Posted on 02/01/2013 6:35:24 AM PST by TSgt
A retired Los Angeles cardinal accused of mismanaging a child sex abuse crisis has been stripped of all administrative and public duties by his successor.
Retired Cardinal Roger Mahony, 76, has apologised for his "failure", Archbishop Jose Gomez said on Thursday.
The Los Angeles archdiocese, the largest in the US, has released thousands of pages of files on priests accused of child molestation.
Cardinal Mahony retired in 2011, having run the archdiocese for 25 years.
In 2007 Los Angeles paid $660m (£415m) to alleged victims of abuse, the largest sex abuse payout on record.
Cardinal Mahony has publicly apologised for mistakes he made handling the clerical sex abuse issue. 'They failed'
"I find these files to be brutal and painful reading," Archbishop Gomez said in a statement. "The behaviour 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."
He added that Bishop Thomas Curry, former vicar of the clergy who handled the cases of accused priests, had stepped down from his post as bishop of Santa Barbara.
The 12,000 pages of documents were released after Church records on 14 priests were unsealed as part of a civil case. They showed both Bishop Curry and Cardinal Mahony had helped to shield accused priests from investigation in the 1980s.
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.co.uk ...
After resisting to the last possible moment disclosure of what every informed person already knew.
The most difficult thing to understand about this whole mess is why there was not one bishop - not one, not here, not in Ireland, not in Belgium, not in Austria - who reacted to this like any normal man would do.
If Gomez had taken this action on day one (OK, or after two weeks) it would have been praiseworthy.
Now, it's just more concessions after being forced by the law to disclose.
Mahoney should be laicized.
The Present Pope had been in charge of dealing with sex abuse cases when he was a Cardinal for more than 20 years.
Yeah, I say he did wrong.
For example , he stopped a trial of a Priest accused of molesting about 200 deaf boys over the protests of at least two Archbishops.
Here is more info
” retired Los Angeles cardinal ... has been stripped of all administrative and public duties”
Doesn’t “retired” me you have no duties?
http://www.secularism.org.uk/120391.html
Evidence that Ratzinger knew about child abuse and did nothing
http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/ratzinger-altered-canon-law-soften-maciel-punishment-book-argues
Ratzinger altered canon law to soften Maciel punishment, book argues
I hate to see tha Church’s dirty laundry aired in public, but it is necessary because they did nothing to clan it up in private.
I will probably go to hello for blasphemy but I look at where the Cardinals and Bishops come from. Do they not come from the ranks of the Priesthood? If there are pedophiles in the Priesthood, does it not stand to reason that there are pedophiles in the higher ranks?
Why else would they hide these Priests?
When the Church starts cleaning up their mess they have to clean it right to the top.
I believe in the Catholic Church as the religion Christ began, it is it’s human hierarchy that moved away from the teachings of Christ and allowed this abomination that I am suspiscious of. This mess did not start yesterday, it has been in the Church for a long time, and it has not been solved either.
A point of clarification: Gomez is an archbishop, not a cardinal.
Yes, a cardinal is higher than an archbishop, so it is a bit odd that a lower ranking person would relieve the cardinal of his duties, but bishops have a lot of authority over what happens in their own territory, so it does not surprise me that Gomez can do this.
BTW, when Mahoney retired, a nice little house was provided for him, at a parish up in the valley, and he was living in comfort, and able to make appearances, etc., and do whatever he wanted to do.
I hope this is just the beginning of Gomez’ cleansing of our diocese.
It’s about time the Church cracked down on the leaders who knowingly covered up sex abuse for decades. I agree they should also be serving jail time, but the Pope could send them to remote outposts where they have no authority and live harsh lives in penance.
While those who DID the horrible wrongs against children/young people must and I mean MUST be punished, I DO warn against the Catholic or any Christian church BASHING for that matter.
Also let’s NOT FORGET that there has been abuse done by non Catholic Christian ministers, teachers, even among non Christians as well, etc., so this is ACROSS the board.
Do you believe all Christian churches where abuse of minors has been covered up are a joke? Are Baptists a joke?
"The problem of clergy sexual abuse is not just a Catholic issue...Studies have shown no difference in its frequency by denomination, region, theology, or institutional structure."-Source: Baptist Hide & Seek
The fact is that sexual abuse of minors is a worldwide problem that occurs in nearly all institutions. It's even more heinous when it takes place in a Christian or other religious setting where children should be entitled to feel safe. Unfortunately for our children, it's more fashionable to bash Catholics than it is to hold accountable ALL organizations and institutions with a history of mistreating kids.
I essentially agree.
I studied Catholicism at age 12-13 with my Lutheran mom who wanted to sing in their choir.The mass then was still in Latin. A lot of it appealed to me, but I always felt a bit uncomfortable with the instructing priest and even then took pains to make sure I was never alone with him.
I also knew a monsignor who was a friend of friends of our family and was very kind, funny and friendly, and seemed to take his vows very seriously. I never had to feel uneasy around him.
There always seemed a deep sense of mystery in the Church then that in itself was very reassuring. Though I never seemed to have found that in the few times I’ve been back to church over the years.
I’d describe myself these days as an American Judeo-Christian who worships and prays from the perspective of the Old Testament, but who recognizes the humanly moshiach qualities of Jesus in that the United States could never have been founded without his influence.
It takes almost full-time work to refute the vile slanders against Pope Benedict --- and even to “re-refute” them, since so many of them were exposed as false years ago. But don’t expect retractions from the New York Times and the British tabloid press.
Anybody with an interest in the truth about the Milwaukee case (Lawrence Murphy)is invited to read Raymond J. de Souza's article at National Review: A Response to the New York Times [Pope falsely accused].
The principal responsibility for the Lawrence Murphy sexual-abuse case lay with local Ordinary, Archbishop Rembert Weakland. Leaving the accused abuser priest "without assignment," and likewise without supervision from 1977 until 1996, and neglecting any effort to discover the scope of his abuses or to minister to his victims, Weakland essentially did nothing.
It was not until 1996 (19 years after Fr. Murphy was put out of circulation and out of the diocese on "sick leave") that Weakland first notified Cardinal Ratzinger’s Vatican office, which promptly moved forward on having a canonical trial. Neither Ratzinger nor anyone in his office in any way impeded the local process. In fact, Card. Ratzinger’s Deputy, Cardinal Narciso Bertone, tried in every way to expedite the process, despite the huge gap created by Abp Weakland's negligence and the statute of limitations.
Fr. Murphy died in 1998, before a canonical trial could take place.
The real fault in these cases is with the local bishops in the 1970's and 10 - 20 years following (like Weakland and Mahony), who were derelict in their duties.
But because the NYT and the MSM are in general reluctant to lodge fault with Weakland and Mahony ---who, as “progressives,” longtime enablers/protectors of anti-papal dissenters, were immune from all criticism --- there was a concerted, international effort to find some way to drag in Pope Benedict.
What the New York Times was churning out against the Pope 3+years ago --- and repeated here --- was vicious, prejudicial, and (it seems to me) probably legally libelous. The “Queen of Slander” herself in this game was Maureen Dowd, whose comments were echoed by well-known individuals disgracing our opinion-forum.
Let the blame fall squarely on the shoulders of those who protected and enabled abusers --- like Weakland and Mahony. But don't splatter slime on the innocent --- like Benedict XVI. The New York Times and the British tabloids will scarcely be expected to acknowledge their factual errors. However, there may be lurkers still reading: it is for your sake, lurkers, that I offer the true account of the Murphy/Weakland case.
Catholics: Can’t hurt the Church even if it hurts a child.
Ratzinger is not innocent. He was The Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Sex abuse was his area.
Every Catholic Bishop got a confidential letter from Ratzinger.
All preliminary investigations were to be sent to Ratzinger.
“Father John Beal, professor of canon law at the Catholic University of America, gave an oral deposition under oath on 8 April last year in which he admitted to Shea that the letter extended the church’s jurisdiction and control over sexual assault crimes. “
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/24/children.childprotection
How long did Ratzinger hold that office and how long and how many Priests were sexually molesting children during that time.
http://michellemalkin.com/2005/04/24/pbxvi-and-the-sex-abuse-crisis/
“When Cardinal Ratzinger was asked about the accusations he brushed the questions aside. On one occasion he literally slapped the wrist of an American television reporter, Brian Ross, who had the temerity to raise the issue. On another occasion Cardinal Ratzinger said: “One can’t put on trial such a close friend of the Pope’s as Marcial Maciel.””
Fully agree.
So Ratzinger says that a close friend of John Paul cannot be put on trial.
Ooops.... the Popes friend was a sexual deviant.
http://stevebrodner.com/2010/03/28/rev-marcial-maciel-degollado/
I hope you will join other Catholics and me in praying for the good men in our church as they undertake these reforms.
Ratzinger was appointed Prefect in 1981 for the office that was in charge of Sex Abuse claims.
how long did Priests abuse children during that time because Ratzinger didn’t do anything about it.
For years and years his office ignored the complaints about
Father Maciel
Better to pray than to bash a whole Church just because of the horrible wrongs done by those who should never had been priests to begin with.
How can you possibly think Ratzinger is innocent when he was in charge of the secret tribunals and everything had to come to his office????
tell me , how long did the Vatican ignore that fact that Maciel, who was good friends with John Paul II, was a sexual deviant.
Ratzinger said that you can’t put the Pope’s good friend on trial.
Say what????
The Vatican ignored a letter sent by victims
” Several said Maciel told them he had permission from Pope Pius XII to seek them out sexually for relief of physical pain.”
http://articles.courant.com/2012-05-11/news/hc-20120511_1_father-maciel-legionaries-maciel-degollado
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.