Levada's Secret

As he prepares to be deposed in San Francisco next week, former S.F. Archbishop William Levada may have to come clean about a priestly child molester he protected in Portland.

In April 2004, when questioned under oath by lawyers for victims sexually abused by priests, San Francisco's former archbishop, William J. Levada, was asked about Father Joseph Baccellieri, a parish priest accused of child molestation whom Levada removed from ministry in 1992 while archbishop of Portland. Levada restored Baccellieri to his post two years later.

"I believe there was some allegation that occurred while I was there," he said, when asked about Baccellieri's circumstances. A lawyer for the archbishop quickly interrupted to prevent Levada from saying anything more about the priest. A few months later, in a letter from Levada defending his decision to place Baccellieri back in ministry despite knowing that he had molested -- published in the archdiocesan newspaper Catholic San Francisco -- Levada wrote: "With regard to Father Baccellieri, I removed him from ministry in 1992 when I received an allegation of sexual abuse back in the 1970s."

SF Weekly has learned that in 1993 -- the year before the archbishop's controversial decision to restore Baccellieri to his priestly duties -- Levada knew about allegations that the priest had abused not one but three male victims, and that Levada authorized secret payments to each of them after they threatened to make the allegations public in a lawsuit.

Sources familiar with the matter, and who spoke on condition of anonymity, tell the Weekly that the men were paid undisclosed sums and agreed not to sue the archdiocese in return for their pledging to keep the payments confidential. One of the victims, who claimed that Baccellieri had sodomized him for several years, insisted on and was granted a private meeting with Levada as a condition of his signing off on the arrangement, sources say.

Bud Bunce, a spokesman for the Archdiocese of Portland, and who has worked there since 1991, says he has no knowledge of any such arrangement. However, Bunce says that "in general, if someone approaches us and wishes not to file a lawsuit and they have an allegation regarding child abuse, those situations can be settled [confidentially]."

Levada left San Francisco for the Vatican last August after being appointed by Pope Benedict XVI as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, making him arguably the world's second most powerful Roman Catholic prelate. (He was Portland's archbishop from 1986 to 1995.) His successor, Bishop George Niederauer of the Diocese of Salt Lake City, is to be installed as San Francisco's new archbishop Feb. 15.

Having spent $53 million to settle more than 100 claims of priestly sex abuse, Portland in 2004 became the nation's first Roman Catholic archdiocese to declare bankruptcy. Dozens of other cases are in limbo while a bankruptcy court sorts out the archdiocese's finances. On Jan. 9, Levada is scheduled to be deposed in San Francisco by lawyers for several of those plaintiffs, including some whose alleged abuse occurred during his tenure there.

In his letter in Catholic San Francisco, Levada said that he restored Baccellieri's priestly duties after "extensive therapeutic treatment" and after determining "that he had been truly repentant and could be trusted to engage in limited ministry with proper supervision."

Records show that Baccellieri served as either pastor or associate pastor in four Portland-area parishes between 1994 and 2001, when he went on leave to study canon law. In 2002, after U.S. bishops adopted their so-called "zero-tolerance" sex abuse policy, and long after Levada had come to San Francisco, Baccellieri was once again removed from ministry.

As it turns out, the accusations that Levada knew about before reinstating the priest aren't the only complaints against Baccellieri.

Since 2004, four other men have come forward claiming that Baccellieri sexually abused them as teenagers during the same 1971-1975 period as the men whose secret payments Levada approved. They have filed lawsuits against the Portland Archdiocese.

All seven of Baccellieri's alleged victims fit a similar profile. Each was a member of the band at the same Catholic high school in Portland where Baccellieri taught music from the late 1960s until the mid-'70s. He is alleged to have abused the teenagers both in his residence at a retirement home where he also served as chaplain and at a beach house in Lincoln City, Ore.

David Slader, an attorney for three of the men who have filed lawsuits, says it is "unconscionable" that Levada never bothered to report Baccellieri to law enforcement after learning that the priest was a sex offender. (Bunce, the archdiocese spokesman, says that the church would not have been obligated under state law to turn over Baccellieri for criminal prosecution in the 1990s because by then the alleged victims were adults.)

"All the evidence we've been able to find demonstrates that Archbishop Levada's sole concern was to maintain a veil of secrecy and to continue the false impression that Father Baccellieri was a trustworthy and dutiful priest," Slader says. "His efforts to protect other children from being preyed upon were halfhearted at best."

One of Baccellieri's accusers confronted the priest in a secretly recorded phone call in 2004 (which, unlike in California, is legal under Oregon law). During the call, Baccellieri acknowledged that he had not told Levada about all of the teenagers with whom he had had sex.

During the conversation, a transcript of which was obtained by SF Weekly, Baccellieri said that Levada was "extremely compassionate" in allowing him to resume priestly duties with the proviso that he couldn't be around children and couldn't counsel adults or children, restrictions that he said were sometimes awkward.

He told his alleged victim, who is now in his 40s and lives in the Bay Area, that he had been helped by a sex addicts support group whose meetings he said he had attended continuously since 1992. Baccellieri referred to his time as a priest after Levada reinstated him as "the best years of my life, because I was sober."

Parishioners where he served after Levada reinstated him were never made aware of the sex allegations against him, although fellow priests with whom he lived did know and were "under seal" not to disclose it, Baccellieri said.

In 1995, a warm and fuzzy feature article in the Oregonian, Portland's daily newspaper, extolled Baccellieri's talents as an accordionist -- including his once having formed a dance band with some former students called the Gemtones -- without any hint of the trouble he had been in.

At the time, Baccellieri was playing the instrument at fairs and festivals. He had become known by his stage name: the Swinging Priest.

Levada guilty. Let the trial begin; and let it be conducted by columnists from an alternative paper from San Francisco, a city famous for its appreciation of Catholic Theology in regards to homosexuality; and let the pre-determined "verdict" be trumpted by those well-known for supporting the Magisterium. And let all the accusations generated by lawyers filing the lawsuit be assumed as "facts." For, Heaven knows, lawyers never exaggerate or generate "facts."

Levada guilty. Let the trial begin. And let it be conducted by columnists from an alternative newspaper in San Francisco, a city famous for its support of Catholic Doctrine concerning Homosexuality; and let all accusations generated by lawyers suing our Church be assumed as established "facts" and let all these "facts" be trumpted as evidence the Catholic Church has been corrupted by Masons and Communists and Homosexuals and Modernists and that the sole safe harbor of salvation is to be found in the sspx.

That about it?

BTW, on what website did you find this story? I have never heard of this alternative newspaper

Nevermind responding to my question. After I posted my question, I googled the story and, just as I figured, it was posted at Angelqueen, a forum devoted to supporting the SSPX Schism,trashing the Magisterium, and trumpeting anything negative if it appears to cast Holy Mother Church in a negative light.

I have never heard of the sf weekly. It figures that Angelquuen would post a story from it though. It fits their schismatic narrative perfectly.

This is really disgraceful.

"The SF Weekly has learned", "sources familiar with the matter who spoke on condition of anonymity." How absolutely pusillanimous! Absp. Levada has a right to face his accusers. This is crap along with the crap that William Dononhue was pushing when he was bellicosely wondering on EWTN radio, why it was that some of these older boys who were molested didn't hit the molesting priest in the mouth, and you know, dispense with the matter there and then.

Blowhard extraordinnaire that he is, having no real knowledge of what it's like to have a person in a position of authority impose himself upon you, to say nothing of a priest doing it. Be that as it may, the Church does need to protect Herself against claimants who can say anything they want against people long dead and buried.

It's not wise to arm the opposition, no matter the sins of your own side. The opposition is as equally uninterested in the truth as are those prelates who moved these molesters around with no regard whatsoever for the welfare of those who were ultimately violated.

The alternative papers have, in more than one case, been able and willing to break stories the more conventional papers have not or cannot. The standards at these papers are different than the MSM, but I trust none of the media, much.

The stories about Levada are legion, this print article simply lays them out.

Tell me, if the allegations of knowledge and hush money are correct, what then?

This story is all too familiar to those of us who live in the sinkholes. Denial, stonewalling, rumor, exposure, confirmation, partial truth, obfuscation and all the while the Lavendar Mafia remain in the chanceries, the deaneries, the seminaries and souls are being lost. The leadership of the Church is all too often moraly (and in my dicoese financially) bankrupt.

As for anonymity, public accusations are often as difficult to make as the 'punch in the face' you correctly deride Donohue for talking about. You do as he did, assuming that power is of no moment. Abp. Levada is one of the most powerful men in the Church and was in the inner circle of power in the Gay Bay. I understand what folks like that can do and understand the need for anonymity.

I was surprised when Pope Benedict named Archbishop Levada to fill his own former position. It's a key post.

I was NOT impressed when I attended a conference in San Francisco in the 90s and visited Levada's new cathedral there. The building is an atrocity, built at huge expense, one of the worst examples of modern architectural vandalism in the church that I have ever seen. I have heard that Levada considers it his legacy to the city.

Well, I just hope that Pope Benedict knew what he was doing when he promoted Levada. The Vatican is sorely in need of reliable men in its top slots.

I agree that this story is not really credible in itself. And as the Portland spokesman points out, if former victims agree to accept settlements rather than take it to court, the diocese has a perfect right, indeed an obligation, to settle the matter under present circumstances.

I live in a bit of sinkhole myself, i.e., Rochester, NY. Where they tell me, that a woman hangs on the cross in one of the local Churches (not Catholic), but you get the point.

If the allegations are true in that he knew that the molesting priest was truly a molestor and shipped him elsewhere, then, in my opinion, he should surrender his Collar, or it should be taken from him by the powers that can do that.

As far as the hush money is concerned, the same holds true, not only for the Absp, but for any member of the heirarchy that aided and abetted him.

That being said, I'd like to ask you to put yourself in the Absp's place. Would you like your guilt or the guilt of any one you love, being established in this manner?

He has a right to face his accusers, and any accusers that are too pusillanimous to attach their names to their musings aren't worth putting much stock into, IMO.

This continual leeching of the Church's temporal moral authority needs to checked by those whose charge it is to defend Her.

I personally wouldn't place that charge in the hands of many of the American Bishops, so it's left to the Laity to do that. And one of the best ways that is done is not to tap into or inflate the opposition's propaganda. Much propaganda has elements of truth in it, but so what, it's still propaganda that is designed for a purpose at odds with the the goals of those who want to defend that which is being propagandized against, in this instance, the Church.

Leave it to the responsible journalists out there, e.g. Rod Dreher to report the facts, and go from there.

The stories about Levada are legion

*Yeah, no kidding. So why weren't you satisfied just having this obscure alternative paper's rehash being posted at Angelqueen where the schizzies can pile-on the no good rotten evil church with its wicked Pope and Bishops?

The piece adds nothing to what we have already heard repeatedly endlessly. All the purpose it serves is to further stoke the fires of enmity already blazing against Holy Mother Church and that is an activity best left to Angelqueen.

At FR, why not wait until he has been deposed.

The mere fact that this article is in the alternative press (including SSPX outlets) does not make it inaccurate. Indeed, there is much reason to believe that Levada is not, charitably speaking, B-XVI's wisest appointment.

So long as revelations are accurate, let a thousand flowers bloom! (in the parlance of the late Chairman Mao). Sunshine is very likely to disinfect Bishop Levada if there is anything to disinfect. As you say, the stories are legion. If proven, he cannot very well be retained in his present office. It will probably take more than substantiating the story as to this one priest but then, there are probably a lot of other stories which may be substantiated.

As to your last paragraph, St. Paul had a saying which became John Paul the Great's motto or near motto: "Be Not Afraid!" You do what God wants and God will provide, as He does for the birds of the field. He loves you even more than He loves them.

OK, so WHY has this clown been tapped for an official Vatican position??? It would seem OBVIOUS that those tainted by idiotic, moronic, absurd, and insane musical chairs handling of deviant rapist clergy need to be REMOVED from the hierarchy NOT rewarded with promotions. Something smells real bad about this appointment. Makes you wonder who the puppet masters are pulling these strings.

Howlingly, I really respect your opinion, and I think you're quite smart, that's not a sycophantic way of beginning a conversation with you, I assure you. And, narses, as to your point about it not being easy to come out publicly against these people, you're right, and it was quite facile of me to state that they are cowards.

But what do we really know that this Absp. has done? Do we know for sure that he knowingly moved pederasts or perverts from one place to another? I can't figure that out from this article. Don't we owe him some sort of benefit of the doubt if all we're working with is speculation?

Because, if we do know, then the question is not soley a question of the betrayal of the Absp, then one has to question why the Pope would appoint him to a position of greater authority, instead of being removed from any sphere of influence, regardless of any keep your friends close and your enemies closer spin.

And while I know it's a crass concern, how does the Church protect itself against liquidation of resources? And would this concern be driving how the re-placement of the pederast peddling prelates is handled?

This seems like a tsunami that never seems to abate. The Kennedy's couldn't have made a bigger hash of this, if they were in charge of the whole thing.

HMBA,I've rarely seen one of your posts get into 'tinfoil hat' mode, but this one seems to be veering in that direction.

B-16 has his reasons. The fact that he hasn't divulged them to us does NOT mean that it's all being arranged by the Davos 25, the Bilderbergers, or the CPUSA.

It could be the Federal Reserve, or the eeeeeeeevvvviilllll Karl Rove, though!

I wish I knew. Perhaps to get him out of the United States? Perhaps because HH believes Abp. L to be the right person for the job? Maybe because .....

We don't know. We do know that we are seeing a tsunami if not a series of same beating on the Church BECAUSE OF hierarchs whose decisions created the current situation. We KNOW that some of the hierarchs are sexual deviants who built seminaries (well documented in "Good Bye Good Men as well as many other places) that were designed to recruit queers and chase away orthodoxy.

To pretend there is no crisis, to pretend that the crisis is not related to HERESIES and HERSIARCHS within the hierarchy is wilful blindness. Since the truth WILL come out, we need to armor ourselves with the truth. I reject the idea that the source of this taints it. I wasn';t aware that Angelqueen is a forbidden site (by whose authority?) or that somehow FR has declared the SSPX to be bad, off limits or otherwise odious. Certainly HH didn't express that when he met with and embraced Bp. Fellay last year.

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.