LOS ANGELES — A former high-ranking official with the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles testified that Cardinal Roger Mahony ordered a subordinate to delay reporting clergy abuse claims to the police until the priest in question could be defrocked, according to court papers filed Friday.
He also decided not to tell parishioners about the allegations, according to the papers.
The claims were contained in a motion filed by plaintiff attorneys in Los Angeles County Superior Court and were based on the recent deposition of former vicar for clergy Monsignor Richard Loomis (Pic above). A transcript of the deposition was attached.
The testimony centers around now-defrocked priest Rev. Michael Baker and a lawsuit filed in 2000 by two Arizona men who alleged sexual molestation by Baker in the mid- to late-1990s.
The archdiocese eventually settled the case for $1.2 million. Baker, who was defrocked later in 2000, was convicted in 2007 of molestation based on the claims of the two men and one other victim and is serving a 10-year prison sentence.
Baker was called earlier this year to testify before a federal grand jury investigating possible criminal wrongdoing by the archdiocese in its handling of clergy abuse cases.
Calls after business hours to two archdiocese attorneys and archdiocese spokesman Tod Tamberg were not immediately returned. However, in the deposition transcript, archdiocese attorney Don Woods said that because the two alleged victims were adults when they filed their claim, Mahony was not obligated to report it to the police and did no wrong.
In his testimony, Loomis said he told Mahony in a memo that he was going to report the new allegations against Baker to police. Loomis said Mahony initially supported the idea, but later told him — through a secretary — not to do so until the Vatican approved Baker's defrocking.
Plaintiff attorney John Manly said the archdiocese did not report abuse claims to the police until 2002, although Baker was defrocked in December 2000.
Loomis later testified that he wanted to report the new allegations to parishioners who worshipped in parishes where Baker had worked, but was told by Mahony not to do so — an apparent breach of normal church policy. Loomis said the order upset him deeply and he would have resigned if his term wasn't about to end.
"I wanted to follow our regular policy and inform the parishes where Father Baker had been assigned. And I was instructed that we were not going to do that because the lawsuit was still under the process of settlement," Loomis said, according to the transcript.
"I was very upset that we were not going to follow through with our ordinary way of doing it."
Loomis said when he was appointed vicar, his predecessor told him that Baker was treated differently than other priests accused of sexual molestation because he had "self-disclosed."
Baker first told Mahony in 1986 at a priests' retreat that he had molested two young boys from 1978 to 1985, according to church documents. Mahony did not notify police but sent Baker to a residential facility that treated priests for sexual abuse problems.
In the years that followed, Baker was assigned to nine parishes but barred from having one-on-one contact with minors. He violated those restrictions three times, according to church personnel file summaries released by the archdiocese.
Mahony removed Baker from the ministry in 2000 after the Arizona lawsuit.
Baker was charged two years later with 34 counts of molestation involving six victims, but those charges were dismissed in 2003 after the U.S. Supreme Court voided a California law that allowed the prosecution of cases involving acts that occurred before 1988.
However, the allegations by the Arizona men and one other victim allowed prosecutors to file new charges against Baker that fell within the statute of limitations.
In January 2006, the former priest was arrested at Los Angeles International Airport as he returned from a vacation in Thailand and prosecuted.
Hmmm....So, Baker returned to the US after vacationing in Thailand. A wild guess as to why he chose that particular country. Outrageous!
I just don't know what to think about HizEminence. The man seems to be made of Teflon. Nothing sticks! It also serves to mention that Mahony's advocacy on behalf of illegal immigrants adds to make him practically untouchable. Just when I thought LA DA, Cooley, would be the one to bring Mahony to stand before the law and answer for his horribly negligent handling of his sexually-abusive priests, nothing happens. Regardless of all the incidents that came out in discovery. Then two billion rea$ons keep the Cardinal from testifying. It's as if he walks on water.
After all that, I figured the Cardinal got what he wanted and it was over as far as judges on earth are concerned...Then Loomis' testimony came out in the LA Times a week ago. Until all is verified, we'll just have to wait and see what happens.
It's best to note that Mahony is a high-profile prelate from a huge archdiocese, and his dirty laundry is more readily available to public scrutiny than a bishop from a small diocese. Only G-d knows what trash other bishops are trying to sweep under the rug.
G-d have mercy on us all.
Posted by: MVH | Friday, September 25, 2009 at 07:05 PM
MVH I am no fan of Mahoney, but on this one he appears to have done right. As the article states, since the accusers were adults he was not doing anything wrong by waiting until the Vatican had defrocked the priest until he came forward. Also, as long as he was not in active duty, it was probably prudent for all involved not to inform his former parish until the dust had settled. Personally, I can't see anything wrong with this one, and actually support the decisions made here.
P.S. why are you writing G-D instead of God? This is a wayward Jewish tradition and not part of our Catholic tradition. I hope you are not someone who writes "BCE" instead of the proper "BC" as well.
Posted by: Simonian | Friday, September 25, 2009 at 09:43 PM
Joseph I didn't miss the point. I'm saying I agree with his decision here. And please don't tell me you are one of those "Voice of the (un)Faithful" ilk who want a "flat" church, because that just isn't going to happen. There has always been a heirarchy, going straight back to the gospels. And unless you are part of it, I don't think you have the authority to say he is a stench in the nostrils of God. Actually, I don't even think the pope would say something like that, so you really need to check your ego there before you go thinking for God.
I for one will celebrate the day Mahoney retires, and I hope the first act of the new bishop of LA is to sell off the Roj Mahal brick by brick and create a new dignified cathedral worthy of 2,000 years of church architecture. But on this particular case, I think Mahoney was correct in his actions. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Posted by: Simonian | Saturday, September 26, 2009 at 03:18 AM
This is a good case to follow. However, the Santillian brothers case is Fresno also points the finger at none other than Fr/Msgr. Roger Mahoney. In the Fresno case, Mahony testified he knew nothing about allegations against a priest in Wasco, Ca.. Recent court documents show signatures of Fr./Msgr. Roger Mahony on documents related to the case. Could it be that time and truth have caught up with Cardinal Mahony...
Posted by: QuantraCura01 | Monday, September 28, 2009 at 01:13 AM
It is always a touchy case whenever the church is involve in civil case. The court on earth does not know exactly, in fact no one know...Testimony or not.
Posted by: Fortune Ezeoha | Tuesday, September 29, 2009 at 02:41 AM