What to say about this other than he is a man who did a foolish thing. I feel sorry for him yet acknowledge the error of his actions and recognize that this does not help. No this does not help at all.
It is good to see him step up and take responsibility.
Bishop Salvatore Cordileone, 56, was headed along San Diego State University’s southern edge when he encountered a sobriety checkpoint, said Officer Mark McCullough. Cordileone was amiable but appeared intoxicated and was arrested at 12:26 a.m., McCullough said.
The bishop was released from jail shortly before noon after posting $2,500 bail. He is scheduled to be arraigned on the misdemeanor charge on Oct. 9.
Cordileone issued a contrite statement Monday, admitting he “was found to be over the California legal blood alcohol level.”
“I apologize for my error in judgment and feel shame for the disgrace I have brought upon the Church and myself,” the bishop said. “I will repay my debt to society and I ask forgiveness from my family and my friends and co-workers at the Diocese of Oakland and the Archdiocese of San Francisco.”
He said he had been visiting friends with his 88-year-old mother and after a meal together he was driving his mother to her residence near the university.
“I pray that God, in His inscrutable wisdom, will bring some good out of this,” Cordileone wrote.
I hope this in no way makes Bishop Cordileone shrink from his duties in cleaning up the mess in San Francisco.
August 28, 2012 at 4:40 am
I have to believe he thought he was ok to drive. Ad I understand he was stopped at a sobriety check point. Out here they usually have a sign telling you it's coming up, I saw one Friday night. Of course the press won't let it go and I'm sure you'll hear about how what he did was not "prolife". In any event as a San Franciscan I knew he'd have a tough time changing anything. Too much opposition from every possible group. This makes an impossible task slightly more impossible.
August 28, 2012 at 5:16 am
I am in no way condoning drinking and then getting behind the wheel of a car, but was the Archbishop Really Drunk?? I live in this insane state of California ( great weather year round & I live near a Norbertine Abbey so I'm staying put ) The legal limit in CA is anything under a .08! I hate to be cynical but these DUI checkpoints were once a noble idea in trying to end accidents caused by drunk drivers; now however they are more about REVENUE! I have never had a DUI, but as I work as a bartender, I know plenty of people who have been arrested for a DUI. The ones "caught" at these check points are not the fall down drunks who generally are so wasted they take out an innocent family of 4 who are stopped at a red light somewhere; these DUI Checkpoints arrest the barely .082, .083, or hardly ever anyone over a .09! These are folks who may have had a glass of wine or two with dinner and though the claim that anything over an .08 is considered impaired; an .082 is just not the case! Someone my size 105llbs, 5'2" I am over the limit with one glass of wine in like two hours! The fact is that if one blows just over an .08 for the first offense, the penalty, including all these state mandated Alcoholic Anonymous classes, suspended license, fees and court costs (this is not even including the insance auto insurance prices for the next 7-10 years) a person is looking at roughly $13,500.00 on up! Now I agree its a costly lesson and better to learn it and pay the money as opposed to possibly killing another innocent person, but just over a .08; I firmly disagree with it being the cause of the tragic deaths in accidents caused by drunk drivers! So yes the Bishop was charged with a DUI, but come on, he was with his mother and I doubt he was a danger to anyone; burt I guarantee that this is not how the media will spin it!! He'll be made out to have been three sheets to the wind drunk and should not be allowed to lead the archdiocese of San Fran, etc etc!
Meanwhile, how many days has Lindsey Lohan spent in jail for her menacing driving history???!
The cop should have allowed the man to pull the car off the road and take a cab home; but then the state would be out $13,500.00.
That's just my opinion.
August 28, 2012 at 1:07 pm
Some of the great saints who advocated great care in the imbibement of wine, etc., did so on the basis of experience having taught them.
In no way does the fact that he was driving over or at the limit of .08 indicate that he was drunk. With certain medicines the effect of alcohol can be raised, and that in my case has caused my alcohol level to be higher in several instances. Let's not be hypocritical and call for his demise as a churchman. I have seen many ecclesiastics be human and enjoy imbibing wine, etc., with familiy and friends. The bishop was not drunk, unable to talk or walk.
August 29, 2012 at 6:22 am
@Howard Hines: since when is "unable to talk or walk" the standard for whether a person is DUI? .08 is actually well over the minimum blood-alcohol level that's been observed to cause impairment. That it is not immoral to enjoy alcoholic beverages is immaterial to the question of whether it's immoral to drive after consuming them; it's not immoral to eat lots and lots of turkey, either, but that can make you sufficiently drowsy to impair your operation of heavy machinery.
I agree, he ought not to be defrocked or even harshly penalized; the state's apparatus for dealing with his offense is sufficient, and—since he didn't hurt anyone else—his ministry is unlikely to suffer, our society being tolerant of non-injurious DUIs (so long as they aren't repeat offenders).