An official spokesman’s cardinal sins. Plus: Weighing Hillary Lite. Fiber news flows. Plus much more.
Re: Tod M. Tamberg’s letter in Reader Mail’s Spewing for Mahony:
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.
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
— Christopher Manion
Front Royal, VA
Readers would really appreciate Tamberg’s presenting us with
Neumayr’s inaccuracies and falsehoods.” In the light of the
Archdiocese of Los Angeles’ track record, we have little reason at
all to trust Tamberg’s assertions. No, it is going to take a lot
more than Tamberg’s mud-slinging to convince anyone with a brain
cell left operating in his head that things are really different in
Los Angeles. Castigating Neumayr may make Tamberg feel better and
divert attention away from the swelling scandal in LA, but one can
only wish such outrage had focused on the many predators that have
lurked, under protection, in the Archdiocese. Yes, anger at the
evil of ecclesiastical corruption and gross incompetence would be
much more understandable than such a temper tantrum, as is
Tamberg’s, aimed at a journalist who has the guts to write what
most of us are thinking, what is so obviously the truth….
— Ray Williams
I was “delighted” to read Mr. Tamberg’s reply to George Neumayr because that means his eminence reads the Prowler and George’s efforts are not in vain.
I have read Mr. Neumayr’s columns for months now and do not get the same reaction as Mr. Tamberg.
I do not think George hates gays. He disapproves of their sexual activity as all good Catholics should. As a consequence of that disapproval we are bound as Catholics not to encourage such behavior by allowing “getting to know you socials” at colleges, homosexual dormitories (you get the picture) also most of us 96% of the current population are heterosexual and would prefer our kindergartners not be exposed to the more troublesome aspects of society via “Heather Has Two Mommies” etc. (usually called the homosexual agenda).
Vatican II many of us know has been seized upon by those who want to change fundamental dogma to suit their own purposes. Nowhere in Vatican II does it say to espouse the homosexual lifestyle or to say Mass as the “do it yourselfers” are indulging in at this time.
Catholic education in the United States has strayed far from its original intent and inspired Rome to issue ex ecclesiae corde, unless Mr. Tamberg thinks they were “bumping their gums” for nothing. Witness the number (a lot of them Jesuit institutions, I might add) that gave a forum to “The Vagina Monologues” and pro-abortion commencement speakers. (I had correspondence with Mr. Tamberg on this latter subject as the Sanchez sisters spoke at Mt. Saint Mary’s in Los Angeles, an unaffiliated Catholic college. Mr. Tamberg did a Pontius Pilate routine and said the cardinal had no jurisdiction over this school. One of the Sanchez sisters promptly returned to Washington to introduce a bill to allow abortions at military installations.)…
Cardinal Mahony is simply indefensible. Any ordinary citizen
with his record would be in jail if only for the perjury he
committed in Fresno, but of course the list goes on and on. It’s
only a matter of time, Mr. Tamberg, only a matter of time.
— Annette Cwik
I sent the following e-mail to Tod Tamberg, media director for the Archdiocese of L.A.:
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
H/T to National Review Online