NEWS

ARTICLES

LETTERS

FOLLOW ME

ROAMIN' CATHOLIC






Contents © 2002
by Jim Holman.
All rights reserved.

NEWS
JULY/AUGUST 2002

---

"ANTI-CLERICALISM is now exploding on the U.S. scene from both the right and the left," warns the Reverend Tom Reese, editor of the Jesuit-run magazine America. "Bishops and priests have no choice but to listen humbly and respectfully to the laity."

According to the May 18 San Francisco Chronicle, Reese is not alone in his desire for more lay leadership in the Church; lay reform movements are popping up all across the country. In Contra Costa County nine parishes are spreading a petition that calls for laymen and clergy abuse victims to draft new policies for dealing with clergy sexual abuse. The petition also calls for "an independent system to monitor the implementation of the new policies and to hold leadership accountable."

"The only person they [the leadership] are accountable to is the pope, and he's being wheeled around in a wheelchair," said Linda Pieczynski, a former prosecutor and leader in Call to Action. Call to Action is one of several organizations which planned to present petitions to the United States bishops' meeting in Dallas in June.

Sister Shyrl McCormick, community relations director for the Sisters of Notre Dame in Saratoga, said, "this will not just blow over; people in the pews are waking up and taking responsibility. They can't go back into a passive stance."

"It's not just bishop to bishop, which could be the fox watching the henhouse," said Sister Barbara Flannery, chancellor for the diocese of Oakland. "Our finance committee is run by lay people." Having lay oversight of sexual abuse policies and procedures would, she said, "enable a diocese to restore some faith with their people."


TAKE OFF THOSE T-SHIRTS! On Monday, May 20, a group of mostly college-aged students on summer break walked across the Golden Gate Bridge to commence a 2,600 mile journey from San Francisco to Toronto for World Youth Day (July 18-28.) The marchers, from a group called Crossroads (affiliated with the American Life League), plan to pray at abortion clinics and speak at churches along the way to Toronto. As they crossed the bridge, two policemen stopped them. Jasmine Pomeroy, a marcher and the Respect Life program coordinator for the archdiocese of San Francisco witnessed the incident. "We were walking south to north, and got about halfway across the bridge," she said, "when two patrol cars and a tow truck pulled up alongside us, completely blocking the right lane of the bridge, which had been cut down to two lanes. Lieutenant Phillip Chong of Golden Gate Bridge Traffic Management instructed the group, en masse, to remove their shirts, which said 'Pro Life' on the front and featured an American Flag on the back." "You guys can't be wearing those t-shirts," Chong allegedly said. "You're a traffic obstruction, and if you cause an accident, you will be liable."

One of the students countered the demand by asking, "isn't this our First Amendment right?" According to Pomeroy, the officer then became visibly agitated and said that all the shirts had to come off and that one of the marchers had to come with him to Vista Point because, he said, "[I] don't believe you'll keep them off." Pomeroy volunteered and rode across the bridge. After obtaining the name of the officer, she then contacted the Golden Gate Bridge Authority to explain the incident. Karey Witt, deputy general manager of the bridge division, immediately apologized for the incident, and said the officer was "overzealous."

Asked if a lawsuit is pending, Pomeroy replied, "I believe [Witt] was so apologetic on the phone because he was worried about a lawsuit. He openly admitted that our First Amendment rights were violated. But at this time, a lawsuit would only be pursued by the American Life League." Adam Redmon, director of Crossroads, was quoted by an unnamed source as saying, "America is pro-life, and pro-life Americans should not be targeted for discrimination, especially in the San Francisco Bay Area, where the right to free expression is held in high regard." Redmon has also indicated that the group plans legal action in order to curb future acts of discrimination.

In retrospect, Pomeroy said, "I was astonished that a pro-life activism is so intolerable in San Francisco, which prides itself as one of the most, if not the most, liberal cities in the world."


IN AN ATTEMPT to make their campus a safer place and to encourage student bonding, Aptos High School held a day-long seminar called "Breaking Down the Walls," according to the April 12 Santa Cruz Sentinel. The seminar's most controversial exercise, "Crossing the Line," encouraged students to answer questions of ever increasing intimacy: is a student a good kisser? Has he used an illegal drug? Is he currently sexually active? Does he have an immediate family member addicted to drugs? Has the student ever contemplated or attempted suicide?

Such questions are "nobody's business but yours and your confessor's," parent Susan McLaughlin told the Sentinel. "Most parents, if they knew the questions being asked, they would be horrified." In conducting the seminar, school officials failed to adhere to district policy requiring materials to be available for parental viewing two weeks in advance. School district policy also mandates that parents sign permission slips prior to student participation in programs where controversial topics are discussed.

Christine Amato Quinn, Pajaro Valley Unified School District assistant superintendent, said that the failure to follow district policy was an oversight caused by a shuffle in school staff. The seminar was booked a year in advance, and the date coincided with a transition between activity directors. "It won't happen again," Quinn said, adding that parental concerns about the questions also would be addressed before the seminar next year.

Aptos High School activity director Sam Edwards was not available for comment.


WHAT'S THE "C" IN CHW? According to a May 17 Los Angeles Times article, Catholic Healthcare West does not limit its services to Roman Catholics, does not have a chaplaincy or chapel, does not sponsor or conduct religious services of any kind, and does not display any religious symbols -- anywhere. The California Supreme Court, however, recently backed the medical center's decision to fire a clerk who preached Christian views, saying that such organizations as Catholic Healthcare West have the right under the First Amendment to "define themselves and their religious message" and may fire workers for "objectionable religious speech."

Terence Silo, a "born again" Christian, was fired from his job as a file clerk at the Catholic Healthcare West Medical Foundation in Sacramento for trying to "save souls" while on the clinic's premises. A hospital "termination paper" said Silo was being let go because of "soul saving on clinic premises." Catholic Healthcare West, however, denies firing Silo for religious reasons, but because of his work performance.

Silo sued for wrongful termination and initially won on the grounds that the state constitution prohibits religious discrimination. The court heard that, in January 1993, a fellow employee had complained that Silo told her not "to use the name of God in vain," and a patient objected that Silo had been "preaching" to him. The court also recounted that Catholic Healthcare West managers had admonished Silo, and told him he was not to use the word "God ... unless it's off the clock." A superior court jury awarded Silo damages and attorney fees, and a state court of appeal upheld the awards on the grounds that the state constitution bars religious discrimination in the workplace.

On May 16, however, the state high court threw out the lawsuit. The court ruled that religious institutions cannot be held liable for discriminating against employees on the basis of religion.

Anthony Poidmore, who represented Silo, said he welcomed the court's ruling for giving "more clear protection to what I term legitimately religious employers." But he objected to the fact that Catholic Healthcare West was protected by its religious affiliation because, he said, it is really a secular institution.

Because of its Catholic affiliation the organization is exempt from state taxation; but Catholic Healthcare West would not return our calls to confirm in what way they are, indeed, Catholic.


THE ARCHDIOCESE OF SAN FRANCISCO has turned over to the San Francisco district attorney records detailing cases of possible clergy sexual abuse, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. On April 9, district attorney Terrence Hallinan asked Archbishop William Levada to turn over 75 years worth of records involving any alleged sexual abuse of minors by priests or other Church employees. The San Francisco archdiocese has paid $5.2 million, through insurance, for cases involving clergy sexual misconduct.


ALTHOUGH BISHOP SYLVESTER RYAN has claimed that the Monterey diocese has for the most part escaped sexual misconduct scandals, the diocese has quietly settled some lawsuits involving sexual misconduct, according to the May 5 Monterey Herald. In most cases, clerical defendants have denied the allegations, and victims filed no criminal charges. Most cases ended with undisclosed financial settlements. In April, Bishop Ryan (who became bishop of Monterey in 1992) said there had been no such settlements during his tenure.

However, the Herald reported that, according to court records and interviews with people involved with the court cases, the diocese paid money to settle lawsuits filed in 1994 and 2000. After the Herald uncovered the cases, Bishop Ryan stated, "no one has violated anyone in any way that is a crime." Ryan stressed that out-of-court settlements "don't happen because the diocese is trying to hide something, but because the insurance companies don't want it to go to court."


AMONG THE CASES involving out of court settlements between alleged victims and the Monterey diocese is that of Father Mike Marini, who served at Resurrection Church in Aptos and Holy Cross in Santa Cruz, and of Father Joseph Watt, formerly of St. Joseph Catholic Church in Capitola. In a 1985 civil suit, a man, who said he had turned to Marini and Watt for help with an alcohol problem, accused the priests of "plying" him with alcohol or marijuana and then "encouraging and causing" him to take part in sexual activities while under the influence. Marini does not deny a sexual encounter with plaintiff Gary Crabtree, but claims the liaison was consensual. He blames Crabtree's lawyers for the alleged lies in the suit. The case was settled out of court because Marini "wanted to get the whole damn thing over with."

Marini left Resurrection parish for Holy Cross the same year the complaint against him was filed. Another sexual harassment suit was filed in civil courat against Marini while he was at Holy Cross in the early 90s. Though he denies having any sexual relations with the plaintiff, Marini said he did not fight the charges in court because did not have the emotional strength and feared an anti-gay backlash. The case against him was settled out of court. Marini retired last year at age 70.

In another case, Father Bernardo Soares, formerly of Our Lady Help of Christians in Watsonville, was named in a civil suit in 1994 by former parish secretary, Dona French, who said she overheard Soares having sex with another priest. Concerned that she had overheard, Father Soares, alleged French, became verbally abusive and shoved her against a counter in the rectory kitchen in 1992. She was also concerned about an altar boy, who spent a lot of time with Soares unsupervised in his apartment. French claimed that the diocese terminated her employment in 1993 in retaliation for speaking out. According to French the case was settled out of court, but she did not disclose the sum.

In a third case within the Monterey diocese, Father Paul Valdez was accused of molesting an 11-year old girl. Valdez's attorney calls the allegations "unfounded" and states, "because of the problems of the church, everybody raises a jaundiced eye ... its absolutely unsubstantiated." Information about the outcome of the case was not available by press time. A fourth case concerned one Anthony Thomas Falco of Santa Cruz, who posed as a wandering Franciscan monk so he could perform volunteer work with teenagers. Falco, who had volunteered as a youth worker at St. Joseph's church in Capitola, allegedly molested two teenage boys while the three were on a religious pilgrimage to Bosnia.


QUINN ON SIN. In the May 27 edition of the Jesuit magazine, America, San Francisco's former archbishop, John Quinn, offered his insights on how the Church should proceed in the context of the Church's ongoing molestation scandal.

According to Quinn, unless the Church addresses the "deeper questions" underlying the current crisis, it will fail to solve them. Quinn himself fails to address what those "deeper questions" might be, but he does go on to make a few suggestions. First, Quinn declares that the scandal is not purely American, but world-wide. He then rejects the notion that returning to stricter discipline is a solution because many of the sexual offenders were trained in seminaries that had such a discipline. (He does not mention that such discipline typically has not continued after men leave the seminary.) The call for stricter discipline, he indicates, is a "narrow perspective" that "cannot respond to the grave crisis we now experience."

Quinn calls for a national binding policy on sexual molestation. Each of the bishops would be responsible not only to the pope, but to his fellow bishops, as, Quinn says, has been the case throughout Church history. Episcopal conferences, said Quinn, are a "critical factor" for the Church to function properly in the modern world. Quinn believes that calling only the cardinals to Rome to discuss crises weakens the national episcopal conferences, since it implies that the cardinals alone will be responsible for formulating the solution that the rest of the bishops must accept and implement.

Quinn further calls for a stronger lay involvement in the Church and recommends that the laity take part in the June meeting of the United States Catholic bishops in Dallas. Quinn believes also that a national committee of lay Catholic men and women should be formed to examine the Church's present crisis and to create a plan for addressing it. He said this would be consistent with the Church's teaching on the laity's right to express their opinions in public.


TEACHERS, COME ON OUT! An April 10 resolution passed by the Hayward Unified School District will allow teachers and other school personnel to "come out" to students during instructional time, according to a press release issued by the Pacific Justice Institute. According to Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute, "the rationale behind this resolution is to promote tolerance and sensitivity towards homosexuals." But what of "tolerance and sensitivity" towards others? Here, says Dacus, lies the resolution's failure: "the policy on its face reeks with intolerance towards parents whose values are different from those of the school board," he said.

Parents of children in the Hayward school district are concerned about the effects of this resolution on their children. According to Brad Dacus, the resolution is a direct result of legislation passed last year by capitol Democrats and signed by Governor Davis. The homosexual lobby as well as the California Teachers Association urged the passage of the California Student Safety and Violence Prevention Act because of concerns that homosexual youth did not have specific remedies against discrimination and violence in the California education code. Critics of the bill charge that, under the guise of "safety," the homosexual lifestyle is being pushed on the schoolchildren of the state of California.

"The school board has adopted a resolution that allows teachers and school staff to openly talk about homosexuality and discuss their own homosexual lifestyles with students during classroom instructional time," said Dacus. "In addition, teachers are allowed to include various homosexual figures in their instruction and to read books with homosexual characters, such as Heather Has Two Mommies. Under the board's resolution, neither schools nor teachers are obligated to provide prior notice to parents, nor are parents given an opportunity to opt their children out of the 'instruction.'"

Kim Hammond of the Hayward Unified School district told the Faith that the resolution does not advocate homosexuality. "The training is for teachers and staff members and not so much for the students," she said. "This is not about homosexuality, it's about not isolating gay or lesbian students." Hammond did not answer the question, would parents be allowed to opt their children out of the "coming out" process?

Dacus said that several parents are currently exploring their legal options. "We are willing to challenge this in court," he said. "This resolution attempts to circumvent the rights of parents and the school district can expect a legal challenge."


HOMESCHOOLING ILLEGAL? "We are the agency that administers the education code," said Carolyn Pirillo, staff attorney for the California department of education. She was responding to inquiries about a series of memoranda, some originating with the Sonoma County office of education, that are being sent to some home schooling families in California. The documents, which state that home schooling is illegal in California, are creating confusion among home schooling families. Pirillo said that it is the opinion of the California department of education that home schooling is illegal in California unless the child is tutored by a certified schoolteacher or attends a full time private school.

The Virginia-based Home School Legal Defense Association, an advocacy group for home schooled students and their parents, argues that Pirillo and the California department of education are discriminatory. "It's an interesting philosophy," said Home School Legal Defense Association president Mike Smith of the department of education's position. "They are saying that the only home schooling that is allowed in California is one that is under their control." Smith said that Pirillo has been sending out memos to families who inquire about home schooling since the mid-90s. The memos always tell parents that home schooling is illegal in California unless it is done through the public school system.

As evidence that home schooling is not illegal in California, Smith pointed out the fact that home schooling families in California are not prosecuted by district attorneys for truancy. Pirillo, though, cites the lack of legal knowledge by district attorneys as the reason for their lack of interest in home schooling families. Smith however counters that district attorneys do not prosecute "because they know the law."

The memos from Sonoma County are not the only source of confusion. On the California department of education's web site, California Superintendent for Public Instruction Delaine Eastin warns that home schooling is illegal in California. "Under California law," writes Eastin, "a 'home school' is not a private school, nor is it otherwise recognized as a lawful alternative to public school, and no services can be provided to children who are being home schooled. In California, 'home schooling' -- a situation where non-credentialed parents teach their own children exclusively, at home, whether using a correspondence course or other types of courses -- is not an authorized exemption from mandatory public school attendance. Furthermore, a parent's filing of the affidavit required of private schools does not transform that parent into a private school."

A review of the California education code sections cited by Eastin shows that they do not say that home schooling is illegal in California. For instance, while the education code states that all children between the ages of six and 18 are subject to compulsory education laws, it acknowledges that students may attend private schools in order to satisfy compulsory education laws. The code says that private school personnel must be "capable of teaching," and gives parents the option of employing a private tutor to teach their children. Tutors must be credentialed in order to teach students who are not their own children.

The Eastin memo also refers to two court cases, one from 1958 and the other from 1961, as proof that home schooling is illegal in California. When asked if there were any more recent cases, Pirillo said, "these are venerable cases and have withstood the test of time".

Homeschool Legal Defense Association's Smith says that one of these court cases is "of no value at all" to Eastin and Pirillo and does not carry any weight, as it is a superior court case. The other case, said Smith, actually supports contemporary home schooling as the court found the parents were not actually teaching their children themselves but were relying solely on a correspondence course.

Pirillo said that many families erroneously assume that by filing an affidavit with the county department of education they are creating a private school. "Nothing can be further from the truth. Filing an affidavit does not make a parent into a private school," said Pirillo.

When asked why, in spite of the department of education's position that home schooling is illegal, there were so many home schoolers, Pirillo said that often times "its ignorance of the law and many just don't care." Pirillo also noted that often district attorneys do not have the expertise necessary to prosecute home schooling families.

The memoranda from Sonoma County may offer clues as to why public schools and the California department of education are eager to scare home schooling families into the public schools. In a March 1, 2002 memo directed to district superintendents, Cindy Johnson, project director of Safe Schools for the Sonoma County office of education, tells her readers that "in recent conversations with a new consultant in the [California department of education's Policy and Program Coordination Unit], it was agreed that Sonoma County would no longer provide forms to parents who applied for a private school exemption in order to home school their children. Instead, the Sonoma County Office of Education will supply parents with a list of "independent/home study programs available through the Sonoma County school district."

Johnson did not return calls for comment.


JESUIT PRIEST, EDWARD THOMAS BURKE, has pleaded guilty to committing a lewd act on a dependent adult, according to the Santa Clara County district attorney's office. Father Burke, 80, was the assistant librarian at the Jesuit's Los Gatos headquarters, where he repeatedly sodomized and sexually assaulted a 51-year old developmentally disabled man who was employed as a dishwasher. A May 23 press release issued by the district attorney's office states that the "charged offense took place between January 1998 and April 2000."

A ten-million-dollar civil lawsuit is pending against Burke, west coast provincial Father Thomas Smolich and the Jesuit order. The suit alleges that abuse of the victim, John Doe, occurred when Burke would visit Doe's room with the pretense of watching his train videos. According to the San Jose Mercury Sun newspaper, Burke admitted molesting Doe to his superiors at Los Gatos, who did not report the abuse to police. When law enforcement officials began to investigate allegations of sexual abuse by Father Burke, he was then transferred to Bellarmine Jesuit prep school in San Jose by his Jesuit superiors. The school had not been notified of the allegations against Burke.

The Santa Clara County deputy district attorney, Benjamin Field, who prosecuted the Burke case, told the Faith that he is happy with the outcome. "I think it's a benefit to the victim and the victim's family," he said." Fields confirmed that Burke will be required to register as a sex offender. When asked if Burke's whereabouts were known to law enforcement officials, Fields replied, "he's out on bail [$50,000]; there are strong reasons not to flee."

Burke is scheduled to appear at a sentencing hearing on June 28. He is facing up to three years in prison. Burke is currently housed at an undisclosed location and could not be reached for comment.

Father Smolich told the Faith that he would not comment on the Burke case and noted that each case is handled on an individual basis. When asked if Burke would be defrocked, Father Smolich declined to comment.


DESPITE CALIFORNIA'S ECONOMIC PROSPERITY in the 90s, the number of poor families in the state continued to rise, said a May 22 San Francisco Chronicle story. According to 2000 census figures, poverty increased throughout the state, especially in the Central Valley and the Los Angeles area. While, in 1989, one in eleven California families were defined as living in poverty, by 1999 the percentage of poor families increased to one in ten. The census defined poverty as $17,463 a year for a family of four.

In the Bay Area, however, family poverty rates fell throughout the 90s. Some of these families benefited from dot com prosperity, but others, because of higher costs of living, were forced to move out of the area. "We clearly had a great economy, but a lot of low-income families were squeezed out of the region," Deborah Reed, an economist with the San Francisco think-tank, Public Policy Institute of California, told the Chronicle. "The data show a lot of movement from the Bay Area to northern San Joaquin County. Many of them now commute to jobs they left behind in the Bay Area." While the number of poor families increased by one percent or less in Napa, Solano, and Marin (mainly because of immigration), the number dropped by less than a percent in other Bay Area counties. In San Francisco, the number dropped by two percent.

The high cost of rent in the Bay Area seriously increases the burden poor families shoulder. Average rents in Marin County are $1,500 to $1,800 a month for a two-bedroom apartment, according to the Chronicle. Sandy Ponek, who has worked with immigrants in San Rafael's Canal area for 15 years, told the Chronicle that "three families in a two-bedroom apartment is normal around here." Though, during the 90s, unemployment was down, many people worked in the service industry where their wages could not keep up with the cost of living. Whether conditions might be worse, given the current recession, is unknown, since the census collected its information in 1999.

TOP