"Nothing Equipped Me To Deal With This" – After Gomez Rebuke, Mahony Hits Back (Cath Caucus)

Whispers in the Loggia ^ | February 1, 2013 | Rocco Palmo

[NYer]

Hours after Cardinal Roger Mahony's successor announced that the retired LA prelate would "no longer have any administrative or public duties" in the nation's largest diocese after the release of damning sex-abuse files from early in Mahony's quarter-century tenure, it should come as little surprise that the "born fighter" wouldn't take Archbishop José Gomez's blockbuster move quietly.

At 11.30am Pacific, the cardinal posted a letter he wrote to Gomez in response on his blog. 

Dated today, below is the full text, with Mahony's preceding explanatory note.

*    *    *

Friends in Christ,
This morning I sent this letter to Archbishop Jose H. Gomez giving the history and context of what we have been through since the mid-1980s.  There is nothing confidential in my letter.   I have been encouraged by others to publish it, so I am do so on my personal Blog.  I hope you find it useful.  

+ + + + + 

February 1, 2013  

Dear Archbishop Gomez: 

In this letter I wish to outline briefly how the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and I responded to the evolving scandal of clergy sexual misconduct, especially involving minors. 

Nothing in my own background or education equipped me to deal with this grave problem.  In two years [1962—1964] spent in graduate school earning a Master’s Degree in Social Work, no textbook and no lecture ever referred to the sexual abuse of children.  While there was some information dealing with child neglect, sexual abuse was never discussed. 

Shortly after I was installed on September 5, 1985 I took steps to create an Office of the Vicar for the Clergy so that all our efforts in helping our priests could be located in one place.  In the summer of 1986 I invited an attorney-friend from Stockton to address our priests during our annual retreat at St. John’s Seminary on the topic of the sexual abuse of minors. Towards the end of 1986 work began with the Council of Priests to develop policies and procedures to guide all of us in dealing with allegations of sexual misconduct.  Those underwent much review across the Archdiocese, and were adopted in 1989. 

During these intervening years a small number of cases did arise.  I sought advice from several other Bishops across the country, including Cardinal John O’Connor of New York, Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago, and then Bishop Adam Maida of Green Bay.  I consulted with our Episcopal Conference frequently.  All the advice was to remove priests from active ministry if there was reasonable suspicion that abuse had occurred, and then refer them to one of the several residential treatment centers across the country for evaluation and recommendation. 

This procedure was standard across the country for all Arch/Dioceses, for School Districts, for other Churches, and for all Youth Organizations that dealt with minors.  We were never told that, in fact, following these procedures was not effective, and that perpetrators were incapable of being treated in such a way that they could safely pursue priestly ministry. 

During the 1990s our own policies and procedures evolved and became more stringent.  We had learned from the mistakes of the 1980s and the new procedures reflected this change.  In 1994 we became one of the first Archdioceses in the world to institute a Sexual Abuse Advisory Board [SAAB] which gave helpful insights and recommendations to the Vicar for the Clergy on how to deal with these cases.  Through the help of this Board, we moved towards a “zero tolerance” policy for clergy who had allegations against them which had proven true. 

In 2002 we greatly expanded the SAAB group into the new Clergy Misconduct Oversight Board.  They were instrumental in implementing the Charter for the Protection of Children and Youth and served as an invaluable body for me and our Archdiocese.  They dealt with every case with great care, justice, and concern for our youth. 

From 2003 to 2012 the Archdiocese underwent several Compliance Audits by professional firms retained for this purpose.  Most Auditors were retired FBI agents, and extremely competent.  Every single Audit concluded that the Archdiocese was in full compliance with the Charter. 

When you were formally received as our Archbishop on May 26, 2010, you began to become aware of all that had been done here over the years for the protection of children and youth.  You became our official Archbishop on March 1, 2011 and you were personally involved with the Compliance Audit of 2012—again, in which we were deemed to be in full compliance. 

Not once over these past years did you ever raise any questions about our policies, practices, or procedures in dealing with the problem of clergy sexual misconduct involving minors. 

I have stated time and time again that I made mistakes, especially in the mid-1980s.  I apologized for those mistakes, and committed myself to make certain that the Archdiocese was safe for everyone. 

Unfortunately, I cannot return now to the 1980s and reverse actions and decisions made then.  But when I retired as the active Archbishop, I handed over to you an Archdiocese that was second to none in protecting children and youth. 

With every best wish, I am 

Sincerely yours in Christ,

His Eminence
Cardinal Roger M. Mahony
Archbishop Emeritus of Los Angeles

*    *    *

Responding to requests for clarification on the cardinal's status in the wake of Gomez's move to curtail his public role, the longtime LA archdiocesan spokesman, Tod Tamberg, told the Los Angeles Times that Mahony remained “a priest in good standing.”

In deference to his successor's judgment, however, Mahony's confirmation schedule in the archdiocese will be handled by other bishops.

In Rome, meanwhile, the Vatican spokesman, Jesuit Fr Federico Lombardi, was quoted by Catholic News Service as saying that the "measure taken by the archbishop naturally regards his archdiocese and not other duties that Cardinal Mahony has received from the pope in the Roman Curia." 

Mahony is currently a member of three Curial dicasteries. As a general rule, cardinals hold those seats until, just like one's Conclave rights, automatically losing them on turning 80.

As previously noted, while Gomez almost certainly consulted with the Vatican on his plans and received a favorable response before making the moves public, any regulation of the universal faculties granted to cardinals by canon law is subject to the discretion of the Holy See alone. Most specifically, Canon 357 stipulates that "In those matters which pertain to their own person, cardinals living outside of Rome and outside their own diocese are exempt from the power of governance of the bishop of the diocese in which they are residing."

The most salient quote of all, though, might just be the late-night prediction of one SoCal op who knows predecessor and successor alike:

"This is going to get ugly."

If nothing else, it's safe to say we haven't heard the last of it.... 

To be continued.

SVILUPPO: In a brief clarification issued late Friday afternoon Pacific time, Gomez said that Mahony and Bishop Thomas Curry – who resigned from his administrative post in the archdiocesan administration, but not as an auxiliary bishop of LA – both remained "bishops in good standing" and enjoyed "full rights" to minister "without restrictions."

[NYer]

This is a Catholic Caucus Thread

[NYer]

Ping!

[married21]

When Mahoney demonstrates some humility, he will go some way toward redeeming his reputation.

Here’s hoping the Holy Spirit keeps putting the “GO!” in Gomez.

[Kenny Bunk]

While I am sure there are probably sound legal reasons for the defensive and entirely querulous Mahony letter, it is false on its face. No churchman can "plead ignorance" of this festering problem, which has been dealt with for centuries in a secretive manner not designed to help the victims, but to hide the sin and prevent public scandal.

IMO, Mahony's administration was always too gay-friendly by far. Beyond opinion, the facts are incontrovertible. He knowingly permitted the policy that shifted child molesters from one parish to another.

Instead of a loud and altogether too comfortable retirement, this jackass belongs in a remote monastery on bread and water. Roger out.

[icwhatudo]

What a cop out:.”No one ever trained me on what to do when someone rapes a little boy so don’t blame me”

I’m guessing no one ever trained you on how to deal with cannibalism either. (In Maryland we have had 2 cannibalism cases this past year alone so I’m not using a hypothetical or silly point) I’m guessing anyone with common sense would not want a cannibal to be transferred to a new parish. Its common freaking sense. Stop hiding behind “no one trained me” Thats BS! You hid EVIL, you enabled EVIL, you should be in prison.

[Parmy]

As a Catholic, I have told priests that the one problem is that they put the protection of priests over the well-being of their flock and that, in my opinion, violates the teaching of Jesus. “Who would give a child a stone when he asks for bread”?

[bboop]

‘Nothing in my background prepared me for this.’ Recognizing evil is not all that hard; I would think that they address that at some point in the Seminary. Bye, Mahoney, don’t let the door hit you ....

[Biggirl]

This warning is needed as there has been some Catholic bashing going on.

[Biggirl]

Mahony, JUST GO AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[kitkat]

And, of course, the psychiatrists were innocent.

Some years ago it was discovered that psychiatrists claimed that they could cure anyone of having sex with minors. The Church sent priests so accused to the psychiatrists. They were sent back “cured.” And they were sent off to other parishes to avoid gossip in their original parishes. THEN, the psychiatrists announced that there was no cure.

Blame the guilty: The psychiatrists!!

[Salvation]

**”This is going to get ugly.”**

This has already gotten ugly on a FR thread. But when one makes a bed out of straw, one must lie in it too.

[Gerish]

I find the lack of humility on the Cardinal’s part very discouraging. He has taken the “blame someone else approach” in every paragraph of his letter. The Cardinal has forgotten that the only Person he has to worry about failing is God. He has failed him and SHOULD feel guilty!