2002 LETTERS
December
November
October
September
July/August
June
May
April
March
February
January

Little Notes

Confessions
Talk About Movies
Roamin' Catholic
Follow Me




Contents © 2002
by Jim Holman.
All rights reserved.

MAY 2002 LETTERS

---

After sitting through Mass on Palm Sunday, I felt so sorry for our priests who were forced to defend a bishop who hides behind his bureaucrats and blames the victims when his reputation is at stake. Anything in the area of $100K is certainly more than "insurance". Bishops never give money away unless something is at stake. Retractions? Heck every abuse settlement has one with a gag order to boot, so these guys can protect their precious jobs.

We complain to the bishop about the sissy priests he puts in charge of our parishes, about hiding Jesus in our churches, and about the lousy education in our Catholic schools and he is silent. But let one story hit the press that questions his past and the diocesan information machine goes into overdrive. If he really doesn't want to listen to us and if he really doesn't want to talk to us and if he really just wants to show up for confirmation, tell a few jokes and ride back to the safety of his seminary hideout, why doesn't he just quit and let someone take over who will lead us?

Damien Slattery
Escondido


I THROW IT AWAY

I find it appalling the trash your paper has dug up on Bishop Brom. You come off as so cheap and petty. This is a time for us as Catholics to deal with the real problems facing the church not dredge up false accusations from the past. You hurt the church way more than you help it. Please don't send me your paper anymore. I throw it away without reading it anyway. I'm not opposed to their being a watchdog group for our local church, but this goes way over the line of good sense and fair play. Shame on your paper.

John Sawaya, via e-mail

Editor: News Notes did not dig up or print the accusations against Bishop Brom printed in the Union-Tribune on March 21, though we had been aware of them for years. The following chronology may help:

February 14, 2002: News Notes reporter Robert Kumpel, attempting to take photo of diocesan official Mary Ann Fallon, accidentally steps on her shoe. Mr. Kumpel apologizes profusely.

February 21: March edition of News Notes appears with photograph of Ms. Fallon, the central figure in article on the tabernacle controversy at St. Mary's church in Escondido.

February 26: Diocese attorneys file suit against Kumpel (but not against News Notes), asking for a temporary restraining order, alleging that Mr. Kumpel "has engaged in threatening and aggressive behavior toward Ms. Fallon."

February 27 (approx.): Jim Holman writes diocesan attorney explaining that Mr. Kumpel apologized for the unfortunate accident and suggesting the incident be handled informally. (There is no answer to this offer.)

March 12: As part of Kumpel's legal response to the diocese suit, Mark Brooks, former seminarian at St. Francis seminary, signs declaration detailing Bishop Brom's statements about News Notes over the years to him. Included at the end of the Brooks declaration were references to incidents involving the bishop in Minnesota.

March 13: Diocese cancels the court hearing on the restraining order. Kumpel and his attorney meet with diocese attorneys at pastoral center. Attorneys agree to meet in three weeks to discuss further. Kumpel's attorney offers to seal Brooks declaration, but there is no response.

March 21: Without any contact by or knowledge of Holman, Kumpel, or Kumpel's attorney, San Diego Union-Tribune publishes story about Minnesota allegations.


MEDIA FRENZY?

Editor: the following letter was sent on March 29 to the editor of the Southern Cross.

I was named in your last issue as one who exploited "an atmosphere of media frenzy" to re-surface allegations about Bishop Brom.

I have known of the sex allegations against Bishop Brom for over five years, but I haven't been convinced they were true. So I've never pursued or published them. And when reporters for the Boston Globe and Los Angeles Times asked me in mid-March about them, I told them I didn't think there was a story there. The Union-Tribune ran the story without any contact or help from me or my staff. If they had called me I would have said the same thing I had said to the Globe and Times.

Sincerely,

Jim Holman
Editor, San Diego News Notes


DEFENSE OF BROOKS DECLARATION

Editor: the following letter was printed in the San Diego Union-Tribune on April 13 after an op-ed story by Vincent Whelan ran on April 7 disparaging the Mark Brooks declaration.

There has been a concerted campaign by the Office of the Bishop of San Diego to publically denigrate all persons involved in opposing the Bishop in the lawsuit entitled, The Bishop of San Diego v. Robert Kumpel. I represent Mr. Kumpel in the lawsuit. While it is against my policy to "try cases" in the media, I am compelled to respond to the falsehoods and vicious attacks made against Mark Brooks, a witness in the case. Preliminarily, for the record, the Editor of the San Diego Union Tribune ("SDUT") refers to the Brooks' declaration as "the News Notes affidavit." News Notes is not a party to the lawsuit and did not submit the Brooks' declaration to the court.

In a recent letter-to-the-editor, Vincent E. Whelan, the former attorney for the Bishop, "put his reputation and integrity on the line for the sake of the truth." (April 7, 2002, Letter to the Editor). Like Mr. Whelan, I will not discuss the details of the Brooks' declaration. Of relevance here, both Whelan and the Editor of the San Diego Union-Tribune suggested that Brooks was lying in his declaration when he claimed to have had "ongoing and extensive communications with the former Duluth seminarian [Jeffrey Maras]." According to Whelan, "if you're not telling the truth in one matter, it's likely you're not telling the truth at all." I have produced to the Editor of the SDUT a sample of detailed telephone records which prove that, at least, between 1998 and 1999, Brooks engaged in numerous, lengthy telephone conversations with Maras. I invite any interested persons to review the records to determine what is true.

Very significantly, the only testimony on this issue, under oath, is that provided by Mark Brooks. I invite the Bishop and his attorneys to provide to the court sworn testimony, under penalty of perjury, rather than hearsay "letters to the editor."

Next, in a recent article in a local Catholic newspaper, "The Southern Cross," the attorney for the Bishop of San Diego claimed that it was an "abuse of the legal system" for my client to have filed the declaration of Mark Brooks in his defense to the Bishop's lawsuit. Mark Brooks' sworn statement describes the Bishop's extreme dislike of the News Notes newspaper and its reporters, one of whom is Mr. Kumpel. The Brooks declaration also provides other evidence that it is the Bishop's modus operandi to retaliate against those who criticize him.

We believe that the Bishop's lawsuit against Mr. Kumpel was brought to retaliate against News Notes and Mr. Kumpel for articles the Bishop and his staff do not like, and not for any legitimate, legal purpose. The Bishop's lawsuit was also brought to tarnish Mr. Kumpel's excellent reputation and to dissuade Mr. Kumpel from engaging in future investigative reporting and article writing involving the Bishop and his employees.

Contrary to the claim of the Bishop's attorney, it is the Bishop who has abused the legal system by filing a meritless lawsuit against Robert Kumpel. Now that the Bishop's lawsuit has been dismissed, Mr. Kumpel is considering bringing a malicious prosecution action against the Bishop, seeking an award of attorney's fees, punitive damages and damages for the emotional distress Mr. Kumpel has suffered as a result of the Bishop's lawsuit and the false allegations made against Mr. Kumpel.

Richard J. Vattuone
Attorney for Robert Kumpel


WHEN IS A CATHOLIC NOT A CHRISTIAN?

I just read your January 2002 article, "Big Win for Life" concerning the Robert Wendland case, by Christopher Zender, in which I am quoted. Mr. Zender interviewed me about the case in the fall of 2001.

I write you this e-mail both as a Christian (a lifelong member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and its predecessor American Lutheran Church), and as the attorney for the prevailing parties in this case, Florence Wendland and Rebekah Vinson.

I was quite intrigued by the comments ascribed to Jon Eisenberg, the attorney who filed an amicus brief on behalf of, among others, 4 organizations of Catholic hospitals. He quoted from Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Healthcare Services: "A person may forgo extraordinary or disproportionate means of preserving life. Disproportionate means are those that in the patient's judgment do not offer a reasonable hope of benefit or entail an excessive burden, or impose expense on the family or the community." He also cited "directive 60 -- 'Euthanasia is an action or omission that of itself or by intention causes death in order to alleviate suffering. Catholic health care institutions may never condone or participate in euthanasia or assisted suicide in any way.'

"'If when Robert Wendland was conscious, he had absolutely abhorred the life that he was ultimately reduced to,' said Eisenberg, 'and if he would have absolutely abhorred imposing the burdens on his family that they were suffering, seeing him in that condition, and if we had absolutely no doubt about that, I think the directive would fit his circumstance.'"

Eisenberg's words ring hollow. The keys words there are "if we had absolutely no doubt about that...." There were plenty of doubts expressed by the judge and justices who considered this case, and with good reason. Therefore, the directive he cites did not fit this case at all.

First of all, he, along with those on the other side of this case, i.e. Rose Wendland's attorney and even the attorney appointed by the court to represent Robert's interests, made the arguments he cites throughout this proceeding, but in reverse. They had precious little evidence to present concerning Robert's pre-accident wishes because Robert did not express, as the court found, in clear, precise, and inarguable terms that he would want to have his feeding tube removed if he were in the condition he ultimately found himself in. So the focus of the arguments throughout this case was on Robert's wife and children not being able to accept the "new" Robert, i.e. their dogged determination not to accept and embrace him as a disabled person. The record is replete with evidence that Rose and the children were repulsed by Robert's disability and demonstrates the deep-seated prejudice toward persons with disabilities that motivated them to attempt to bring about Robert's death. They talked about how they stopped visiting him because it was too difficult for them to see him as he was, told the media that Robert never responded to them in any way, belittled his accomplishments when reminded of them. Indeed, on the day of oral arguments, Robert's youngest child, Robbie, even told a reporter that he didn't visit his father because in his father's hospital room he "could smell death in the air. It clings to you."

I am not ashamed to tell you that, as a Christian, a proponent of life, and a civil rights attorney, I found many of the comments from Robert's wife, children, and, indeed, the attorneys on the other side of this case, extremely repugnant and offensive. Those in the disability rights community had the same reaction -- and with good reason.

Indeed, Rose's primary expert, Ronald Cranford, M.D., unabashedly testified in 1997 that "Robert should die so that his family can grieve." He then went on to explain that Robert's status as a disabled man was just too much for Robert's family to bear, so Robert's life should ended in order for them to get on with their lives. He even opined that the money expended for Robert's care would be better spent elsewhere.

Using the Catholic directives cited by Eisenberg -- and disregarding, for the sake of argument, all other overriding Christian principles -- the Court's decision in this case was precisely correct. Robert's care was not "disproportionate" in any sense. Robert received food and fluids via a tube implanted in his abdomen which caused him no complications. Robert's care was not burdensome at all upon his wife and children -- they stopped visiting him altogether in 1996 and had no financial concerns since his care was paid for by the State of California.

But every time I tried to argue, at the trial court level, that what Rose contemplated for her husband really amounted to euthanasia, I was stopped in my tracks by the objections of opposing counsel which were sustained -- incorrectly, in my opinion -- by the trial court judge. Rose argued throughout this litigation that Robert was "suffering," even though she offered no competent medical evidence to support her assertion. Inarguably, Rose's determination to remove the tube through which Robert received life-sustaining food and fluids would have constituted an act of euthanasia because it would have been an act that "of itself or by intention cause[d] death...." There simply is no room for argument about that. And I always approached this case from that vantage point.

Therefore, I stand by my original statement: I was shocked and appalled, as a Christian attorney, by the participation in this lawsuit of several Catholic healthcare organizations.

Janie Hickok Siess, Esq.,
Lodi, California


FOCUS ON JESUS

In "Wonderfully Complex" Fr. James Schexnayder wants Catholics to honor the complexity and fitedness of homosexuals.

But isn't the Catholic Church struggling enough already with pedophile charges and gays in the priesthood? We Catholics need to pray more and focus on Jesus and not listen to rebellious priests such as Fr. Schnexnayder.

We are one, apostolic Church, and we do not need these divisive issues that add nothing to give honor and praise to God.

Craig Galik
Duquesne PA

TOP