From that Oct. 7 New York Times article

That New York Times article of October 7 (click on this post's title) contains this paragraph:

"In a 2004 deposition related to civil trials in Los Angeles, Cardinal Mahony stated that expressing sexual urges toward a 9-year-old would not be automatic cause for removing a priest from duty. He also said he barely knew Mr. O’Grady, though lawyers in the cases presented warm letters exchanged between the two."

Don't look now, but anyone who would be "expressing sexual urges toward a 9-year-old" needs to be far away from the priesthood of Jesus Christ and should never have been ordained. How can ANYONE think otherwise?