Replies

There were some evil men in the Church who simply sought to cover up their own misdeeds and those of their friends. Their sins are on their heads.

Who was in charge over Mahony?

...the clear teachings of the Church, which has always instructed that these priests should be removed, isolated, and/or laicized immediately.

I completely agree with that policy, but obviously that didn't happen in the LA archdiocese. How else do you explain Mahony's continued position with the Church - and Mahony's superior's continued position with the Church?

Problem is, the ordinary is not supposed to be interfered with in the administration of his diocese. So if he is covering up and transferring, the word of that goes no further. In the bad bishop's eyes, it's simply a "personnel matter" and he doesn't say squat. So no, nobody is "in charge" of Mahony on matters such as this.

Until it becomes obvious from sworn testimony that he colluded . . . at THAT point the Vatican will take action, as it has in other cases. Which is exactly why Mahony fixed this settlement so that he does not have to testify.

There has been considerable talk of removing and replacing him, but after decades in his job he is so entrenched that it would probably take longer to remove him by extraordinary means than it would just to accept his retirement in five years.

If all this can be laid at the door of one man, it was Archbishop Jadot. He appointed all these men in a misguided attempt to "modernize" the Church.