The American Spectator

Reader Mail

p> IT'S OFFICIAL br> Re: Tod M. Tamberg's letter in Reader Mail's Spewing for Mahony : /p>

Tod M. Tamberg's response to George Neumayr's column concerning Cardinal Mahony must be taken seriously, since it clearly constitutes the archdiocese's official response from the Cardinal's press spokesman. Mr. Tamberg's flight of fancy therefore should cause all the more concern among the faithful regarding Cardinal Mahony, his diocese, and his press office.

Mr. Tamberg spews forth unfounded accusations of hatred against Mr. Neumayr: he alleges hatred of gays, of Vatican II, of contemporary Catholic education, of the liturgy in languages that people can understand, of the new cathedral, and of Cardinal Mahony. Mr. Tamberg's refuses to substantiate even one of these vile charges, and appears to believe that their mere mention should silence Mr. Neumayr and his "medieval" bedfellows. Is this "Catholic journalism" at its best? James Carville wouldn't even stoop to this simplistic bombast.

Moving right along, Mr. Tamberg further asserts that Mr. Neumayr's "column itself is so full of inaccuracies and falsehoods that it sets new, lower standards for journalistic irresponsibility."

Pardon me, but Mr. Tamberg does not identify a single one of those alleged "falsehoods." Nor does he address -- much less refute -- any of the serious and troubling events ably reported by Mr. Neumayr: that Cardinal Mahony opened "a chapel dedicated to honoring "victims of sexual abuse by priests," and invited the media to watch him pray at its opening, but none of the numerous victims abused under the Cardinal's watch; that the Cardinal harbored and protected Father Carl Sutphin, a known abuser and his former associate pastor at the cathedral, at his residence long after he knew of the man's transgressions; that the court set bail on Father Carl Sutphin at $200,000 because the Cardinal was known to protect abusers from the law, and thus Father Sutphin was a flight risk; that Cardinal Mahony is stonewalling prosecutors on dozens of abuse cases, arguing (according to the L.A. Times) "that he can't turn the files directly over to prosecutors because of privacy issues"; that Cardinal Mahony should be removed, a la Cardinal Bernard Law in Boston, and that Cardinal Mahony has engaged an expensive PR firm to mount a campaign against just such an action.

Mr. Tamberg addresses none of these serious points. Instead, as an official Catholic spokesman, he objectively breaks the Eighth Commandment -- "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness" -- in his letter, slandering Mr. Neumayr no fewer than seven times -- at least the number is biblical. He does this as an official of the Archdiocese. This is objectively scandalous and reprehensible, and clearly Mr. Tamberg should be removed for cause then Cardinal Mahony is.

p>Mr. Tamberg's letter hardly constitutes a response, since he makes up a hateful and lying pseudo-Neumayr to attack. In fact, he appears to be indulging in the same adolescent games that Mr. Neumayr describes as the Cardinal's repertoire. Hence, the Spectator should save appropriate space, should an archdiocesan official ever actually rise from Mr. Tamberg's gutter to address Mr. Neumayr's serious, well-stated, and well-grounded concerns. br> --

topics:
Education, Television, Business, Abortion, Law, Military, Unions