Catholics & Catholicism

Question:

Los Angeles Times      article by Glenn F. Bunting Reprinted in SF Chronicle     May 16, 2002 Mahony let priest off easy secretly paid all accusers Los Angeles – A popular Los Angeles priest told Cardinal Roger Mahony in 1986 that he molested boys but was reassigned to parishes and allegedly continued his sexual abuse of minors for more than a decade, documents and interviews show. Mahony later approved a secret $1.3 million payment to two men who said they had been abused by the priest, Father Michael Stephen Baker, from 1984 to 1999.  The cardinal arranged for the priest to retire quietly from the Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles in late 2000. In a letter of complaint that led to the settlement, attorney Lynne Cadigan wrote that Mahony and the archdiocese had failed to ensure that Baker did not repeat his sexual offenses against children. "No one at the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, including Cardinal Mahony, reported Baker’s sexual abuse of children to the authorities, to the parents of the abused children, or to any other foreseeable victims.  Nor did they attempt to find out all the children that he had molested." Baker, now 54, allegedly molested at least nine youths beginning in 1976, according to interviews with victims, relatives, and lawyers. It was not until recent weeks that Mahony, under increasing pressure to reveal the names of clerics accused of sexual misconduct, reported Baker to law enforcement. On Tuesday, Mahony faxed a two-page letter to approximately 1200 priests in the archdiocese, acknowledging that he had mishandled the case and warning that it would soon become a media story. "As your archbishop, I assume full responsibility for allowing Baker to remain in any type of ministry during the 1990’s," Mahony wrote.  "I offer my sincere personal apologies for my failure to take firm and decisive action much earlier." The cardinal also notified the priests that archdiocese leaders had now learned of more allegations of sexual misconduct against Baker.  He is one of at least 30 current and former priests from the archdiocese under investigation by criminal authorities. In a series of interviews with the Times, Baker described going to the offices of the archdiocese in 1986 and telling Mahony of his problem with sexual abuse.  He said that in one meeting an archdiocese lawyer had suggested calling the police, but Mahony said no.  The cardinal said in an interview that he could not recall the discussion with Baker. The Baker case is emerging as a pivotal one for Mahony and archdiocese leaders as they continue to grapple with the sexual abuse scandal that has hit the Roman Catholic Church.  In an interview last month, Mahony called the Baker case the one "that troubles me the most". The cardinal has sought to portray himself as a defender of young victims and an advocate of cooperating with criminal investigations.  At Pope John Paul II’s historic meeting with American cardinals in Rome last month, Mahony backed a "zero tolerance" policy for sexually abusive priests. In his letter to priests, Mahony did not disclose his failure to notify police when he learned about Baker’s alleged abuses against minors in 1986 and again in 2000.  But he wrote, "If I had known in those years what I discovered in early 2000, I would have dismissed him from all ministry and requested his dismissal from the priesthood in the late 1980’s." Testimony in a 1998 Stockton case indicated that Mahony, as bishop of the Diocese of Stockton in the early ’80’s, had knowingly allowed a pedophile priest, Olive O’Grady, to continue working and taken no action to keep him away from children.  Two brothers were awarded millions of dollars in damages in the case. Of all the archdiocese priests facing allegations of sex abuse, Mahony said recently, Baker’s case is most troubling because Baker molested a number of children in the 1970s, ’80s and ’90s and continues to live in the same area unsupervised. The first incident of alleged abuse that has come to light took place in 1976 when Baker invited a 9-year-old altar boy to spend the night at the rectory in St. Paul of the Cross, in La Mirada (Los Angeles County), after a church-sponsored New Year’s Eve party. "That night was the beginning of a near-decade-long nightmare," the alleged victim, now 34 and living in West Hollywood, wrote recently in a memo to his attorney. The man recalled in an interview with the Times that Baker took him on trips to Palm Springs, Newport Beach, Reno and Chicago.  He said the abuse had escalated to oral sex and that Baker occasionally had whispered to him, "You’re the son of God." Eight other people have alleged that they were molested by Baker in the late 1970s and early ’80s, according to interviews with them and their attorneys. Two brothers claim Baker began abusing them at St. Hilary in 1984 when they were 5 and 7. In 1985 Mahony was appointed head of the Los Angeles Archdiocese.  The following summer at an annual series of retreats for archdiocese priests, Mahony invited anyone who had engaged in sexual abuse to talk to him privately. Baker declined to comment on specific allegations of abuse.  The priest said he had admitted in a private meeting with Mahony in December 1986 that he had engaged in sexual abuse of minors. "I told Mahony I had a problem,"  Baker said. The next day, Baker said, he met with Mahony, archdiocese attorney John P. McNicholas and Monsignor Thomas Curry, the vicar for clergy who oversaw all priests.  At the meeting, Baker said, he was asked the extent of his problem. Baker said he had discosed that "two or three" victims were involved and vowed not to engage in any future sexual misconduct. "I don’t recall them pressing me for details, and I didn’t give them any, " he said. At one point, Baker said, McNicholas blurted, "Should we call the police now?" Baker said he recalled Mahony’s response: "No, no, no." Baker continued to have frequent access to children over the next 14 years while he was assigned to nine different parishes.  Six of the parishes where Baker worked had elementary schools adjacent to the rectory.

Response:

I didn’t want to include my comments on the news article with the news article itself. Baker described going to the offices of the archdiocese in 1986 and telling Mahony of his problem with sexual abuse. He said that in one meeting an archdiocese lawyer had suggested calling the police, but Mahony said no.  The cardinal said in an interview that he could not recall the discussion with Baker.

Right.  Just as Cardinal Law cannot recall details of his discussions concerning Geoghan, including a letter about Geoghan which had his (Law’s) comments on it. In his letter to priests, Mahony did not disclose his failure to notify police when he learned about Baker’s alleged abuses against minors in 1986 and again in 2000.  But he wrote, "If I had known in those years what I discovered in early 2000, I would have dismissed him from all ministry and requested his dismissal from the priesthood in the late 1980’s."

Uh huh.  But Baker remained in active ministry until late 2000. Of all the archdiocese priests facing allegations of sex abuse, Mahony said recently, Baker’s case is most troubling because Baker molested a number of children in the 1970s, ’80s and ’90s and continues to live in the same area unsupervised.

I’m going to develop a severe case of barfitis from Mahony’s disengenuous comments.   From 1986 to 2000—14 years—Baker was in 9  parishes, working with children, *unsupervised* even tho his archbishop *knew* he had sexually abused minors 1986 and earlier.  Just how "troubled" was this cardinal about Baker’s abuse of children? Mahony seems to have learned a lot about spin in his years in the second-most prominent spin city in the U.S. (after D.C.)  Not long ago he was talking to reporters about the "grave neglect" of  *other*  prelates who allowed abusers to remain in active ministries.  I wonder whether any of these guys feel shame? Mac

Response:

Los Angeles Times      article by Glenn F. Bunting Reprinted in SF Chronicle     May 16, 2002 Mahony later approved a secret $1.3 million payment to two men who said they had been abused by the priest, Father Michael Stephen Baker, from 1984 to 1999. I don’t get it. They were abused for 15 years? Why did they ever go back to that parish as adults?

My wife has been abusing me for 10 years and I keep coming back for more. Now if only I could get a settlement like that. Uncle Bob    http://www.newsgroups.com       The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–= Over 100,000 Newsgroups – Unlimited Fast Downloads – 19 Servers =—–

Response:

<<Are you saying this in hindsight, or were you aware of his sexual behavior with young children while it was occurring? I know of a man who sexually molested children, I didn’t realize it at the time but after knowing what he did, I could see exactly why he was able to continue without any adults even suspecting he was capable of such crimes. Hindsight.  From all I could see, he was a charmer to the ladies, but I never heard of any hanky panky while he was with us.  I never saw him around kids, but he certainly was personable and to all appearances an exemplar priest.  No, I’d never have suspected him.  We have parishioner friends who condemn what he did, but are still very grateful for all the good things he did for them during family crises.   I think it’s understandable that the bishops would try to "save" these guys. They saw pedophilia as something like alcoholism or an adulterous relation: a sinful disease that they could hopefully be cured of.   What they seem to have forgotten is that pedophilia is also a CRIME.  It’s costing the church a lot of money and the victims a lot of heartache because of this oversight.  

Response: