Examining the record: Cardinal Roger Mahony, former archbishop of Los Angeles

By his very own admission, Cardinal Roger M. Mahony, the former archbishop of Los Angeles, tragically mishandled cases of abusive priests from decades past. The devastation to victims has truly been immeasurable – a fact which Mahony himself has acknowledged many times.

However, a recent high-profile article in the Los Angeles Times about recently released court documents from the Archdiocese of Los Angeles only tells part of the story about how Cardinal Mahony dealt with abusive clerics during his tenure there.

The Cardinal's early work to combat abuse

What may surprise most people is that Cardinal Mahony – who, incidentally, was himself falsely accused twice of abuse – has a notable history of trying to take a proactive approach to the problem of clergy abuse.

Mahony became archbishop of Los Angeles in September of 1985, and he was soon addressing the issue of sex abuse. By June 1989, Mahony published the archdiocese's first formal written policies and guidelines for dealing with abusive clerics. In this respect, he was certainly ahead of many of his peers in the Catholic Church and many other organizations who oversee children.

Later, at the national bishops' conference in 1992, Mahony publicly expressed his concern about abusive priests, and he took the role of leading a meeting on the matter, even though the topic was not scheduled for discussion at the conference. Mahony also met with victims later that year.

Then, in 1994, Mahony instituted for the L.A. archdiocese a Sexual Abuse Advisory Board, one of the earliest boards of its kind in the country. It was composed of "priests, psychologists, social workers, attorneys and victims or parents of victims" to address the issue of abusive clerics within the archdiocese. Today, nearly every diocese in the country has a board similar to the one which Mahony implemented years earlier.

The Cardinal removes abusive clerics

Most notably, the policies set in place by the cardinal led to the permanent removal of a number of abusive clerics from active ministry. At least a dozen priests during the 1990s never returned to active ministry after the Archdiocese removed them. (TheMediaReport.com has compiled an unofficial list of abusive clerics whom the Archdiocese of Los Angeles removed prior to 2002. We have also provided exclusive information about the troubling case of the abusive priest Michael Baker.)

Again, it must be stressed that Cardinal Mahony's record is far from perfect. However, the totality of evidence rebuts the oft-heard and patently false claim that the prelate "let molesters run wild" during his time in Los Angeles.

Yet Cardinal Mahony's failures underscore a sobering truth: When dealing with personnel who abuse children, anything less than a 100% success record can result in devastating consequences. The life of even a single victim is forever altered.

(It should also be noted that over 90% of all of the accusers in Los Angeles came forward in the years 2002 and later in large measure due to "window legislation" passed by the California legislature. The legislation allowed accusers to sue the Catholic Church during the 2003 calendar year no matter how long ago the alleged abuse occurred. Notably, this legislation exempted public schools, where most of the criminal abuse has occurred, and it eventually led to $720 million in settlements from the Archdiocese of Los Angeles just in 2007 alone.)

Jail time? No.

Several observers – including some Catholic pundits – have opined that Cardinal Mahony should be in prison for his actions.

Indeed, even L.A. District Attorney Steve Cooley has declared that "it would be great" to prosecute the Cardinal and other Church officials. But despite wishful investigations and the hysterical claims from Church-suing attorneys, law enforcement has never found a prosecutable crime against Mahony or any Church leader in Los Angeles.

Then there is the double standard

In May 2008, two high school administrators with the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) were arrested for failing to report the awful rape of a young 13-year-old girl by a substitute teacher. One administrator pleaded guilty to the charge, while the other pleaded "no contest."

Where are the pair working now? They are still working for LAUSD – and they have since been promoted!

Meanwhile, one can only wonder what will happen to the LAUSD principal who was criminally charged just days ago for failing to report a teacher who may have molested as many as 20 students.

Surely if these incidents involved Catholic clerics, there would be huge national stories with screaming, hysterical headlines. As it stands now, there has barely been a peep in the media outside of Southern California.

Double standard? As always.

[ADDENDUM, 2/1/13: Check out "Historical Evolution of Dealing with the Sexual Abuse of Minors" by Cardinal Mahony (2/1/13)]

[ADDENDUM, 2/15/13: Hmmmm. Check out this new piece in the L.A. Times which pretty much contradicts how the paper has been portraying Cardinal Mahony for the past decade: "Vatican impeded Mahony attempts to remove priests, files show."]

[See also: "Five Fast Facts About the Media's Catholic Church Sex Abuse Narrative"]

Parish targeted by victims' group

Members of a support group for victims of alleged clergy abuse distributed leaflets in front of St. Columbkille Catholic Church in South Los Angeles on Sunday, urging parishioners and church employees who have information about sex crimes to speak out.

St. Columbkille is the former parish of defrocked priest Michael Stephen Baker, who in 2007 was sent to prison for sexually abusing two boys, and who authorities have identified as a prolific child molester.

Joelle Casteix, southwest regional director of the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests, said the group believes there may be many more victims of Baker in the parish. St. Columbkille officials were not available for comment.

Baker was recently questioned by a federal grand jury investigating how the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles and Cardinal Roger M. Mahony dealt with priests accused of molestation, according to sources familiar with the proceedings.

J. Michael Hennigan, an attorney representing Mahony and the archdiocese, has said the cardinal is not a target of the inquiry.

Casteix alleged that the archdiocese has not aggressively sought out other victims and witnesses, and said she believes parishioners could help law enforcement build a case against Catholic higher-ups and potentially bring new charges against Baker.

– Carla Rivera

Here is yet another great example of the Times giving an unchallenged and one-sided voice to SNAP and not questioning their outrageous claims.

Well, at least the Times issued a correction a few days later (Thursday, August 27, 2009) (bold in body mine):

Clergy abuse cases: A brief article in Monday's Section A about a group seeking information on possible victims of sex crimes at the former parish of defrocked priest Michael Stephen Baker failed to include the Archdiocese of Los Angeles' response to allegations by the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests that Catholic officials weren't doing enough to find victims of clergy abuse. Attorney J. Michael Hennigan said: "The archdiocese aggressively investigates every allegation or suspected incident, and in those cases looks for other victims. If SNAP has other information, they should deliver it to us and we will pursue it as we have done in the past."

How come the Times couldn't get it right the first time?

• “Over 100,000 victims of clergy sexual abuse have come forward in the United States alone”: The 2004 John Jay study, the most comprehensive study ever done on the issue of Catholic cleric abuse in the United States, found that only one tenth of that number, 10,667, have made such allegations. And the study included all accusations going back to 1950, a period of over a half a century. And in that same period, there were less than 110,000 men serving as Catholic priests in the U.S. For the film’s outrageous claim to be true, there would be one victim for nearly every priest who ever served in that period. Berg’s claim is preposterous for sure.
• “President Bush granted the Pope immunity from prosecution”: President Bush didn’t “grant” anybody anything. The United States has recognized the Holy See as a state since 1984. As the head of state, the Pope cannot be called to a trial in another country in the same way that a lawyer in another country cannot simply call in our President. Heads of state have immunity.
• “Oliver O’Grady is still roaming free in Ireland”: The claim on its surface is true, but the implication is that the Church should have an eye on him. The truth is that the Church laicized O’Grady. (It means that he is no longer a priest, that he is just a regular citizen. This is a common request by abuse victims.) The Church has no oversight over O’Grady than it has over any other private citizen in the country. The fact that O’Grady is “roaming free in Ireland” should be a criticism of the Irish government, not the Catholic Church.
• “Cardinal Roger Mahony is still in office fighting sexual abuse allegations against 556 priests in his (Los Angeles) diocese”: “556”? Try 254, less than half of Berg’s claim. And those are 254 priests with accusations dating back to 1930. Nearly thirty percent of the 254 priests were deceased at the time of their accusation.
• “The Catholic Church declined to be interviewed for this documentary”: If the topic of the film weren’t so sickening, this line would be comical. “The Catholic Church”? “Declined”? Reviewer Grant Gallicho for Religion News Service rightly asked, “Which part?” The Pope? A cardinal? A bishop? Amy Berg doesn’t tell us. Gallicho asked the chairwoman of the Church’s national lay review board, which has spent as much time as anybody addressing abuse cases, if filmmakers had contacted the group. They had not. But judging from the final product of the film, any Church officials would surely have been portrayed unfairly and in the most unflattering way.

Yet probably the most unprincipled contrivance in the film is when the filmmakers and their accomplice, Fr. Thomas Doyle, cajole now-adult victims of O’Grady into thinking that they can travel to the Vatican unannounced and meet Church “hierarchy” (the Pope, maybe?). Preying on the terrible pain and awful abuse that O’Grady caused, Berg and Fr. Doyle lead the victims into thinking that they could simply write a letter to the Vatican, show up at the front doors, and possibly meet the Holy Father. Needless to say, this doesn’t happen. The film catalogs the disappointment, and the victims are pained even further.

This is Hollywood exploitation at its ugliest. As a Catholic priest, Fr. Doyle would know more than anyone that citizens cannot merely show up at the Vatican without an appointment and meet high-level administrators. This would be about as likely as walking up to the White House uninvited, being escorted inside, and being able to meet with the Vice President. When Doyle’s maneuver fails, he claims that the Church “rejected [the victims],” “abused them,” and “[made] them out to be enemies of the Church.”

The obvious goal of Berg was to anger viewers further in their distaste for the Catholic Church for “turning away” abuse victims. But any clear-thinking viewer would direct his or her anger at Berg for exploiting people’s hopes, vulnerabilities, and pains.

PART I: Serious Problems With Facts

PART II: A Fallacious Attack on Cardinal Mahony

Then there’s Berg’s dishonest use of editing. A portion of the film features videotaped depositions of the O’Grady case given by Church officials, including Cardinal Roger Mahony. (Mahony was Bishop of Stockton for a period of time that O’Grady worked there.) A number of lawyers question the Cardinal about the O’Grady case, and Berg craftily cuts off answers, removes sound, and re-frames the screen in order portray Church officials in the worst light imaginable. Anyone who has seen a Michael Moore film should be familiar with these unscrupulous techniques.

For example, Berg features a 1980 letter from the father of an abuse victim written to a Stockton diocese monsignor. When one reads the entire letter (which would be impossible for a viewer in a theater to do), one clearly sees that the major issue of the father’s missive was that O’Grady was spending so much time with his wife. (The man and his wife were separated.) The man was also angry at O’Grady’s dissenting views towards the sacrament of marriage. However, through the use of deceptive framing, Berg craftily highlights a line of the letter in which the father wrote that O’Grady “took our 2-year-old son for a ride.”

“Aha!” the film implies. “Here’s more evidence that they knew that O’Grady targeted children!”

But the contents, tone, and entirety of the actual letter make no such claim or implication. Berg clearly misleads her viewers.

A clear target of Deliver Us From Evil is Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony. While O’Grady served 21 years in the diocese of Stockton, Mahony was the bishop from 1980 to 1985, a fraction of O’Grady time there. Yet the film deceives viewers into believing that just about all of O’Grady’s disgusting abuse happened under his watch. Two of the adult women featured in the film tell harrowing stories of child sex abuse by O’Grady. While the film bends over backwards to connect Mahony to this abuse, a study of their cases reveals that the incidents took place before Mahony even arrived in Stockton.

In another portion of the film, a series of interview subjects air their frustrations that O’Grady was allowed to continue as a priest. Then Berg places an ominous graphic and caption on the screen: “1982: Roger Mahony moves Oliver O’Grady to another parish 52 miles away.” The clear implication is that Mahony “shuffled” the molester O’Grady off to another unsuspecting parish.

Although the film suggests otherwise, the movie fails to note that during Mahony’s entire tenure in Stockton, not a single victim or family member came to him to complain of child abuse by O’Grady.

In fact, the film also fails to disclose that during his tenure in Stockton, then-Bishop Mahony removed the faculties and assignments of two priests who were accused of child abuse. It’s no surprise that director/writer Berg left this out. It would rebut her implication that Mahony let molesters “run wild” in his diocese.

PART I: Serious Problems With Facts

PART III: Even More Factual Errors

Once again, Lopez, like other members of the Times, appear to have been duped by victims' lawyer John Manly. In fact, even if a "paper trail" revealed that Mahony detailed that the archdiocese was "going to wait" on calling police, this would not represent anything new or earth-shattering.

Why not? Because Cardinal Mahony has already admitted (and apologized) publicly several times since 2002 over the fact that neither he nor the archdiocese called police about Father Baker's abuse in 2000. And this sad fact has already been widely reported in the media.

And here's an important fact that Lopez didn't report (and probably doesn't even know either): The archdiocese only became aware of Baker's late-1990's abuse when a lawyer hired by two of Baker's victims sent a letter to the archdiocese in 2000. (The young men and the archdiocese eventually settled out of court for $1.3 million.)

Think about that for a minute.

As Lopez noted, the archdiocesan general counsel advised that the Cardinal not call police regarding Baker. The reason that the counsel arrived at this decision is not known for sure.

But one can easily imagine that a call to police would have publicized the case. Remember – neither the men's lawyer nor the men (who were adults in 2000) called police, either. The website of SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests) openly states, "Abuse victims, like rape victims, need their privacy to recover from their trauma." The counsel may have thought that a call to police would have been viewed as an unseemly tactic to "intimidate the victims" or "interfere in a civil lawsuit." This possible scenario, in addition to the fact that the boys were now adults (which did not make reporting the case mandatory), may have led to the counsel's decision.

The bottom line: Monsignor Loomis' testimony reveals nothing but a possible "behind-the-scenes view" as to how the archdiocese reacted to the revelations that Baker committed such awful crimes.

It is also egregious that Lopez uncritically quotes lawyer John Manly. Lopez is apparently oblivious to the fact that Manly has a well-established track record of airing outrageous statements and falsehoods in the media all the time.

John Manly, the attorney who represents Luis and took the Loomis deposition, said he will ask the court to order the archdiocese to produce the memo Loomis spoke of.

"If Loomis is correct," Manly said, Mahony was "encouraging people not to call police and to intentionally cover it up. You wonder where law enforcement is on this."

Ugh. Again … the fact that Mahony did not call police in 2002 is already very well documented. Why hasn't law enforcement charged Cardinal Mahony? Because the L.A. County District Attorney is convinced that the Cardinal hasn't broken the law. And John Manly knows this.

Check out this important exchange between Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley and a host on KFI radio's "John and Ken Show" from July 17, 2007. They're discussing Cardinal Mahony, the archdiocese, and the scandal.

JOHN/KEN: … [John] Manly keeps coming on our show and says you have stuff – basically what he's saying is – you have stuff, you should be prosecuting already. But I'm not sure what the "stuff" is that he thinks you have.

D.A. STEVE COOLEY: I can’t get into Mr. Manly’s head. He’s made outrageous statements in the context of those civil proceedings for which he’s been sanctioned. He’s made outrageous statements about me. He’s made outrageous statements on your program. I’m not going to try to get into his head. However, I do extend to him an invitation to deliver to us in writing any theory he has of criminal liability on behalf of anyone involved with this matter and support it like a good lawyer. If he has any evidence, come forward. The invitation has been extended to him and has been extended to him today by [Deputy D.A.] Bill Hodgman in writing.

That was over two years ago. And far as I know, Manly, who is never shy of publicity, has not brought forth any evidence in writing.

In addition, on the very same show, in specifically discussing the statute in which priests must report known abuse of minors to authorities, Cooley added,

"We have not had one report from any source, including Mr. Manly, to suggest that any violation of that statute – that California statute – that makes that an affirmative duty."

Mandated reporting for priests began in 1997.

Got it?

The abuse of children that occurred at the hands of priests is truly despicable. And Church officials, by their own admission, terribly mishandled these cases. But this is not an excuse for journalists like Steve Lopez to dishonestly report the scandal.

But, then again, Lopez is not the first reporter to be duped by John Manly.

+_+_+_+_+

Oh, yeah. Lopez also misled his readers with this passage:

In a 2004 "Report to the People of God," Mahony told parishioners he had left five priests in the ministry despite complaints that they were molesters. A Times investigation came up with a different total, though, finding that Mahony had left an additional 11 priests in the ministry after concerns were raised about their inappropriate behavior with children.

Lopez is either ignorant or dishonest with this passage. What Lopez doesn't divulge to his readers is that the "additional 11" priests were allowed to return to ministry only after a thorough investigation by investigators and an oversight board into the allegations.

As I've written before, the media has been completely uninterested in those priests who have vehemently denied decades-old allegations against them.

Here's what the Times buried in an article on February 7, 2004:

[Rev.] Manuel Sanchez of Sacred Heart Church in Pomona said Friday that he did not even know his accuser. "I am completely innocent of the charges," the priest said. He said he learned of "this terrible accusation" six months ago and believed that his accuser was either "looking for money or he sincerely confused me with another person."

Sanchez was also quoted a couple years later on a CBS2 News report, March 26, 2006:

"With God as my witness, I am completely innocent of this claim of totally immoral and repugnant behavior. Being the object of a false accusation is a cause of great sorrow to me and my family."

Rev. Sanchez was one of those "additional 11." Other priests similarly reject their accusations.

Again -and this is very important – no one can deny the awful harm wrecked upon youth at the hands of priests. It happened, and it's truly abominable. But this is not an excuse for reporters like Lopez to deceive readers by publishing totally false and misleading information.

+_+_+_+_+

Finally … While Lopez still enjoys pounding on Cardinal Mahony with a story that's seven years old, he doesn't seem too worked up about far more recent misdeeds at LAUSD.

Lopez has devoted exactly one article to the enormous sex abuse scandals at LAUSD, and that article was almost a year and a half ago.

Why has Lopez never questioned the fact that Carol Truscott is back at her job at LAUSD ($171,000+/yr.) in light of her handling of the Steve Rooney affair? Why was Admiral David Brewer given a complete pass on the scandal in light of the fact that a memo about Rooney's February 2007 arrest was explicitly addressed to him? (For more info on this, go here.)

I guess only if Carol Truscott and David Brewer were "Rev. Carl Truscott" and "Monsignor David Brewer" would Lopez actually give a rip.

KFI's John Kobylt, half the afternoon drive team of John & Ken on Los Angeles' KFI 640 AM, may have illustrated this perfectly during an angry rant against Cardinal Mahony recently (Monday, September 21, 2009, 4pm hour).

In discussing a recent news article about Cardinal Mahony, the Los Angeles Archdiocese, and child abuse, John Kobylt said this about Cardinal Mahony:

"Any adult who has this much sympathy for this many child rapists, I really question what’s going on in Mahony’s mind itself. It’s impossible as a human being to have this much sympathy for child rapists. It’s just impossible. Why does he have such love for them? Why did he protect them for so long, to this day? Why? Is it just the feeling that ordinary common law doesn’t apply to religious institutions? That the canical (sic) law is more important? Or did he have a personal sympathy, some kind of personal bond with all these rapists. I don’t know. And why Steve Cooley, the LA DA, hasn’t run Mahony out of town, is a great mystery."

And then later:

"What can I say? Cardinal Mahony has an unhealthy sympathy for child molesters. Makes me wonder about him. Makes me wonder about any feelings that are stirring around in his mind and body. Because I’ve never seen that kind of thing in my whole life … I have no proof that Mahony is a child molester. I’m just sayin’. The only other people I’ve ever seen protect and defend child molesters have been other child molesters. Almost nobody else does."

Kobylt displays a lot of ignorance about what actually transpired over the years regarding sexual abuse in the Los Angeles archdiocese.

If Kobylt wants to continue to harangue Mahony for awful mistakes he made nine years ago, he has every right. But Kobylt's rant reveals an ignorance of a number of facts. By his own admission, the Cardinal mishandled aspects of the scandal. Even before the scandal erupted publicly in 2002, the Cardinal took steps to combat clergy abuse in his archdiocese. Some facts:

1. In 1994, Cardinal Mahony took the initiative of forming a Sexual Abuse Advisory Board. The board's explicit purpose was to deal with accusations of abuse against clergy in the archdiocese. The board may very well have been the first of its kind in the country. On the board was retired judge Hon. Richard P. Byrne. There was also a clinical psychologist, parents of victims of clergy abuse, and four priests. To read more about this board, see the informative 2007 article, "'I want my church to be free from those who prey upon others'" by the Honorable Richard P. Byrne (ret.).

2. Before the scandal erupted publicly in 2002, the archdiocese removed a number of priests from ministry for abuse of minors.

3. Cardinal Mahony only became aware of the late 1990's abuse by Father Baker when a lawyer hired by two of Baker's victims sent a letter to the archdiocese. (A civil case was settled for $1.3 million.) Legal counsel advised that the archdiocese not call the police. The reason for this is not known exactly, but I have speculated about these reasons in another post. One factor may have been that the victims were now adults. Another reason could have been that a call to police may have been viewed as an attempt to interfere in the civil suit. In addition, the archdiocese may have felt that the adult victims wanted privacy. The website of SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests) openly states, "Abuse victims, like rape victims, need their privacy to recover from their trauma."

4. Very importantly, the archdiocese has taken many steps designed to prevent sexual abuse by clergy and to encourage minors to report any clergy misconduct. People can read about these programs at the archdiocese's web site.

The archdiocese has trained thousands of archdiocesan clergy, staff, and volunteers in the VIRTUS program, which is designed to educate people about sexual abuse.

The archdiocese has also educated thousands of children through a program called Good-Touch/Bad-Touch, which provides "research-based, effective, body safety and violence prevention education for children in Pre-K through 6th grades."

And as someone who once attended Mass in Southern California, I can attest that my church's bulletin had an article EVERY WEEK on sexual abuse and information on how to report allegations. Pamphlets about abuse were also found in the lobby. (This was not long ago. I assume this is still happening.)

5. By his own admission, Cardinal Mahony mishandled aspects of the abuse crisis in his archdiocese. He has apologized numerous times publicly and privately over this. He has been especially remorseful over his handling of the situation regarding the despicable Michael Baker. (It was a case involving Baker which John & Ken discussed much during the hour.)

6. Finally, as far as Kobylt's wondering why L.A. D.A. Steve Cooley hasn't "run [Cardinal Mahony] out of town," Cooley himself has answered that question directly to Kobylt on two different occasions over two years ago! From John & Ken's July 17, 2007, show:

JOHN/KEN: I'm trying to figure out. What is [attorney John] Manly talking about? Manly keeps coming on our show and says you have stuff – basically what he's saying is – you have stuff, you should be prosecuting already. But I'm not sure what the "stuff" is that he thinks you have.

D.A. STEVE COOLEY: I can’t get into Mr. Manly’s head. He’s made outrageous statements in the context of those civil proceedings for which he’s been sanctioned. He’s made outrageous statements about me. He’s made outrageous statements on your program. I’m not going to try to get into his head. However, I do extend to him an invitation to deliver to us in writing any theory he has of criminal liability on behalf of anyone involved with this matter and support it like a good lawyer. If he has any evidence, come forward. The invitation has been extended to him and has been extended to him today by [Deputy D.A.] Bill Hodgman in writing.

(On the same show, Cooley also said,

"We have not had one report from any source, including Mr. Manly, to suggest that any violation of that [mandatory reporting] statute, that California statute that makes that an affirmative duty.")

And, again, from March 20, 2007, 6 p.m. hour:

COOLEY: There has not been one documented complaint that I know of that people in the Catholic Church, the Archdiocese, have violated the affirmative disclosure law since it became law.

In other words, Cardinal Mahony has not broken any law. Even frequent Church critic Tim Rutten has recognized this. From his January 30, 2009, column in the Los Angeles Times:

"[E]very cleric who can be criminally prosecuted already has been by the [L.A.] county's district attorney."

"Mahony has imposed a zero-tolerance policy on abuse so stringent that it's regarded as a model for institutions that care for the young."

"So far, the grand jury has subpoenaed records on 22 former priests, two of whom are dead, according to sources at the U.S. attorney's office. All of the relevant information on their cases has been in the hands of county prosecutors for years."

"The legal acrimony between the D.A.'s office and the archdiocese over all this has been corrosive enough to eat through titanium alloy. If any sort of criminal obstruction had occurred, does anybody really think L.A. County Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley wouldn't have prosecuted?"

There you go.

As for Kobylt, "I really question what’s going on in Kobylt's mind itself … Makes me wonder about any feelings that are stirring around in his mind and body."

A quick look at the article gives the impression that startling new information has brought forward yet another example of malfeasance by the Los Angeles archdiocese in its handling of abusive priests.

The truth? Groves, Winton, and the Times omitted important information, published misleading information, and duped their readers yet again.

The article centers around a recent deposition by former Vicar of Clergy Msgr. Richard Loomis. The Times claims that Loomis allegedly said that "[Cardinal Roger] Mahony ordered him not to inform parishes of allegations against the now defrocked Rev. Michael Baker."

Here's some important points that the Times either omitted or failed to glean:

1. The article makes no mention that as soon as the archdiocese was made aware of the accusations against Baker in 2000, it promptly removed him from ministry and began the laicization (removal from the priesthood) process. With months, Baker was laicized, a move that must be approved by the Vatican. (Baker himself also petitioned for laicization, and it was made official on December 5, 2000.)

2. The article also makes no mention of the fact that part of Baker's conditions in returning to ministry in the 1980's was that he was to attend regular counseling sessions. He was also restricted to ministry with adults. In addition to the awful abuse he wrought on the two brothers, Baker deceived his therapists and the archdiocese.

3. The article also contains this subtle slap at Cardinal Mahony:

Mahony said in a 2002 interview with The Times that no one at the archdiocese reported Baker to the authorities in 2000 because "it was just our expectation that the two brothers had gone to police because they were so angry at him."

The passage is obviously intended to make Mahony look bad, but in the context of the case, the Cardinal's remark is understandable.

Cardinal Mahony became aware of the late-90's abuse by Baker when an attorney hired by the two brothers sent a letter to the archdiocese. The young men and the archdiocese eventually settled out of court for $1.3 million.

The reason that the archdiocesan counsel advised the Cardinal not to call the police is not known. But one can easily imagine that a call to police would have publicized the case. Remember – neither the men's lawyer nor the men (who were adults in 2000) called police, either. The website of SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests) openly states, "Abuse victims, like rape victims, need their privacy to recover from their trauma." The counsel may have thought that a call to police would have been viewed as a dirty tactic to "intimidate the victims" or "interfere in a civil lawsuit." This possible scenario, in addition to the fact that the boys were now adults (which did not make reporting the case mandatory), may have led to the counsel's decision.

4. It has already been reported ad nauseum since 2002 that Cardinal Mahony, by his own admission, did not call the police after being notified by the lawyer's letter than Baker had abused again. This sad fact is seven years old.

The Times hardly provides any information of a "cover-up." It simply provides, at best, a behind-the-scenes look at why the Cardinal did not make that call.

Should the Cardinal have notified police upon receipt of that letter from the victims' lawyer? Absolutely. But who's to say that the victims' lawyer and their friends in the media (*ahem*) would not have accused the Cardinal of "intimidation"?

The latest offense from the Times is a dishonest op-ed (Tue. 2/3/09) from William Lobdell, who just-so-happens to be a former reporter at the Times. He also is promoting a new book that is coming out in three weeks. Lobdell's piece is riddled with misleading and false information:

1. "Because only 2% of the 4,392 U.S. priests and deacons accused of molestation from 1950 through 2002 served time in prison, victims of clergy sexual abuse are used to the criminal justice system failing them."

Lobdell's "2%" figure is incredibly misleading – and false. In total, over 24% of accused priests were reported to police. 20%-25% of the accused are deceased. As for most of the others, allegations were brought forward long after statutes of limitation, so charges could never be filed. In the case of Los Angeles, over 90% of the accusations did not surface until the years 2002 and 2003, often decades after the alleged incidents. Finally, the 2004 John Jay Report, the most comprehensive study conducted on the nationwide scandal, put the number actually jailed at 3%. (And, again, the report is five years old. The actual number may be a bit higher now.) 9% of the total accused were eventually convicted of a crime. (And we should remember that there many accused priests have vehemently denied their allegations, and many have been falsely accused.)

2. "In the seven years since the scandal first broke, Mahony and his brother bishops have relied on news fatigue, parishioner apathy and propaganda to escape personal responsibility for their starring roles in putting children in the paths of known predators."

"News fatigue"? "Parishioner apathy"? "Propaganda"? Is he kidding? Even Lobdell's former colleague, Tim Rutten, a perpetual Church basher, acknowledged in a column last week,

"[E]very cleric who can be criminally prosecuted already has been by the county’s district attorney … All of the relevant information on [the L.A. archdiocese priest] cases has been in the hands of county prosecutors for years … The legal acrimony between the D.A.'s office and the archdiocese over all this has been corrosive enough to eat through titanium alloy. If any sort of criminal obstruction had occurred, does anybody really think L.A. County Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley wouldn't have prosecuted?"

3. "[T]he cardinal has promoted himself — with the help of a high-priced public relations firm — as a leading reformer on the way the church handles clergy sexual abuse."

First of all, does this p.r. firm have a name by any chance, Bill? If so, they should be fired! Can anyone think of an organization that gets worse press in the media than Cardinal Mahony and the Catholic Church?

Meanwhile, Lobdell blasts the Cardinal for having a p.r. firm, Lobdell himself markets himself on his own web site as a "media consultant"! (H.t. to a commenter at the Times' web site) Check this out:

Lobdell will show you how to develop a realistic and effective media strategy to help achieve your company’s goals, how to stay ahead of a breaking and/or controversial story, how to create genuine relationships with journalists, how to effectively use off-the-record comments to shape the story in your favor, how to handle a 9 p.m. call from the New York Times (”No Comment” isn’t the answer), how to navigate the tricky world of New Media …

If this isn't hypocrisy, I don't know what is.

4. "To date, Mahony has skirted personal responsibility for [former priest Michael] Baker and other cases that happened on his watch."

Lobdell is dishonest here. Lobdell leaves out the fact that at the urging of Cardinal Mahony, Fr. Baker was laicized in 2000. Others found to have abused children were completely removed from ministry.

5. "[T]here is an almost universal sense among them that Mahony has never owned up to his role in the sex scandal … In his many public apologies to the victims, he's never acknowledged that his failure to act quickly and decisively resulted in unspeakable harm to Catholic children."

A flat-out lie by Lobdell. The Cardinal has apologized for his mistakes countless times. Here's an excerpt from a 2004 letter by Cardinal Mahony:

Once again I sincerely apologize to anyone who has suffered from sexual misconduct or abuse by a priest, deacon, lay minister, employee or volunteer of the Archdiocese. I acknowledge my own mistakes during my eighteen years as your Archbishop. Apologies are vitally necessary, but, of themselves, are insufficient. My goal as your Archbishop is to do all in my power to prevent sexual abuse by anyone serving our Archdiocese now and in the future. Moving the healing and reconciliation process forward requires the fullest possible disclosure of what happened over the years. The victims deserve nothing less.

In a 2006 radio interview on KCRW, Mahony stated,

"I have been able to meet with many, many dozens of victims, one by one, and I'll be doing that for probably for years to come … [I am] more committed to make sure we get all the help that we can to these victims and that the church be safe for the future."

6. "Mahony's 'great spiritual renewal' didn't stop him from waging a brutal legal battle against 508 victims of clergy sexual abuse. It took four bruising years — and countless attempts by the church to get the lawsuits dropped and evidence suppressed — before Mahony agreed to a settlement in 2007."

When California lifted the statute of limitation for civil charges of child abuse for a period the year 2003, the Archdiocese was flooded with accusations. Almost all of these accusations involved allegations that were surfacing for the first time. The vast majority involved accusations dating back decades.

What was the Archdiocese supposed to do? Simply open its wallet to anyone who walked in their door with an accusation? ("You were abused? I'm sorry. Whom should we make the check out to?") Could the Archdiocese at least investigate the validity and credibility of accusations? How about time for negotiations?

Lobdell's charge that the Archdiocese sought to "suppress evidence" is simply ignorant. The reason that the Diocese fought releasing some files was due to California's strict privacy laws. One false move, and the Archdiocese could have ended up paying an accused molester thousands or millions of dollars for "violation of privacy." Imagine the outrage if the Archdiocese had been forced to pay accused molesters of children millions of dollars because they had released personal files illegally!

Did a wave of clarity and sanity suddenly overcome Rutten? Rather than bellowing the hysterical falsehoods that have often been aired in the Times and in the media in recent years, Rutten's must-read piece wipes away a number of myths. Rutten proclaims a number of very notable and important facts about the Church abuse narrative in Los Angeles:

"[E]very cleric who can be criminally prosecuted already has been by the [L.A.] county's district attorney."

"Mahony has imposed a zero-tolerance policy on abuse so stringent that it's regarded as a model for institutions that care for the young."

"So far, the grand jury has subpoenaed records on 22 former priests, two of whom are dead, according to sources at the U.S. attorney's office. All of the relevant information on their cases has been in the hands of county prosecutors for years."

And most notably, for those who say attorneys are "afraid" to prosecute Church officials out of fear that they'd be damaged politically:

"The legal acrimony between the D.A.'s office and the archdiocese over all this has been corrosive enough to eat through titanium alloy. If any sort of criminal obstruction had occurred, does anybody really think L.A. County Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley wouldn't have prosecuted?"

Are you listening, Doug McIntyre, John & Ken, John Manly, Gustavo Arellano, Al Rantel, Steve Lopez, and SNAP?

To Tim Rutten: Nice job … but an honest, level-headed assessment of the Los Angeles Catholic Church abuse scandal from the Times has been loooong overdue.

Last November, a coordinator for the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) filed a discrimination lawsuit against his employer. The suit included the astonishing charge that the district assigned a principal to a middle school even though it knew the guy had recently faced a molestation-related investigation. Within months of his new assignment, the principal was arrested and charged with molesting four students. Again, although the paper had reported other episodes of this particular narrative, the Times jettisoned the news of this stunning lawsuit to the paper's blog and never reported it in their actual paper.

Cut to the front page of Thursday's Los Angeles Times (1/29/09). Above the fold, with an accompanying color photo, is the headline, "Mahony investigated over abusive priests." It's a serious and eye-opening headline, indeed. The article begins, "The U.S. attorney in Los Angeles has launched a federal grand jury investigation into Cardinal Roger M. Mahony in connection with his response to the molestation of children by priests in the Los Angeles Archdiocese, according to two law enforcement sources familiar with the case." But a deeper look into the article reveals there may be a lot less than meets the eye:

… "[Los Angeles Archdiocese lawyer J. Michael] Hennigan said he has been informed that Mahony is not a target of the inquiry." (Uhhh … Doesn't that pretty much contradict the headline?!?)

… "[Los Angeles District attorney spokeswoman Sandi Gibbons] said that charges against Mahony are 'highly doubtful'."

… "Laurie Levenson, a Loyola Law School professor and former federal prosecutor [said], 'I'd put [the gov't's reported theory for the case] in the category of creative lawyering'."

… "[U.S. Atty. Thomas P.] O'Brien declined to comment, refusing to even confirm the existence of the investigation."

Upon close inspection, the Times' piece appears pretty flimsy for an above-the-fold, front-page story. In addition, the article is based on unnamed sources, contains no new information about any abuse cases, and regurgitates information that's been reported ad nauseum over the past several years.

Needless to say, local TV outlets and talk show hosts have been having a field day in the last 24 hours in gleefully reporting what the Times has published. (Maybe that was the goal all along?)

Who knows what will transpire next in this story. But if no federal charges are ever brought against the Cardinal, can we expect an apology from the Times?

A double standard between the Los Angeles Archdiocese and the Los Angeles Unified School District? It sure seems like it.