The March 26 Los Angeles Times story, "Catholic doctrine is cited in priest abuse cases," is insulting to all Catholics.

The Times' story gives attorneys suing the Church over sexual abuse unchecked reign to define Church teaching and to assert that all bishops, priests, nuns and church employees are predisposed to lie under oath in order to protect the Church.

The fact is, Catholics, like anyone else, are required to tell the truth under oath in a court of law. If the Times reporter had merely opened the "Catechism of the Catholic Church," he would have discovered paragraph #2476, which states: "When it is made publicly, a statement contrary to the truth takes on a particular gravity. In court it becomes false witness. When it is under oath, it is perjury."

Instead, the Times allows the lawyers suing the church to take a centuries-old theological discussion (it isn't doctrine) over what constitutes the telling of a lie, and fashion it into the "doctrine of mental reservation." The term isn't even found in the Catechism. Moreover, Father Thomas Doyle, a priest who serves as an expert witness on behalf of these very same lawyers, admits in the story that mental reservation is "not accepted church teaching." (What that means is never clarified, since the reporter apparently did not consult a moral theologian or expert in church law who was not connected with lawyers who are suing the Church.)

And, despite the Times not providing one example of a bishop, priest, nun or lay employee who lied under oath, three attorneys suing the Church are given a free pass to suggest how their "doctrine" supposedly works when Catholic witnesses are placed under oath. When you put a Catholic under oath, according to lawyer Irwin Zalkin, "You're never going to know the truth, one way or the other."

Lawyers suing the Church will often ask a question in a deposition regarding mental reservation. But if it is not accepted church teaching, then why ask about it? Simple: Lawyers like Irwin Zalkin and John Manly know that it is really code for, "You can't be trusted to tell the truth." So, it is not really a question at all. It is an unprofessional and insulting remark dressed up as a question.

At the end of the story, The Times takes a final, gratuitous slap at the College of Cardinals. By selectively paraphrasing the public oath each cardinal takes upon his appointment by the pope, the Times distorts its true meaning. The oath begins with a promise to live forever faithful "to Christ and his Gospel," and ends with a pledge to serve the Church "in accord with the norms of the law." There is not one word to suggest that the cardinals be anything other than truthful under oath, as the Catechism plainly states.

This statement of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles was issued March 26.