Connell withdraws bid to stop files examined Monday, 11 February
2008
Archbishop Diarmuid Martin has welcomed the decision by Cardinal Desmond
Connell to withdraw his High Court attempt to stop the Government-appointed
commission examining diocesan child abuse files.
A source close to Cardinal Connell has speculated that he may have been
persuaded by fellow clergy in retirement to hand over his problems to his
successor.
The move comes 11 days after Cardinal Connell got an injunction against the
commission preventing it from examining files while he prepared his case to show
that he had legal privilege over them or a duty of confidentiality in relation
to them.
When the case was called for mention this morning, Roddy Horan SC said he was
appearing for Cardinal Connell. 'I am withdrawing that application,' he told
Judge Iarfhlaith O'Neill.
Brian Murray SC, counsel for Judge Yvonne Murray and the two other commission
members, applied for costs.
At Mr Murray's request Judge O'Neill discharged the undertaking by the
commission not to examine the controversial files while the case was
pending.
At the court hearing on 31 January, Cardinal Connell's solicitor, Diarmuid Ó
Catháin, said in an affidavit that any file recording communications between
Cardinal Connell, while he was archbishop, and lawyers acting for the diocese,
could not be opened to the Commission of Inquiry.
The commission is scheduled to report by next September.
An organisation representing survivors of sexual abuse has welcomed the
move.
The One in Four group said it was imperative for the sake of victims that he
did so.
Speaking on RTÉ Radio's News at One, Marie Collins, a victim of clerical
abuse, said Cardinal Connell's move came as a great relief. She said it was
good for the Church, the victims and the laity, because the commission could now
do its work unhindered.
This sends a wonderful message to the rest of the world, doesn't it? Shows them what we stand for!
New York Times February 11, 2008
U.S. Said to Seek Execution for 6 in Sept. 11 Case By WILLIAM GLABERSON
Military prosecutors have decided to seek the death penalty for six Guantánamo
detainees who are to be charged with central roles in the Sept. 11
terror attacks, government officials who have been briefed on the
charges said Sunday.
The officials said the charges would be announced at the Pentagon as
soon as Monday and were likely to include numerous war-crimes charges
against the six men, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the former Qaeda operations chief who has described himself as the mastermind of the attacks ...
WASHINGTON — Vice President Dick Cheney
on Thursday vigorously defended the use of harsh interrogation
techniques on a few suspected terrorists, saying that the methods made
up “a tougher program, for tougher customers” and might have averted
another attack on the United States.
“A small number of terrorists, high-value targets, held overseas have gone through an interrogation program run by the C.I.A.,”
Mr. Cheney said in an address to the Conservative Political Action
Conference in Washington, around the same time that the head of the
Central Intelligence Agency said one of the most controversial
interrogation methods, “waterboarding,” may be illegal under current law.
The “high-value targets” included Khalid Shaikh Mohammed,
the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Mr. Cheney
recalled. “He and others were questioned at a time when another attack
on this country was believed to be imminent. It’s a good thing we had
them in custody, and it’s a good thing we found out what they knew,”
the vice president said, drawing applause.
Mr. Cheney did not use
the term “waterboarding,” which simulates the feeling of drowning in
the subject. But the C.I.A. director, Michael V. Hayden, acknowledged recently that Mr. Mohammed was one of three suspects on whom the harsh technique was used several years ago.
The
vice president asserted that the techniques used by the C.I.A. were
safe and professional, and that the interrogation program had unearthed
information that had “foiled attack against the United States,
information that has saved thousands of lives.”
And, in a
rebuttal to critics of the Bush administration critics, Mr. Cheney
said, “The United States is a country that takes human rights
seriously. We do not torture — it’s against our laws and against our
values.”
[To read the rest of this inspiring story, click here.]
Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law
Legal Perspectives on Life Issues
Slowinski Courtroom Monday, February 11 4:30 p.m.
Join us for a panel discussion of life issues and the law including health care and freedom of conscience, end of life issues, and legislative and public policy.
Speakers include:
♦ Casey Mattox, litigation counsel for the Center for Law & Religious Freedom
♦ Jennifer Popik, legislative counsel of the National Right to Life Committee’s Robert Powell Center for Medical Ethics
♦ Maggie Datiles (B.A. ’04; J.D. ’07, Catholic University), Attorney for Advocates United for Life
Q & A session afterwards
Refreshments to Follow
Sponsored by Advocates For Life Columbus School of Law, The Catholic University of America
Some MOJ readers will be interested in this statement by Professor Larry Lessig of Stanford Law School, on why Barack Obama is a much better candidate for the presidency than Hillary Clinton.
This from dotCommonweal: "The former archbishop of Dublin, Cardinal Desmond Connell, is suing to
prevent the current archbishop, Diarmuid Martin, from releasing
archdiocesan documents related to clergy sexual abuse." Click here to read the post.
In the most recent issue of the Tulsa Law Review, Judge (and Professor) John Noonan has an article that "was adapted from remarks given at the Constitutional Day Lecture, University of Tulsa College of Law, Tulsa, Oklahoma, on September 20, 2006." The title & citation: The Religion of the Justice: Does It Affect Constitutional Decision Making?, 42 Tulsa Law Review 761 (2007). Read it!
Here are three excerpts: "Brennan’s language in Eisenstadt on reproductive freedom was
subsequently the foundation of Roe v.
Wade, in which he joined. I have not understood how a Catholic or
any judge who was guided by the terms of the Constitution could conscientiously
do so. But obviously Catholic consciences differ. Brennan in Roe showed that they can differ on
abortion. It is not, I think, the business of anyone to judge the conscience of
another." [763]
"It is true that on the moral legitimacy of the death penalty Catholic teaching
has changed. Once accepting it as a necessary prerogative of government, the
Catholic Church under Pope John Paul II has taught that death can only be
imposed in rare circumstances and not at all if the defendant can be securely
imprisoned. There is a certain hesitancy in the teaching, whose logic leads to
the conclusion that a state-sponsored execution is state-sponsored homicide; the
pope and bishops do not denounce the government as guilty of murder but only
plead for clemency. The doctrinal development is not complete. Yet I am glad
never to have had to face a case where my vote would have confirmed the death
sentence.
Justice Scalia, who seems reluctant to recognize the doctrinal change, has
written that if it has really occurred, all Catholic judges should resign as
incapable of carrying out the law. I read that statement as a rhetorical move.
A federal judge rarely is asked to impose or to uphold a sentence of death. If
the judge is conscientiously convinced that any taking of human life cannot be
justified it is, I believe, his duty to disqualify himself if the law requires
imposition of death. I do not think that a rare recusal carries with it a
declaration of incompetence to function as a judge ninety-nine percent of the
time." (766-67)
"Frankly, I find it difficult to understand the trust put in conscience when its
theological roots are cut. (I do not doubt the sincerity of the conscientious
atheist—only his explanation for his certainty.) But as long as there is a
consensus that conscience is key, I will no more quarrel with another’s
understanding of its power than I would judge the conscience of another. From
my perspective, it is this conviction at one’s inner core, uniting principles
and experience and empathy, that counts most in judging. It is here that the
religion of the judge—not just this or that particular precept but the whole
thrust of the judge’s commitment to God—can make a difference. To measure that
difference, however, belongs not to any human but to God. " (770)
A Monastery Opens Its Doors to Football Fans By KATIE THOMAS
PHOENIX — There is no sauna,
no heated pool, no chauffeur or sommelier. In fact, no alcohol is
allowed on the premises, and guests share a bathroom with their
next-door neighbor.
But for $250 a night in a city where Super Bowl
rentals are topping out at $250,000 a week for a mansion in Scottsdale,
the sisters at Our Lady of Guadalupe Monastery figure they have an
offer that can’t be beat.
[Read on to learn more about the details of the offer, here.]
