Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Sunday Morning

Interview with Chester Gillis, Philip Moran, Scott Appleby

Aired May 12, 2002 - 08:13   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
MILES O'BRIEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Let's turn our attention back now to the crisis in the priesthood. Priests in nearly a dozen dioceses across the country have now been removed because of allegations of sexual abuse and the church is facing millions of dollars in lawsuits. Some believe the crisis may get worse before it is over with.

And joining us now to talk more about the issue are Chester Gillis, associate professor of theology at Georgetown University, Philip Moran, general counsel for the National Catholic Alliance and Scott Appleby, professor of history at the University of Notre Dame. Thank you all for being with me.

CHESTER GILLIS, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Good morning.

PHILIP MORAN, NATIONAL CATHOLIC ALLIANCE: Thank you.

SCOTT APPLEBY, UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME: Good morning.

O'BRIEN: Chester, let's begin with you, shall we? Let's talk a little bit about how things have gone so far for Cardinal Law. We've seen only a portion of the deposition. It's kind of interesting that on the first day the deposition was released and then suddenly it's put on ice for 30 days while the cardinal has an opportunity to look it over and make corrections.

That action in and of itself, does that raise a cloud of uncertainty over the church and the cardinal, specifically?

GILLIS: Well, I think undoubtedly the cardinal is taking legal counsel on this matter quite regularly and seems to be following a track that is in line with what lawyers want to do perhaps more than even sometimes the pursuit of justice. One would hope that justice would be borne out in this case and that the church would stand for justice and compassion. But sometimes it appears that the church is looking for legal loopholes and ways to negotiate settlements that are favorable to the church.

O'BRIEN: Philip, would you agree with that, legal loopholes here? A lot of times legal strategies and P.R. strategies are at odds.

MORAN: I would take strong exception with the categorization of legal loopholes. I think that the cardinal is following his lawyers' advice and in almost any other case you have a 30 day grace period in which you have an opportunity to review a deposition and look at it to make corrections. So I don't think that it's a loophole at all. I think it's simply following the rules of procedure, which we have here in Massachusetts.

And I was somewhat offended, actually, on Thursday that the deposition was made public, because it's highly unusual. And again, you have documents that are being shown into evidence which may or may not be admissible at a later trial. And so it's, I think that the cardinal is well advised to follow his legal advisers.

O'BRIEN: Scott, would you go along with that? Or is this a case where perhaps clearing the air and at least giving the appearance of coming clean with what happened may outweigh the legal minutiae?

APPLEBY: Well, he's in a difficult position. If he says he doesn't recall certain incidents, including letters from auxiliary bishops warning him about Father Geoghan, he could be charged with being insensitive to the matter or not fully aware of what his priests and bishops are doing. So that looks bad. Obviously if he comes forward in this context legally and says oh, yes, I knew what I was doing and I was following the best advice at the time, but nonetheless I was reassigning priests who were abusive, that's probably not the smartest legal strategy.

So it's a very difficult situation for him.

O'BRIEN: Was it selective amnesia, Philip, would you agree? I mean that's been the allegation. I assume you disagree with that?

MORAN: I totally disagree with it. I think it, in fact, I think it's an extra judicial statement by the lawyer and by some of the witnesses that is totally against the canons of ethics. We have canons of ethics here in Massachusetts and when you're in litigation, you're not supposed to make extra judicial statements about the evidence and particularly about the character of a witness.

And here we have a week ago a lawyer, one of the major lawyers in this case, calling the cardinal, the archbishop of Boston, a despicable human being and a liar. And I think that that is so far beyond the bounds of decency by anybody, let alone a lawyer during litigation. And, again, I think you, this is, the cardinal should follow his advice, his lawyers' advice and I think the lawyers on the other side should stick to the rules of evidence and stick to the rules of procedure and this thing would proceed in a much better posture.

O'BRIEN: Scott, that point, some of the rhetoric has really struck me. When his eminence, someone who is, routinely has his ring kissed, is called a liar, you have to wonder what's going on with the Catholic Church.

There's an interesting piece this morning in the "Boston Globe" which talks about how levels of deference, particularly in Boston, which is the most Catholic metropolitan area in the United States, levels of deference have changed and that the respect that many people have for the church has changed and things that were considered taboo are no longer taboo.

Have things significantly and fundamentally changed in ways that will not be undone?

APPLEBY: I think everyone is prone to get involved in the feeding frenzy in the media, including Catholics. And one of the problems the church faces is that it is not normally in the business of spin control. The church has not managed this crisis very well in terms of framing it, explaining it. There's some positive things to be said for reforms that were implemented in the '90s, for example, but the church has been slow in putting its case forward. And in that vacuum, we see prosecutors and the media, sometimes those lines blur. So there is a building momentum of mistrust of the clergy and certainly of the hierarchy, and particularly of Cardinal Law.

This is unfortunate. It's not that Cardinal Law hasn't done things wrong. He's acknowledged that. But there's no counter- offensive, so to speak, on the part of the church to indicate where the church has acted responsibly, which has been the case in many dioceses.

O'BRIEN: Philip, you get the sense the church just doesn't get it.

MORAN: Oh, I think they get it. I think they're, I think Scott just hit it right on the head. They're not used to spin control. We had a situation in this country two or three years ago where the president of the United States was being impeached and night after night and day after day he had his minions out with wonderful spin control and, in fact, I think that saved his presidency, for at least from impeachment.

But here the cardinal, the archbishop of Boston, again, as you said, because of the deference given to his position, he's never been a master of spin control. He's had poor public relations. And I think that this is continuing. I don't think that the church has handled the public relations very well, either, again, though they are in the...

O'BRIEN: Well, what's to be done about it? Should he have more spin meisters operating...

MORAN: Well, I don't know...

O'BRIEN: ... you know, spin meisters in Roman collars?

MORAN: I don't know if he'd spin -- no, I don't think he needs spin meisters. I think he just needs people coming out and telling something of what's going on, the truth of the matter. For example...

O'BRIEN: Well, wait a minute --

MORAN: ... as Scott just pointed out...

O'BRIEN: ... wait a minute, wait a minute.

MORAN: ... they...

O'BRIEN: Philip, Philip...

MORAN: OK.

O'BRIEN: If you want the truth of the matter out, why are you supporting keeping those depositions on ice for 30 days? And a moment ago you were saying the that cardinal is being as truthful as he can be. So aren't those two at odds?

MORAN: I didn't say that the cardinal was being as truthful as can be. I don't know whether the cardinal is being as truthful as can be. But I think if you follow the rules of procedure, we'll find out whether he's truthful. I personally believe the cardinal is being truthful. I think that it's very understandable for a man to say, when they put a document in front of him that was, is signed in September of 1984, do you remember seeing this document? And he says no, I don't recall it, but that is my signature on there, those are my notes. So, yes, I wrote it, but I don't recall it.

I can imagine that the cardinal has probably seen a hundred thousand documents since 1984 and whether he can recall one document doesn't make him a liar.

O'BRIEN: All right, but it was a subject matter which would be something you wouldn't just file away in your mind.

Chester Gillis, a final word on all this, please.

GILLIS: Well, I think it should be about, as they've suggested, the pursuit of truth and the pursuit of justice. And hopefully in this case the truth will come out and justice will be done, that the church will be handled in a just manner, but also that victims and families will be handled with justice. That's what the church should be about and that's what the law should be about.

O'BRIEN: Good place to end it.

Chester Gillis, Philip Moran, Scott Appleby, thanks very much for talking about this with us this morning on CNN SUNDAY MORNING.

GILLIS: Thank you.

MORAN: Thank you.

APPLEBY: Thank you.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com