Roman Catholic Archbishop José H. Gomez shook the Catholic world yesterday by imposing unheard-of sanctions against his predecessor, Cardinal Roger Mahony for Mahony’s actions to shield predatory priests from accountability during his years as the head of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. In most of the coverage, this was rightly hailed as a strong action to advance the cause of justice, and to provided at least a measure of accountability even though criminal liability is probably not possible because the statute of limitations has probably expired. The coverage misses one very negative aspect of Gomez’ actions, however. Before we get to that, let me provide a little background.
In 2007, the Archdiocese of Los Angeles (then headed by Mahony) settled a group of over 500 civil suits over clerical child abuse, and since then has been fighting the release of their files related those cases. When they lost the battle to keep the files themselves secret, they tried to argue that the names of not just victims but church officials should be redacted. Some records were released last week, and last Monday, they lost their redaction argument, and yesterday, rather than appeal the ruling, they released the rest of the files.
What emerged was not pretty. Not pretty at all:
Fifteen years before the clergy sex abuse scandal came to light, Archbishop Roger M. Mahony and a top advisor plotted to conceal child molestation by priests from law enforcement, including keeping them out of California to avoid prosecution, according to internal Catholic church records released Monday.
The archdiocese’s failure to purge pedophile clergy and reluctance to cooperate with law enforcement has previously been known. But the memos written in 1986 and 1987 by Mahony and Msgr. Thomas J. Curry, then the archdiocese’s chief advisor on sex abuse cases, offer the strongest evidence yet of a concerted effort by officials in the nation’s largest Catholic diocese to shield abusers from police. The newly released records, which the archdiocese fought for years to keep secret, reveal in church leaders’ own words a desire to keep authorities from discovering that children were being molested.
Ugly. The memos show Mahony and his staff shuttling some priests out of the country, and cherrypicking therapists for others, all in an effort to avoid accountability.
Mahony retired in 2011, and Archbishop José H. Gomez took over the archdiocese on March 1, 2011. Yesterday, in his letter accompanying the release of the unredacted files, Gomez described reading through them:
I find these files to be brutal and painful reading. The behavior described in these files is terribly sad and evil. There is no excuse, no explaining away what happened to these children. The priests involved had the duty to be their spiritual fathers and they failed.
We need to acknowledge that terrible failure today. We need to pray for everyone who has ever been hurt by members of the Church. And we need to continue to support the long and painful process of healing their wounds and restoring the trust that was broken.
I cannot undo the failings of the past that we find in these pages. Reading these files, reflecting on the wounds that were caused, has been the saddest experience I’ve had since becoming your Archbishop in 2011.
Then came the bombshell:
My predecessor, retired Cardinal Roger Mahony, has expressed his sorrow for his failure to fully protect young people entrusted to his care. Effective immediately, I have informed Cardinal Mahony that he will no longer have any administrative or public duties. Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Curry has also publicly apologized for his decisions while serving as Vicar for Clergy. I have accepted his request to be relieved of his responsibility as the Regional Bishop of Santa Barbara.
A retired Cardinal has very, very few limits on their authority. Broadly speaking, they are not answerable to ordinary bishops as they travel from place to place or serve on various committees, commissions, and organizations within the church, as ordinary priests would be. Within their former diocese, however, the local bishop does maintain certain authority, and Gomez just exercised it.
Gomez can’t strip Mahony of his rank as a Cardinal, nor can he prohibit Mahony from saying mass or serving as a priest. Only the Vatican can do that. Gomez can — and apparently did — say to Mahony specifically and the public more generally that he will not allow him to appear publicly in the archdiocese in any official capacity. None. It’s a huge slap at his predecessor, and puts the Vatican in a difficult spot as they determine what steps they will take.
But as unprecedented as it is, it’s not the grand move for accountability that most in the media seem to think that it is.
Gomez has been in charge in LA for 23 months. In his first week, like anyone in a new job, he did a lot of things to get up to speed. He no doubt was introduced to the regular routine of his new position, and brought up to speed on whatever big issues were sitting on his desk. The very hottest of those issues were these hundreds of lawsuits, and Gomez surely met with the archdiocesan legal folks to find out where things stand.
If Gomez is a competent administrator at all, discussions of any pending legal case against the archdiocese would have asked basic questions like “How bad is it? What kind of problems do these files present? What damages do we face?” Given the worldwide outrage about child abuse in the Catholic Church, Gomez ought to have sat down that day and started reading through these files, to see what kind of powder keg was sitting under his desk.
If he didn’t do that, he’s incompetent — and if he were that incompetent, the Vatican never would have appointed him to this very important see. If he were that incompetent, he would have failed in other ways in earlier positions. If he were that incompetent, it would have shown up in all kinds of other ways.
So if he’s not incompetent, then the “brutal and painful reading” of these files didn’t happen this week. It didn’t happen last week, or last month. Gomez probably read these files almost two years ago, or at least started to, and it’s only now — when the courts forced their release — that Gomez finally publicly spoke out on this with such strength and imposed what sanctions he could on Cardinal Mahony.
Better late than never, I suppose.
But if Gomez’ delay allowed the statute of limitations to expire on any of Mahony and Curry’s crimes, it is just as unconscionable as their actions were, and he deserves the same sanction. At least.
Don’t get me wrong: I am very pleased at what Gomez did with regard to Mahony. Gomez apparently levied the strongest sanctions he could under his own authority, and it puts the Vatican in a very difficult position, as they decide what actions they will take.
I just wish it had been “effective immediately” 22 months ago.
_______
photo of Cardinal Mahony h/t to Shay Sowden and used under Creative Commons.



16 Comments

Oh, and for the record, let us note that Cardinal Bernard Law (of Boston Child Abuse coverup fame) continues to enjoy his retirement amongst friends in Rome.
Thus, while I’m glad to see anything that ramps up the pressure on the Vatican to provide meaningful accountability, I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for it to happen.
See also “Ireland, child abuse scandal of”
Until those catholics responsible for the rape of children and it’s cover up are tried and imprisoned, there will be no justice for their victims.
Thank you. Now to watch and see what Gomez does next, will he continue to sanction the violators and clean house?
If I had to guess, I’d say that part of the legal strategy all along was to blow as many statutes as possible. That being said, what do the statutes for civil penalties look like? If Mahoney, etal can’t be thrown in prison, maybe they can be thrown into abject poverty.
Ian Masters did a segment on this a few days back.
WWJD Mahoney is not the only one to blame.
Would assume Gomez got his job by making a Ford-Nixon deal at the time.
Let us pray. Yep, good words.
I wonder if he’d have issued that letter if he had not been forced to release the evidence.
My bet is no. And there would have been no discipline against Mahoney.
Boxturtle (And Cardinal Law best hope that God is as forgiving as the Church says)
Thank you for the context, Peterr, of how long ago Gomez must have started reading the files. In that light, his actions seem at best opportunistic and at worst shielding criminal prosecution.
Finally the ugly truth is being exposed, finally the victims may feel validation, and finally these church officials might be held responsible for covering these sex crimes, so that no other child is sexually abused again.
But this is curious…..How is it possible that Cardinal Mahony ( who deserves to be prosecuted for covering up sex crimes against innocent kids ) can be removed of his duties.?….And yet convicted criminal KC Bishop Finn can not..?
They make up their own rules.. which is so sad for all the victims of clergy sex abuse..
Judy Jones, SNAP Midwest Associate Director, 636-433-2511. snapjudy@gmail.com,
(Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests)
I looked at the files and saw that at least 38 of the priests attended St. John’s Seminary in Camarillo, CA. I say at least because not all the files noted where the priests were ordained.
The shear number of priests attending the same seminary does not in itself suggest that St. John’s was part of the conspiracy. But there were multiple groupings of ordinations that would give one pause to ask whether something was going on that administrators/faculty at St. John’s were aware or, or should have been aware of. For instance, in 1955, Michael Buckley, John Cosgrove, and Wallace Daley were all ordained together. In 1958, Richard Garcia and Carl Sutphin. The years 1963, 1966, and 1967 also saw the ordination of groups of three priests who went on to commit sex crimes. The years 1961, 1972, 1973, 1974, and 1978 all saw groups of two. Think about that.
In 2005, the Los Angeles Times did just that and published a story about the trail of abuse leading to St. John’s. It’s quite a read and describes both a culture of promiscuity among the students and one of oblivious (or feigned ignorance?) among the administration. Interestingly, the Times article concluded with a summation of its efforts to track down the number of St. John’s graduates who were later accused of sex crimes.
And remember, I found only 38 priests in the files released yesterday. So that means there’s quite a few more that weren’t included in the files because they moved outside the Los Angeles archdioceses. Wow.
It’s because Mahony is retired, with the title “Archbishop Emeritus.”
Rule one of having “emeritus” status is that you are subject to the policies and directions of the current (arch)bishop. Where you used to set the rules, now he does. Usually, the duties of a retired (arch)bishop are generally ceremonial and social, such as representing the church at ecumenical events or charity fundraisers where the current (arch)bishop cannot attend, and they are all carried out under the authority of the current (arch)bishop.
Mahony’s days of doing anything like overseeing parishes and priests ended when Benedict accepted his retirement letter.
Finn, on the other hand, is not an emeritus bishop. He’s the bishop in place, and there’s no one save the pope who can do anything about separating him from his duties.
Quite frankly, I’m stunned at the silence from Rome with regard to Finn. Unless someone comes out and says otherwise, it sure appears that Finn has managed to tell the folks at the Vatican that this was a trumped up witch-hunt and despite being found guilty, he really wasn’t.
Also, Finn has a suspended sentence, and if he completes his probation without a problem, the conviction disappears from his record as far as the secular authorities are concerned. Thus, the Vatican can say “hey — we’re just going along with the US courts. If they say the conviction is gone, we’re fine with that.”
Finn’s continued presence in the bishop’s chair makes a mockery of the USCCBs Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People.
Gomez wanted to redact names of guilty clergy, but the court would not allow it. And Mahoney has not been defrocked. Among other things, he will be eligible to vote for the Pope, should Benedict die before Mahoney. Given Mahoney is retired, what Gomez did did not amount to much.
The victims are not satisfied.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CALIFORNIA_CHURCH_ABUSE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-02-01-15-18-40
I’m not a lawyer but if you cover up a crime would it not make sense to begin the statue of limitations after the crime was revealed?
Also Child molesting I thought had a longer statue of limitations. If a victim commits suicide would the Priest be charged with murder being molested I would think would certainly be a contributing factor in a murder.
Any number of statutes of limitations probably expired in the 22 months it took the new Archie-B to decide this. I’m sure Rome will snatch up Cardinal Mahoney any day now; urgent work awaits in the seat next to Bernie Law, another protector of pedophiles.
Interesting observation, Apachetrout. My guess is that someone (or two or three) at St John’s was grooming ‘partners’, who then went out and did likewise. I saw parts of this happening at my Catholic high school, covering up is still happening, nearly 50 years later. My brother told hair-raising tales of the decidedly sexual persecution at a seminary he attended briefly. A lovely, sweet young man who was my classmate for eight years committed suicide because of it. Never heard a peep from anyone in the Old Home Town at any level, not archdiocese, not clergy, not media and just mumble mumble from my devout family and other faithful of my acquaintance. Only acknowledgement was a sidewise admission from a couple of retired nuns.
Hell is too good for these monsters. Spit!