LATimes asks some of the crucial Cardinal Mahony questions

LATimes asks some of the crucial Cardinal Mahony questions December 12, 2013

If you were going to design a Catholic cardinal (as opposed to an Episcopal Church bishop) who would please the powers that be at The Los Angeles Times, that man would have to look a whole lot like Cardinal Roger Mahony.

Obviously, Mahony never tossed out the basic doctrines of the Catholic faith. However, he was also never anxious to step on the toes of liberal Catholics who leaned in that direction. Meanwhile, he was one of the princes of the church that doctrinally conservative (and politically conservative) Catholics most loved to hate and it was easy to see that the cardinal felt the same way about them.

Cardinal Mahony took over in 1985 and his progressive Catholic resume grew year after year. He was a strong voice on Latino issues and immigration. After the Los Angeles riots, he was the voice of moral authority seeking peace and economic justice. He was one of the first people Al Gore would see when he hit town to talk about the environment. He spoke out early and often on the death penalty, labor conditions and nuclear disarmament. He was the driving force behind the massive, postmodern, all-but-interfaith Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels that cost $189 million and infuriated liturgical traditionalists (and some on the economic left) who called it the “Taj Mahony.”

As a stunning Times profile put it earlier this month:

Where his predecessors had talked up praying the rosary, Mahony touted his positions on nuclear disarmament and Middle East peace, porn on cable TV and AIDS prevention. No issue seemed outside his purview: When an earthquake struck El Salvador, he cut a $100,000 check. When a 7-year-old went missing in South Pasadena, he wrote her Protestant parents a consoling letter.

Reporters took notes and the influential took heed. The mayor, the governor, business executives and millionaires recognized a rising star and sought his company.

Among the thousands of papers that crossed his desk in September 1986 was a handwritten letter.

“During priests’ retreat … you provided us with an invitation to talk to you about a shadow that some of us might have,” Father Michael Baker wrote. “I would like to take you up on that invitation.”

The note would come to define Mahony’s legacy more than any public stance he took or powerful friend he made.

In other words, there was a bomb ticking during the entire Mahony era. That bomb, of course, was the hidden cost — personal, spiritual and financial — of the scandal rooted in the sexual abuse of children and teens by Catholic clergy under the control of the cardinal.

This massive Times piece does a very, very solid job of charting the sweep of the scandal, using the sickening case of Father Michael Baker as the connecting thread.

The documents in the scandal are outlined and dissected. It’s easy to see why Mahony was such a symbolic figure, in part because his tenure in Los Angeles began precisely at the start of the clergy-abuse-scandal headlines. His career arc, notes the Times, aligns perfectly with the whole scandal era and he was still in power when everything came crashing down, with the release of the massive secret files stashed away by his staff.

Yes, this is the rare piece that actually begins at the beginning, not with the headlines in Boston.

… In 1985, after a molester priest caused a scandal in Louisiana, U.S. bishops held a closed-door session on abuse at their annual conference.

Mahony and other bishops subsequently received a lengthy report warning of the legal and public relations ramifications of abuse and offering tips for dealing with such cases. The report, written by a priest, a psychiatrist and a lawyer, presented the topic in a risk-analysis manner appealing to pragmatists like Mahony.

“Our dependence in the past on Roman Catholic judges and attorneys protecting the Diocese and clerics is GONE,” the report said.

The key lawyer behind that report stressed that it was time for Catholic officials to start leveling with police and reporting accusations against abusers, rather than continuing to hide them. Mahony didn’t do that for many years.

What the Times editors never really ask, in this otherwise gripping feature, is a basic question: Why?

Why keep sending the “Father Fondle” priests — the nickname used by police — to “treatment centers” that kept sending abusers back into parish work? Why deny requests from authorities for lists of altar boys who may have been able to serve as witnesses? Why hide a priest who had sex with an AIDS patient and then had sex with high-school students? Why ship priest after priest out of the state or even out of the United States?

The following passage is as close as the Times team comes to analyzing Mahony’s unique standing as a progressive Catholic leader, as the man many called the cardinal of Hollywood.

Manila folders alphabetized by abusers’ names contained letters from distraught parents, graphic confessions from priests, and memos between the archbishop and his aides discussing how to stymie police investigations and avoid lawsuits. To Mahony, the meticulous files were a record of problems solved and scandals averted. In the years to come, however, it would become increasingly hard — and finally impossible — to keep the problem of sexual abuse locked away.

Revelations that he had shielded pedophiles eventually undercut the moral authority that had made him one of America’s most important Catholic leaders. One by one, people who had revered and trusted him would turn away. He lost the victims and their parents first, then his aides, the press, the political establishment, lay Catholics and ultimately the church he’d worked so hard to protect.

Yes, eventually Mahony even lost the support of the press.

In the end, the Boston meltdown in 2001 turned up the heat and Mahony — privately — because to take appropriate actions to protect the innocent. By 2004 he was even taking public actions to do the right thing. When he retired, he struggled to maintain as much power and prestige as he could, even lashing when his successor, Archbishop Jose Gomez, wrote a letter to the faithful criticizing Mahony for his failure to deal with abusers.

As I have said many times, the clergy-abuse scandal was not and is not a left vs. right story, because there was plenty of sin on both sides of the cultural and doctrinal divisions that torment Catholicism in America. All kinds of people had all kinds of secrets.

However, the Mahony case was an important one for all of the reasons mentioned by the Times team. But was it harder for some journalists to believe that this man, this archbishop, was on the wrong side of this issue? After all, for so many journalists, he had been on the correct side of so many other issues in the past.

This is a fine, must-read piece in so many ways. But the leaders of the Times needed to ask a few more questions.

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment

12 responses to “LATimes asks some of the crucial Cardinal Mahony questions”

  1. It reminds me of the portrayal of LBJ in “Path to War,” how his involvement in the Vietnam War limited the good he could have done. The answer to the unasked, “Why?” being, because it would have stopped Mahony from what he considered his “real” job. Interesting how his invisible (or unseen) actions ultimately hijacked all the visible “good.”

  2. This was quite an impressive piece. I agree completely though that the reporting did not ask enough questions about the Cardinal’s thought process. That could have been quite interesting, as there is credible evidence that the Cardinal has some interesting skeletons in his closet. Not referring to the retracted allegation or anything similar, but rather to evidence he was aiding and abetting dissenting groups.

  3. I have followed the narrative in Los Angeles very closely for a *long* time.

    I was never a big fan of Cardinal Mahony, but to be fair to the man, the coverage by the L.A. Times for the last decade has been *incredibly* unfair and inaccurate. The former archbishop honestly has a legitimate beef about how he and his actions have been portrayed.

    And the Times’ piece last week revealed absolutely *nothing* that was new and relevant to anyone who has followed these stories for the past decade.

    The Times has relentlessly bludgeoned the Fr. Baker case so much that it is no longer recognizable.

    May I offer another perspective:

    Thank you.

    Dave Pierre

  4. I read this article when it came out and was very impressed. The article makes it clear that the cardinal far exceeded the reasoning that treatment was the appropriate course of action. What he did was obstruction of justice and the article showed that clearly.

    One point: Archbishop Gomez is not yet a cardinal, probably because Cardinal Mahoney is still able to vote in a conclave.

  5. One correction — You refer to the molesters as “pedophiles”. Pedophiles are those who are sexually attracted to prepubescent children. The overwhelming majority of children molested were post-pubescent, adolescent boys. Sadly, despite what official press releases say, the Church had/has a homosexual priest problem.

  6. I live in, and grew up in the L.A. archdiocese. People used to refer to the chancery as “The Lavender Mafia”. They don’t call it that anymore.

  7. “As I have said many times, the clergy-abuse scandal was not and is not a left vs. right story, because there was plenty of sin on both sides of the cultural and doctrinal divisions that torment Catholicism in America.”

    Care to explain this? Assuming you are using the standard definitions of left/right used in the USA I am of the opinion that this scandal has its roots in progressive liberalism and the left. It is progressivism which seeks to normalize sodomy and homosexuality (the vast majority of the abuse). It is progressivism that rejoices in the destruction of the priesthood and Catholic tradition; a tradition that included the weeding out of homosexuals from the seminaries. I do not see how the “right” contributed or caused this scandal. it is infiltration of communists and homosexuals (even among bishops) and leftist ideologies that caused this.

    I think the LAT article said what caused this in one sentence

    “Where his predecessors had talked up praying the rosary, Mahony touted his positions on nuclear disarmament and Middle East peace, porn on cable TV and AIDS prevention.”

    It is not hyperbole to state that the “seamless garment” philosophy initially promoted by Cardinal Bernadine (a homosexual himself) is rooted in the demonic and one of the things wrong in Cardinal Mahoney’s approach to his job.

    Micheal Voris just had an excellent Vortex on this topic:

  8. I heard a very recent CBS news report about allegations against the bishop of I believe Minneapolis-St. Paul that lead with quoting his position on same-gender marriage among other things, and seemed to be trying to make this a left verses right thing. It also seemed to have assumed guilt on little evidence, which the LA Times did not do on Mahony. I still have to wonder if a conservative cleric could have ever gotten out of the accusation Mahony did.