Posted on 06/19/2010 12:46:41 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
Consider this exchange between the cardinal and attorney John Manly, who was representing one of Baker's...victims:
Manly: I mean, you would agree with me that the first thing any priest should do … when you learn that a priest has molested a child is call the police, right?
Mahony: Not necessarily.
It's not a difficult question. A child is abused; that's a crime, so you call the police and rush to the aid of the minor, right?
Not Mahony. And despite admitting mistakes, he continues to blame his failure on the times, the circumstances, the procedures that were in place. He'd have you think that 1986 was 100 years ago, and the terms of moral responsibility were different. When he's asked the same question again by the disbelieving lawyer, his answer begins:
"If you want to review the suspected child abuse form, you'll see that the very top little section of the form says name of mandated reporter, title of mandated reporter…"
It goes on like that, with Mahony suggesting the form couldn't be filled out because the names of the victims and their parents were not known. So he didn't call the police and he didn't call the parish where Baker was living to warn of other potential victims.
Manly: I take it at that point you instructed your staff to try and find the kids?
Mahony: No, I did not.
Huh? You know that children have been horribly violated by one of your priests, and you don't move heaven and earth to find them and get them help?
The cardinal said he didn't know their names and was under the impression they might be illegal immigrants who had returned to Mexico. So couldn't he have demanded that Baker tell him their names and where to find them?
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Mahony: Not necessarily.
Manly: I take it at that point you instructed your staff to try and find the kids?
Mahony: No, I did not.
It will be so good to have Mahoney OUT. And it won’t be a minute too soon.
The LA Times protected Mahony for decades, even though it was known that he was up to his eyebrows in this stuff and possibly had even personally concealed an offender and gotten him into Mexico. Mahony is very leftwing, one of your very anti-Catholic “Catholic” bishops, a liturgical terrorist and very - er - gay friendly.
My only question is what got the LA Times to finally turn on him. I know that after BXVI got elected, Mahony started trying to curry favor with Rome because he knew that BXVI was not going to be as lax as JPII, so maybe this made the Times fall out of love with him. Tough for him - I believe Rome has already appointed his successor and he is essentially only being left there now to deal with the aftermath of his own deeds.
For the record, Catholics have been counting down the days until Mahoney is gone. He’s a disgrace to the episcopate.
Manly: I take it at that point you instructed your staff to try and find the kids?
Mahony: No, I did not.
... ahhh, actually I bet Mahoney tried to find the kids to get in on the action himself as he’s been queerer than a $3 bill for decades. He conspired on all the sodomy in the LA diocese and stonewalled the police and belongs in jail not retirement diddling boys in Manila! Pure evil in a robe...
ymmv
I’ve heard that Mahony himself may end up in jail one of these days. Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.
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.