job, though. Next thing we'll see, this Diogenes person will say that Cardinal George faked his cancer to get sympathy after he admitted to mishandling a pedophile priest.
I don't see the two cases you mention as at all similar. The only thing Diogenes is "speculating" about are the publically-given facts, which themselves cast doubt on the cardinal's claim. This is rather straightforward deductive reason in action: "both a, and b, and not a and not b can all be true at the same time."
And I think it's harmful for a Cardinal to expect his priests to swallow a contradicting story like he laid out. It's not they don't already have enough to deal with.
fair?
It seems like Diogenes is simply taking what is known and just throwing up a whole unsubstantiated theory. Is it that unreasonable to think a cardinal would mail his own mail? As for hospital records, I'm not certain just how public those are. If that is a matter of public record, then I can see that being an issue of concern. I'd also like to know if he was actually hospitalized or simply went and got looked at and was out of there in an hour or so. If he's not in his clerics, it's more than possible someone might recognize him. Hospitals are busy places, you know. And so he didn't report the assault to the police? Lots of victims of crime don't. No conspiracy there. The cardinal probably had, at worst, some bruised ribs that made things uncomfortable for him. That's not really something a congregation at the cathedral would notice unless they're looking for it. It's not like walking with a limp. As for him not telling his clergy, I again don't know how often the LA clergy convene, but perhaps October was the first time since the incident and he used the opportunity to explain it to them. Unless others know facts and aren't bothering to share them with the rest of us, I think I just put forth pretty reasonable possibilities for the shroud of secrecy--no less reasonable than Diogenes', anyway.
I'm not defending Mahony just to defend him. If someone thought it was their responsibility to cast doubt on my own bishop, I'd have a problem with that, too. I'm willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to Mahony just as I would people I personally know and respect.
I meant to say in the first paragraph that it's more than possible that someone might NOT recognize him.
Please, folks, give the Cardinal a break. I saw him this summer and he was indeed a bit bruised and scratched about the face and arms. The incident happened right during the delicate stage of settlement negotiations when publicizing something like an assault on the Cardinal by a victim could have derailed a process that was already incredibly byzantine and contentious. The Cardinal did what any prudent person in those circumstances would do who understood that the attacker was not a danger to the public generally: keep quiet.
As for the priests who told their versions to the papers -- let's just say that some heard more than what was said. No hospitalization occurred.
Finally, to those who are incredulous about Cardinal Mahony's walking to mailbox by himself, it should be no surprise at all. During the Cathedral pastor's sabbatical, the Cardinal would walk the pastor's dog in the neighborhood. Cardinal Mahony may be a prince of the Church, but in L.A. the only people who behave like royalty are the politicians, television, sports and movie stars.
There are three possibilities:
1) Cardinal Mahoney was assaulted.
2) Cardinal Mahoney was not assaulted but has had a mental breakdown and truly believes he was assaulted.
3) Cardinal Mahoney was not assaulted and deliberately lied.
The problem with possibility # 1 is that, when an assault victim checks into a hospital ER, the hospital will notify the police, whether the victim want them notified or not. I guess it's possible that the hospital staff would honor a cardinal's request that the police not be called, but, as a police officer, I strongly doubt it. In some states, it is mandatory for a hospital to notify the police when a crime victim checks in. Even if it were not mandatory, they would open themselves up to an awful lot of liability if they didn't call the police and the victim took a turn for the worse or were attacked again.
I wanted to leave a comment on the CWN site, but I wasn't able to since I'm not a subscriber. So I'll comment here, even though this comment is really directed at that story, and not so much at Thomas's blog post:
I am just as frustrated by many things that Cardinal Mahoney has done and not done as many orthodox Catholics are. However, I think that we have to be very careful in accusing someone of lying, when such accusations are based on mere speculation, even if that speculation seems logical. And I think that Diogenes' post may have crossed the line in this regard. I would suggest that we keep in mind paragraph #2477 of the Catechism:
2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:
- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
- of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them;
- of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.
This particular paragraph of the Catechism is one that I think many people have a hard time following from time to time, especially when discussing things on the internet. I certainly have had my own struggles with it.
Paul,
I'm not convinced this hits the 2477 wall. Bill's post lays out the reasons why.
Objective consideration of the facts is very troubling.
jmj
bill 912: there's a subset of your choice # 1: The cardinal was assaulted and did not go to the hospital. That is actually what he says happened. And although I would in charity hesitate to accuse others of engaging in calumny, in this case I find it saddening that otherwise sensible people would choose to accept contradictory remarks made by priests to reporters for the L.A. Times (hardly a bastion of solid fact checking) rather than what the assault victim himself reports.
As I understand the facts presented by the LA Times, the Cardinal did indeed go to the hospital.
Commenting by HaloScan
