Oct 24, 2005

Can't understand how Mahony escapes criminal prosecution


"It is very hard for us to understand the fact that Cardinal Bernard Law (former archdiocesan leader in Boston) and Cardinal Mahony have never been criminally indicted," [Mary Grant] says. "It's hard for us to comprehend why prosecutors can't obtain every file they need. When someone has been covering up crimes for decades, as Mahony has done, it's just incomprehensible that there can't be any (prosecutorial) intervention."


Anonymous Anonymous said...


Quintero, your readers should read the whole piece. This quote from Mary Grant, the molestation victim, is quite chilling -- especially when you consider what I've emphacised:

"I have not been to (Catholic) church since I ran away from home at age 16. I'm one of those who doesn't want to be part of the church. I no longer see Jesus as the son of God. I disbelieve everything I was taught by the church that has deceived me all these years."

This is perhaps the true yet underestimated tragedy of the clerical sex-abuse crisis: the victims' loss of faith. I'm not talking so much about faith in the Church as much as faith in the Person of Jesus Christ, His mercy goodness and righteousness, and the necessity of appropriating His atoning work on the cross to be redeemed from sin.

Ma-joto, Law and their subordinates might well escape criminal prosecution. They will not, however, escape the wrath of a holy, righteous God Who will send them to the infernal regions because of their callous disregard for His truth and His would-be heirs to salvation.

11:44 AM  
Blogger Quintero said...


"Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."

Your point is well taken. The grave sin of scandal, which Our Lord so forcefully condemned, destroys faith and endangers souls.

It was, I believe, St. Augustine who said, "He who leads another to sin is guilty of the murder of that soul."

12:18 PM  
Blogger Clayton said...

This is the quote that stood out in my mind:

She made reference to her own case, she says, and asked [Mahony] why Lenihan was still a priest. (He left the priesthood in 2002 with the consent of the church. He was never convicted in court.)

Since Lenihan had served in Orange County, "Mahony said basically that it was not his problem."

1:29 PM  
Blogger John Hearn said...

"...not his problem."

Wow, doesn't that just shine a laser beam right down into the dark heart of this mess!

4:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Since Lenihan had served in Orange County, "Mahony said basically that it was not his problem."

Well, it was the problem of the bishops of the time in the Orange Diocese, William Johnson and Norman McFarland. The Orange Diocese was formed from the L.A. Archdiocese in 1976, one year before Mary was molested. What the Hell did they do?

"Church officials and parishioners immediately rallied around Lenihan, and criticized me for reporting the abuse to the newspaper. I was mortified and crushed that church officials and Catholics with whom I had grown up could care less about protecting kids from child predators."

Unfortunately, that behavior is all too common among many in Catholic blogdom (not here, thank God!). It seems as if too many Catholics confuse being loyal to ecclesiastical hierarchs and bureaucrats with being loyal to Christ.

If the hierarchs aren't loyal to Christ, why should Catholics be loyal to them -- especially since those hierarchs are likely candidates for permanent residency in the the infernal regions?

Dante was right. Add Ma-joto's skull to the floor of Satan's abode....

10:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would occasionally attend Saint Edwards in Dana Point while Lenihan was Pastor there. I didn't know much about him except that he was very popular with the parishioners of this wealthy affluent church. I know that during communion he would stand around directing Eucharistic ministers like a traffic cop rather than getting a plate and distributing it himself.

This journalist asks some good questions in the article. The reporter asked why Mahoney is able keep his position in L.A. while Cardinal Law got skewered in Boston. Mary had some good points but she neglected to mention that Mahoney is a liberal and he will be protected by the liberal media and bureaucrats in the arch-diocese.

Todd Tamberg certainly does a good job of spin. He stays on message that the Cardinal is a reformer leading the charge to protect children in the Church. If only it were true.

10:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's simple, really. Cardinal Mahony is a liberal bishop, and the Los Angeles Times is a liberal newspaper. Both support the same agenda.
Cardinal Law, on the other hand, was a moderately conservative bishop, and very pro-life. The Boston Globe is a liberal newspaper.
So the conservative Law got skewered, and the liberal Mahony gets a free pass.

But the District Attorney is still investigating him, and I don't think he asks the L.A. Times for guidance. We shall see.

8:39 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Site Meter