Baker case in the news again
The Los Angeles Times reports today (click on this post's title) that former priest Michael S. Baker was to be in court today for a hearing on a charge that he molested a boy.
Here are some quotes from the Times article:
"Mahony has acknowledged leaving 16 priests in the ministry after parishioners complained about inappropriate behavior with children. Baker is one of five who went on to molest.
"Baker's association with Mahony plus his return to court have fueled speculation about where the criminal investigation might be headed. Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley accused the archdiocese of 'a pattern of obstruction' when his office and the church fought over whether the archdiocese officials had to turn over documents to prosecutors. The case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court before Mahony, who maintained he could not turn over the priests' files to a county grand jury without their consent, lost his bid in April.
"The district attorney's office, which has had the files on Baker and another priest since then, declined to comment. Across the country, despite five years of investigations that have resulted in scores of priests being charged with molestation, no high church officials have been charged...
"The [C]hurch has formally and repeatedly admitted its errors in supervising Baker. The belief that Baker had reformed, and reliance on his word, was a 'terrible mistake,' according to the [C]hurch. The archdiocese acknowledged it was 'wrong' to transfer Baker without notifying his new parish of his past offenses."
I still do not see how anyone could think any admitted or convicted molester should ever continue in the priesthood.
Here are some quotes from the Times article:
"Mahony has acknowledged leaving 16 priests in the ministry after parishioners complained about inappropriate behavior with children. Baker is one of five who went on to molest.
"Baker's association with Mahony plus his return to court have fueled speculation about where the criminal investigation might be headed. Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley accused the archdiocese of 'a pattern of obstruction' when his office and the church fought over whether the archdiocese officials had to turn over documents to prosecutors. The case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court before Mahony, who maintained he could not turn over the priests' files to a county grand jury without their consent, lost his bid in April.
"The district attorney's office, which has had the files on Baker and another priest since then, declined to comment. Across the country, despite five years of investigations that have resulted in scores of priests being charged with molestation, no high church officials have been charged...
"The [C]hurch has formally and repeatedly admitted its errors in supervising Baker. The belief that Baker had reformed, and reliance on his word, was a 'terrible mistake,' according to the [C]hurch. The archdiocese acknowledged it was 'wrong' to transfer Baker without notifying his new parish of his past offenses."
I still do not see how anyone could think any admitted or convicted molester should ever continue in the priesthood.
posted by Quintero at 5:28 PM
3 Comments:
Maybe HizEminence "rounds up the usual suspects," and then like Claude Raines playing Captain Renault in Casablanca, exclaims he's, ". . . Shocked, shocked to find what's "been going on in here!" And if that weren't enough, he belives he can keep "it" all under the rug when he orders "Everybody out at once!" by having his attorney lacky file delays on the grounds of the confessee/confessor privilege.
The priests and the bishops involved with this abomination should be sacked and excommunicated.
If this were a School Board president who'd floated a molesting teacher between elementary schools, he's have been fired and prosecuted a long time ago.
Mahoney's behavior is disgusting, but so is the Roman leadership that apparently doesn't have a problem with it.
Post a Comment
<< Home