Cardinal Roger \u201cRichard McBrien Says I\u2019m the True Voice of Reform\u201d Mahony is now in the running<\/a> Last week it was a horse race between Weakland <\/a>and Curtiss<\/a>, who were duking it out with conflicting claims to superior callousness and arrogance. But this week, Cardinal Mahony adds a whole new ingredient\u2013mendacity\u2013which radically alters the complexion of the race and makes him a sudden front runner for the hotly contested HPA! Every day he sounds more and more like Mr. Keefer, Fred MacMurray\u2019s revolting character in The Caine Mutiny<\/i>.<\/p>\n A friend comments on this story from the LA Times:<\/p>\n > Points West My friend says, \u201cIt\u2019s an open-and-shut case of cardinatial arrogance. Mahony flat-out lied<\/i> about this case, and only told the truth when he became convinced the media was going to tell it for him. Meanwhile, he had no trouble presenting himself in public as an upstanding archbishop, not like that creepy Cardinal Law. It was all a LIE. I\u2019m astonished by the nerve of these guys. How can they do this high-wire act in public, knowing what they know about themselves? These men are freakin\u2019 pathological.\u201d<\/p>\n It does make you wonder how dumb they are\u2013or how dumb they think we are.<\/p>\n
\n
for the coveted Heartless Prelate Award<\/i>!<\/p>\n
\n
> Mahony\u2019s \u2018Big Problem\u2019 Is Largely of His Own Making
\n
>
\n
> May 17, 2002
\n
>
\n
>
\n
> He didn\u2019t call the police.
\n
>
\n
> He didn\u2019t warn parishioners.
\n
>
\n
> He didn\u2019t check up on the molester who had confessed to him in 1986. That
\n
> left the offending priest free to prey on more children for another 14 years.
\n
> I don\u2019t know whether to ask for a grand jury investigation of Los Angeles
\n
> Cardinal Roger M. Mahony or run to the nearest church and light a candle for
\n
> him.
\n
>
\n
> Mahony, who has held himself up as a crusader against sexual abuse by
\n
> priests, is not the reformer he\u2019d have you believe. The latest proof is the
\n
> case of Father Michael Baker, as detailed by Glenn F. Bunting and other
\n
> colleagues in Thursday\u2019s Times.
\n
>
\n
> For months now, those of us who\u2019ve been covering the scandal in the Roman
\n
> Catholic Church have been aware of Father Baker. We knew about Mahony\u2019s
\n
> attorneys writing a $1.3-million check in 2000 to quietly settle a claim by
\n
> two brothers. They say Baker molested them for 13 years after the priest
\n
> confessed his compulsion to Mahony.
\n
>
\n
> But Mahony isn\u2019t an easy man to get answers out of, unless they\u2019re the ones
\n
> he wants you to hear. Here\u2019s what I\u2019m talking about.
\n
>
\n
> After I\u2019d hammered him in print for weeks, the cardinal stunned me with an
\n
> e-mail invitation for a personal tour of the new $200-million downtown
\n
> cathedral. It was my first clue he\u2019d missed his true calling. He should have
\n
> gone into PR.
\n
>
\n
> Fine, I replied. The sooner the better, because I\u2019ve got some questions I\u2019d
\n
> like to ask. But after several cordial exchanges, Mahony laid down the 11th
\n
> Commandment: Thou shalt not ask questions about anything but the cathedral.
\n
>
\n
> Was he kidding? He\u2019s sitting on top of a festering scandal, I\u2019ve got two or
\n
> three dozen queries about what he knew and when, and he thinks I\u2019m going to
\n
> come by to marvel at the Rog Mahal?
\n
>
\n
> In the end, he canceled my tour, and any hope of resurrecting it faded soon
\n
> thereafter. Mahony couldn\u2019t have been eager to see me after I dug up the
\n
> details on the way he handled a confessed molester back when Mahony was
\n
> bishop in Stockton. The priest molested again and again after Mahony moved
\n
> him around the diocese in the 1980s. Sound familiar?
\n
>
\n
> But if I couldn\u2019t get to Mahony, my colleague Beth Shuster did. Last month
\n
> she asked him whether Father Baker had confessed his abuse of minors.
\n
>
\n
> No recollection of it, Mahony said.
\n
>
\n
> Later, he told Shuster he thought another church official might have met with
\n
> Baker.
\n
>
\n
> Then, this Tuesday, he gave a third version. In a letter to diocesan priests,
\n
> he admitted that in 1986, \u201cBaker disclosed to me that he had problems in the
\n
> past of acting out sexually with two minors.\u201d
\n
>
\n
> Sounds like a case of repressed memory. But what caused the epiphany?
\n
>
\n
> \u201cIt\u2019s quite likely that very soon the public media will highlight the case,\u201d
\n
> Mahony wrote to his priests. In the letter, he said Baker was removed from
\n
> the ministry after the allegations in 2000.
\n
>
\n
> Indeed he was. But not even then did Mahony call police. He wrote a
\n
> $1.3-million check instead.
\n
>
\n
> Then, as the scandal grew and Mahony promised everyone he had handed the
\n
> names of all known molesters to police, internal memos revealed the
\n
> cardinal\u2019s dilemma.
\n
>
\n
> Should he tell police about Baker, even though it would reflect badly on him
\n
> and the diocese? Or should he keep it quiet and risk being dragged before a
\n
> grand jury and, in his own words, get hit with \u201ccharges of cover-up,
\n
> concealing criminals etc. etc.\u201d
\n
>
\n
> His worst nightmare might actually now come true. L.A. County Dist. Atty.
\n
> Steve Cooley apparently woke from his nap long enough to see that The Times
\n
> was doing his job for him and ordered the cardinal to either open up
\n
> personnel files or answer to a grand jury.
\n
>
\n
> Either option might prove uncomfortable for Mahony, who just a few weeks ago
\n
> was wagging a finger at Boston Cardinal Bernard Law. If Mahony were ever
\n
> guilty of gross negligence like that, he promised, he\u2019d have trouble walking
\n
> down a church aisle.
\n
>
\n
> But this story has been about hypocrisy and betrayal from Day One.
\n
>
\n
> \u201cOur biggest problem\u201d in dealing with Baker, Mahony told The Times, \u201cwas that
\n
> \u2026 he wasn\u2019t found guilty of a criminal act. That\u2019s a big problem.\u201d
\n
>
\n
> No it isn\u2019t. When a priest confesses to molesting children, there are three
\n
> things to do.
\n
>
\n
> First, call the police. Second, check on the victims. Third, defrock the
\n
> priest.
\n
>
\n
> To do anything less is a morally corrupt act of self-preservation, an insult
\n
> to victims and a disservice to countless honorable priests.
\n
>
\n
> Why can everyone but church leaders see the obvious?<\/p>\n