Cardinal Mahony under federal fraud probe over abusive priests, sources say

Los Angeles Times ^ | January 28, 2009 | Scott Glover and Jack Leonard

[hole_n_one]

The U.S. attorney in Los Angeles is pursuing the theory that the prelate deprived parishioners of 'the right of honest services' by failing to protect their children from predatory clerics.

By Scott Glover and Jack Leonard
4:44 PM PST, January 28, 2009

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 alleged molestation of children by priests in the Los Angeles Archdiocese, according to two law enforcement sources familiar with the case.

The probe, in which U.S. Atty. Thomas P. O'Brien is personally involved, is aimed at determining whether Mahony, and possibly other church leaders, committed "honest services fraud" by failing to adequately deal with priests accused of sexually abusing children, said the sources, who requested anonymity because they are not authorized to speak publicly about the investigation.
One federal law enforcement source said such a prosecution could be brought under a federal statute that makes it illegal to "scheme . . . to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services."

In this case, the victims would be parishioners who relied on Mahony and other church leaders to keep their children safe from predatory priests, the source said. To convict on such a charge, prosecutors would have to prove that Mahony used the U.S. mail or some form of electronic communication in committing the alleged fraud, the source said.

[aculeus]

Good news.

[Natural Law]

We should all expect a lot more of these show piece prosecutions. Just like their predecessors in Germany in the 1930s today's socialists are aggressively seeking to undermine moral authority of the Catholic Church. Check out this Time Magazine Article from May 31, 1937 to see the script the left is following:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,847866,00.html

[Notwithstanding]

It is sort of a delicious thought, though - pursuing criminal charges against my former pastor for “depriving me of the intangible right of honest services” for yelling at us during the consecration at Mass to stand up and not kneel, and for publicly advocating for giving family benefits for the sex partners of homosexual employees, and for allowing a planned parenthood clinic director to serve as a lector, and for teaching false doctrines in catechism class.

Alas: “justice is Mine, says the Lord.”

[Notwithstanding]

You make an interesting point that I had heretofore not pondered.

You would think that the very language of the Constitution that you mention would serve to remind the robed-but-naked courtroom emperors that the role of law-making belongs exclusively to Congress and the President.

[livius]

LOL! Sounds like you have a case...

[La Enchiladita]

We know how to spell his name too: Mahony
It’s different:).

I can’t stand him. The Pope should have removed him long ago; he covered up for pervs. Now we get more bad publicity: oh, joy.

[La Enchiladita]

And now... and I really hate this... he acts like he doesn’t know what is going on, he is “puzzled.” What a creep.

[Verginius Rufus]

After half a century or more of judicial activism, it’s too much to expect the courts to go back to their constitutional role. They’re having too much fun making up the rules for everyone else.

[nanetteclaret]

Speaking of pastors forcing parishioners to stand up at the consecration, a caller called in to Open Line on Wednesday asking Fr. Mitch about this very thing. She said the pastor was telling her that she had to stand in order to be part of the “community” and she wondered if she was being disobedient to kneel. Fr. Mitch said that since the Church teaches that we are to kneel during the consecration, who is really being disobedient? :)

[Notwithstanding]

I actually told my pastor that he ought not commplain given that he had set the example of disobeidence by disobeying church authority by purposely directing the congregation to ignore church law regarding when to kneel during the liturgy.

Suddenly his sixties spirit of protest and disobdience was a thorn in his side. He was not amused.

[nanetteclaret]

LOL! Has he changed his ways yet?

[Robert Drobot]

"You would think that the very language of the Constitution that you mention would serve to remind the robed-but-naked courtroom emperors that the role of law-making belongs exclusively to Congress and the President."

[Notwithstanding]

My copy of the Constitution notes that the President can INSTANTLY turn a mere bill that has been passed by simple majority of both chambers of Congress into a law by signing that bill, or he can effectively kill that bill by sending it back to Congress noting why he refuses to sign it. Thus, the President has a important Constitutional role in law-making.

The Presentment Clause (Article I, Section 7, Clauses 2 and 3) of the United States Constitution:

“Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law. Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.”

[pray4liberty]

Next they’ll be going after all the guilty public school officials I am sure. < /sarcasm>

There are a few of those I'd like to see arrested.