LETTERS

Little Notes

Confessions
Talk About Movies
Roamin' Catholic
Follow Me




Contents © 1998
by Jim Holman.
All rights reserved.

June 1998 LETTERS

---

Could you take a few moments to explain to me your paper's bias concerning the University of San Diego, its faculty, staff, and president?

I try to read through your newspaper whenever I run across it, but I find myself repulsed by the excessive number of references to USD in an unfavorable light. Many of the articles which include events related to USD take on a very personal tone. They seem less like "news" and more like attacks on the institution and the people who work there.

It seems strange that a paper that calls itself "San Diego's Lay Catholic Newspaper" would dedicate such a large amount of column space criticizing an institution dedicated to advancement of Catholic values. Many of the articles begin to sound as if they were written by some bitter individual that did not meet the university's standards for enrollment.

I was particularly shocked to read "How USD Tried to 'Emancipate' My Daughter" in the May 1998 issue. USD was given the lead role as villain when any logical human being could see that issue should be taken with the family. I did not get the impression that anyone was asking why the grandmother was forcing the issue. Instead, your writer went a great distance to insist that USD was to blame, and even implied university president Alice Hayes had some involvement.

I would say this could be equated to blaming the doctor for causing the flu since he/she treats your for it once you're ill. That logic just doesn't work.

Any insight into your publication's obvious bias toward USD would be appreciated.

-- Eddie Williams
via the Internet

Ed. That "issue should be taken with the family" was the writer's point, and the point of the first judge who heard the case. It was a family matter, and the intrusion by the USD Law School emancipation clinic went against not only Catholic teaching -- which recognizes a parent's paramount responsibility for the welfare and education of his/her children -- but of common sense as well. As for President Hayes's involvement, nothing was "implied" beyond the direct quotes from her correspondence wherein she first denied the attorney involved worked at USD, then admitted he did but said there was no emancipation case, then, when sent the court documentation, has not responded for almost three months.


JERRY SPRINGER WOULD FIND IT INCREDIBLE

Here is one of the country's top Catholic journalists, Leslie Payne, being run out of town by bigots in the county bureaucracy, the chancery office, and her own family ("How USD Tried to Emancipate My Daughter," May). What an awful story. I think even Jerry Springer would find it incredible.

What can I, or you, and other Catholics do to help Ms. Payne in her present plight? I hope that you can find a way for all of us to contribute.

The University of San Diego comes off very poorly. The top ecclesiastical and lay management do not want to assume responsibility, or offer succor, for their failed leadership. She is on her own, with neither clout or cash, nor any sympathy from her beneficiaries, either.

It appears that Ms. Payne now is being run through the system, by county welfare, the district attorney, and the court, for her efforts to be a good parent to her errant daughter, and a good daughter to her spiteful mother. It could happen to any family. Every average, working American can be caught up in the system in the same manner and be ruined and defamed as a result. But the agency of the Catholic Church in her troubles is particularly painful.

Is anybody involved guilty of sins of omission, or commission, some lies, deceits, slanders, and bigotry, perhaps, in this fiasco? Are there other families, and children, who have been hurt by the Children's Advocacy Institute? Whose justice and whose laws should Catholics be following in doing their job in raising their children?

-- Patrick F. Flynn
Yorba Linda


DO YOU REALLY THINK YOUR READERSHIP IS SO NAIVE?

In publishing my daughter's article "How USD Tried to Emancipate My Daughter," you have opened your publication up to criticism and the strong possibility of a lawsuit. You should have checked out the facts a little more thoroughly before going to press. The article is laced with lies, omissions, and gross distortions of the truth, not to mention libelous and slanderous statements about others and me.

I don't believe the article fooled anyone. Do you really think your readership is so naive that they would believe that USD took out after her for some unknown reason? Don't you think some of them would wonder why her children's grandmother would feel a need to protect them?

While I am not Catholic, I am neither an atheist nor anti-Catholic as stated in the article. My daughter says that I have "hated her since the day she became a Catholic." Nothing could be further from the truth. I was delighted when she converted into the church.

Statements involved Ms. Debbie Tierman are 100 percent untrue. Ms. Tierman is a Girl Scout leader with whom we are acquainted but she is not our Girl Scout leader and she was in no way involved in Jenny's battle against her mother. Ms. Tierman has been badly maligned and I hope she takes appropriate action.

As for the subject of homeschooling, I most certainly do have very strong feelings against it, at least the way my daughter implemented it. My daughter has neither the balanced, rounded world view nor the deep commitment to teach her children.

By removing herself from the San Diego area, my daughter has escaped having to explain her mistakes to this court. My concern is for the children who are being denied both the academic knowledge and social skills needed to survive.

-- Linda Payne
Tierransanta

Granddaughter Jennifer Payne replies: I stand by the statements made in the article about Debbie Tierman. Debbie was the one who told us about emancipation in the first place. Mr. Meyer said that Debbie would arrange things behind the scenes with the judge. As to my grandmother's opinion on homeschooling, I found that when I went to school I was way ahead of everybody else academically and maturity-wise. I also found that the social life in public school was not everything that my grandmother said it would be. I'm glad I made the decision to go back to homeschooling.


HELL ON EARTH

The article on USD's Children's Advocacy Institute is but another example of the university trying to be politically correct and Catholic at the same time. Catholicism has been consistently the victim because the roots of the university's problem are very deep and mortally serious. Until those roots are yanked out it will continue to die as a Catholic institution, no matter the facade. The fruit of these rotten roots are the unchecked policies of the CAI, pro-abortion speakers and graduation honorees, and the acceptance of funding from a big Planned Parenthood provider, the Irvine Foundation, to sponsor the university's politically correct diversity program. In addition, the university encourages the deadly sin of homosexual behavior by supporting oncampus gay groups, leaving them barren without the truth and fruit of Catholic teaching. Administration and board of trustee members are witnessing to their own lack of faith by appointing and allowing an openly "gay" teacher to be chair of religious studies. What kind of philosophy/religion will he impart to this future generation? It will be a philosophy of homosexual as our ideal citizen and the religion of Lucifer, Prince of Darkness. This is insanity being institutionally perpetuated into the evolution of hell on earth. (So much for DeChardin's silly and fatal theories.) Where is the sense of sin, where is the sense of outrage, where is the charity? At this critical time why can't USD be an instrument of evangelization to those who are so in error? Why not seize the "Catholic moment"?

I beg the Mother of God, the Immaculata, to intercede on behalf of the university. There is a diverse group of people who meet every first Sunday of the month at 2:30 p.m to process around the outside of the Immaculata church on campus saying the complete Rosary and singing Marian hymns for peace in the world and on campus. They have been doing this for 12 years, come rain or shine. (Call Richard Boothby at 619-476-8014.) All are welcome, particularly those in positions of authority at the university, to join in their response to Our Lady of Fatima's request for the daily Rosary to bring about an interior conversion of heart, personal and collective. Along with abandonment to the Merciful Love of Jesus, it is the way out of the dilemma.

-- Anna Marie Finnegan
Del Mar


UNDERDOG PURE OF HEART VS. THE INFIDELS

Your publication of the lengthy article by Lesley Payne in your May 1998 issue violates two tenets of responsible journalism: Do not attack without allowing response to provide a check, and never print an unfettered article by a party in litigation about her own case.

I do not know the author, Lesley Payne. Apparently, she barred her daughter from attending school for several years. Ms. Payne's mother and her daughter retained an attorney so Ms. Payne's daughter could go to school -- allegedly to give her a future. The attorney retained by Grandma also supervised a clinic on a part-time basis (two hours per week) at the Children's Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego School of Law. The Payne case was not a clinic case. No USD students worked on it; nor did the attorney in his capacity as a part-time USD employee. The case was a retained matter handled by the attorney as part of his private law practice. The case ended with Ms. Payne acceding to schooling outside the home, as sought by her mother and daughter.

The only other thing I know about Ms. Payne -- drawn from her letters and the article you regrettably allowed her to publish as if written by a neutral journalist -- is that she is not terribly accurate. She seems to suffer from a Manichaean view of the world. Grandiose conspiracies can elevate one's private struggles into a public crusade of the underdog pure of heart against an imagined alliance of infidels.

For the record, the mission of the Children's Advocacy Institute is to promote the health, safety, and well-being of children in the legislature, the courts, administrative agencies, and through public education programs. CAI's mission is not to further any particular religious tenet. And we have the academic freedom critical to public policy advocates, which Ms. Payne's intolerance demonstrates is important.

On the other hand, our work is a good deal more consonant with Catholic values than her article indicates. For example, contrary to her assertions, we have never engaged in proabortion advocacy. Ms. Payne alleges that we wrote in our quarterly newsletter of the "good" news that the First District Court of Appeal, in a June 1994 decision, upheld a minor's constitutional right to privacy in seeking an abortion without parental consent. However, our write-up of the case was simply a neutral report of a judicial decision made by a court. Our newsletter reports all court decisions affecting the rights of children. The word "good" -- or any other revelation of how we may personally or institutionally feel about a decision -- does not appear in our newsletter. Further, Ms. Payne is apparently unaware that the California Supreme Court did not "overturn" the decision she opposes, but affirmed it. Her misstatement on a highly publicized case central to her single-issue focus is indicative of her broader problem with accuracy. Most of her article suffers from these kinds of errors.

Although I am not a Catholic myself, our strongest allies in our work throughout the state are consistently Catholics -- led by Catholic Charities, the California Catholic Conference, and the Catholic Center for Restorative Justice. Over the years, I have come to respect and admire the work of these organizations -- and we rely on them implicitly on issue after issue. We focus our work more on children after birth than prior to birth. Our work has led to the California law requiring children to wear helmets when riding bikes, the model residential swimming pool safety measure designed to avoid child drownings, an overhaul of the state's child care facility regulation and inspection statutes, and child support collection enhancement laws which have helped to recover several hundred million dollars for children in need. We are working on playground safety standards, examining state spending on programs benefiting children, and parenting education in schools. We run a clinic where law students help to represent abused children; we are training the child advocates of the future. We have also taken our lumps -- from welfare reform hits to children, to simplistic juvenile justice bromides, to the waste of federal money which could provide medical coverage for hundreds of thousands more children but for Governor Wilson's misguided limitations.

Ms. Payne accuses us of anti-family taint because we have worked with Sol Price, the California Wellness Foundation, the James Irvine Foundation, and the March of Dimes. We do not understand what she is driving at. She notes that our staff have attended meetings also attended by representatives of NOW. True enough. Apparently, these references are intended as evidence of our fall from grace and the University's betrayal of its Catholic mission. They characterize Ms. Payne's lack of ecumenism, not our work. We also work with the insurance industry and, heaven forbid, the state's trial lawyer association on specific issues where advantageous to children. And we confess to have welcomed as allies on specific projects other "ne'er-do-wells" -- journalists, bureaucrats, and even an occasional Republican.

I am the Price Professor of Public Interest Law, and I wear that name with some pride. Ms. Payne could further buttress her case -- whatever it is -- by mentioning that not only have we taken money from the James Irvine Foundation, but former USD president Author Hughes works there. And if the California Wellness Foundation wishes to provide us with additional funding for our Information Clearinghouse on Children to raise the visibility of children and their needs, we welcome such support.

Hopefully, Ms. Payne, her mother, and her daughter will work out their problems. I have been told her daughter is progressing well in school now and we wish the best for all three of them. Meanwhile, be assured that -- objections notwithstanding -- if it advances the cause, we shall work with anyone and everyone on behalf of children.

-- Robert Fellmeth, Executive Director
Children's Advocacy Institute

Ed. For a refutation of the assertion that this was not a USD case, refer to the copy of Lee Meyer's letter on page 11. For more on former USD president Author Hughes accepting a job with the Irvine Foundation, a multi-million-dollar supporter of Planned Parenthood, see News Notes, May 1995.


IS HE 'PRO-CHOICE' WHEN IT COMES TO RAPE AND MURDER?

At first I thought News Notes must have gotten it wrong. The 78th Assembly District candidate Rick Wildman's comments to your publication reported in the April 1998 "Little Notes" section were so incoherent and nonsensical that immediately I suspected journalistic malpractice. Surely, I thought, no one can seriously maintain, as Wildman was reported to hold, that there's not much difference in the pro-life and "pro-choice" positions. Side with whomever you will in that debate, there's an enormous chasm between holding that women should have the legal right to kill their unborn children, as they do now, and asserting that unborn children have an inalienable human right to life, which neither their mothers nor the state can justly violate.

Then I saw Mr. Wildman's letter to the editor in your May issue. Clearly, the unflattering depiction of Mr. Wildman was not journalistic legerdemain by your reporter. With the most tortured rationale, Mr. Wildman actually purports to be both pro-life and "pro-choice." In fact, he is really only "pro-choice," i.e., he supports legalized abortion. The pro-life position entails recognizing a legal right to life for unborn children that would eliminate, or at least severely restrict, the legal right to abortion, a change of law Mr. Wildman staunchly opposes.

Now, of course, there's nothing wrong with encouraging people to choose life rather than abortion, as Mr. Wildman claims to do, just as there is nothing wrong with encouraging people to avoid, say, rape or murder. The latter actions involve "choices" which, one hopes, Mr. Wildman would join the rest of us in keeping illegal. Yet, can we be sure? Why assume he really wants to maintain present laws against rape and murder, no matter how forcefully he deplores such bad "choices"? Can't we rightly infer from his argument about "choice" and abortion that rape and murder, being matters of "choice," ought to be legal? After all, didn't the same "generous Creator" who Mr. Wildman reminds us, gave each of us the gift of life, also give us the power to "choose"?

Mr. Wildman writes, "I am pro-choice because God also gave me a special power to make moral decisions of my own free will." But that decision-making power also includes the ability to "choose" such things as rape and murder, not merely abortion. Shouldn't we, following Mr. Wildman's lead, conclude that he is "pro-choice" when it comes to rape and murder, too?

That Mr. Wildman would support the legal right to abortion is bad enough; that he should do so while regarding as human children those killed by the heinous practice and calling them "the most helpless," is utterly barbaric. Tell us you don't believe the unborn child is really human, Mr. Wildman. Say that the aborted child is really "just a glob of tissue" or "the product of conception." But please don't, out of one side of your mouth, praise God for bestowing on unborn children the gift of life and out of the other, support their legalized slaughter in the name of "choice." That sort of ethical and moral schizophrenia leads to Auschwitz.

-- Mark Brumley
Napa


LITURGY IS IMPORTANT BUT CHILDREN ARE NOT

In the April issue in "Clips" you have a note where a writer in a priests' magazine [Homiletic & Pastoral Review] says seminarians have a right to know which seminary they will attend. It seems to me parents should have a right to know in the parish how their children are taught catechism. A sad report was given nearly a year ago by the committee of Archbishop Daniel Buechlein of Indianapolis saying that many of our catechectical textbooks had "doctrinal deficiencies."A year has gone by and many parishes, all concerned about the liturgy, have not even bothered to change these books. It would seem the liturgy is important but the children are not.

The report said many of our religion books do not adequately explain the divinity of Christ, the Church as founded by Christ, the sacraments, the role of grace in salvation, original sin and sin in general, and they give a "meager exposition of Christian moral life." Where is the outcry? Our parents would have been fighting mad at this report, but Catholics ignore it. Yet the souls of our children are at stake here.

-- Father Rawley Myers
Colorado Springs

TOP