ARTICLES
May 2002 ARTICLES
Contents © 2002
by Jim Holman.
All rights reserved.
I Don't Even Know What the Numbers Are Myself!
How the Archdiocese Has Dealt with Priest Molesters
What follows are excerpts from Cardinal Mahony's e-mail correspondence with members of his archdiocesan staff concerning the current clergy molestation crisis. The e-mail communications were leaked to kfi radio in the first week of April, and were read on the "John and Ken Show," Thursday, April 4. [See "Just Here for the Media Circus."]
Some of the messages deal with the cardinal's past refusal to reveal the names of dismissed priests to law enforcement officials. According to Associated Press, Los Angeles County district attorney Steve Cooley on March 13 sent a letter to the archdiocese saying that California law required clergy to report to law enforcement agencies "instances of known or reasonably suspected child abuse, including sexual abuse." In his response to Cooley the same day, Mahony wrote that "to the best of my knowledge, allegations of known or reasonably suspected instances of child abuse or neglect were reported to the appropriate agency."
In a Thursday, March 28 reply to Los Angeles police chief Bernard Parks, who asked for names of those priests recently dismissed for sexual abuse of minors, Cardinal Mahony stated that all such cases under the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles police department "have been duly reported." The priests in question, said Mahony, "were prosecuted and served probation many years ago. These cases are a matter of public record and known to your detectives." Mahony noted that, since individual clergy are required to report cases of molestation to the police, but not to the archdiocese, "there are undoubtedly reports of which we have no knowledge." An April 3 Times interview with the cardinal noted that "Mahony stressed that all of the recently dismissed priests were involved in old cases, many of them decades old, and that they had been through the criminal justice system." So it was, said Mahony, that their names were already known to law enforcement officials.
According to the March 29 Los Angeles Times, though, on Wednesday, March 27, archdiocesan officials gave "additional information" to juvenile division detectives of the Los Angeles police department. What was this additional information? Detectives, said the Times, "would not disclose specifics." But, said police commander Gary Brennan, "the archdiocese promised to cooperate and make known new information on allegations of abuse. As a result of that meeting, we are confident that the archdiocese is committed to cooperating and we feel they have been cooperating."
The meeting may have been the fruit of one of the leaked e-mail messages, dated March 27, sent by Cardinal Mahony to Sister Judith Ann Murphy (called "Sister Judy"), the archdiocese's general counsel. In this message, Mahony pointed out what he considers the archdiocese's "greatest tactical mistake of the past few weeks." Mahony wrote that "of the 8 priests involved [in molestation cases], 5 had already been reported to local law enforcement agencies. That leaves 3. I pressed for you to meet with Det [sic] Barraclough and 'consult' him about the other 3 so that we could state without hesitation that all priests no longer in service had been reported to various law enforcement agencies."
The resistance of "Sister Judy" to the cardinal's suggestion "was a huge mistake on our part," said Mahony. "I hope you have changed your mind by now! By doing it back then, we would not appear to be crumbling under public pressure. If we don't, today, 'consult' with the Det. about those 3 names, I can guarantee you that I will get hauled into a Grand Jury proceeding and I will be forced to give all the names, etc. I must now insist that this matter is no longer open for discussion. You must consult with the Det. about those 3 cases. In my response to Parks, I want to state that every single case of the few priests was reported to the appropriate law enforcement agency over the years. I must be able to state that -- even publicly. And soon. If we don't take immediate, aggressive action here -- the consequences for the ad [archdiocese] are going to be incredible: charges of cover-up, concealing criminals, etc., etc. There is no middle ground on this one; we are losing the battle because we are somehow 'hiding' those 3. The best way is to 'consult' with the Det. about them, and let them decide what needs to be done next."
The following excerpts from the e-mail messages will be presented with only clarifying comment. Each message will be preceded by the date of the correspondence and the names of the principle sender and recipients. Nearly all carried the heading, "Privileged Client -- Attorney Communication."
Tuesday, March 19. Father Dick to Sister Judy and attorney John McNicholas. Subject: Storm on the horizon. [This message, and the two following, refer to the case of Carmelite Father Dominic Savino, president of Crespi Carmelite High School. See "News," this issue -- Ed.] "I have learned that the Carmelites at Crespi High School are currently preparing an announcement for faculty, parents and students concerning Father Dominic Savino's removal from active ministry....
"Also, though hearsay has it that these allegations are from years ago and all alleged victims are now adults, I certainly hope they have thought of obtaining legal advice regarding the reporting laws..
"A complicating fact: I believe that Father Peter Liuzzi is being assigned to Crespi Carmelite hs as a faculty member. A representative of the 'Lay Catholic Mission' has approached a Carmelite priest who occasionally helps here at Saint Charles to question 'the wisdom of assigning Father Liuzzi to an all-boy school.' On top of that, Father Liuzzi and Father Savino have lived in the same community house for as long as I have worked at the acc [Archdiocesan Catholic Center] -- not quite seven years. They are close friends. I am not sure how many people know these facts and I would not want to tip my hand.
"Everything in this 'complicating fact' paragraph would be tracked right back to me. I would not want it made public if it can be avoided. But my thought is that one issue might ignite the other in the press, both secular and retro-Catholic."
Wednesday, March 20. John McNicholas to Sister Judy and Monsignor Richard Loomis. Subject: Storm on the horizon. "On the subject of who should report the matter to the authorities, he wants to talk to you first. [Monsignor Cox] is of the opinion that you [Sister Judy] should be the one to report it because of your working relationship with Det. Barraclough. He also said that you and he agreed that this is not reportable under the statute. Fr. Kevin McBrien, O. Carm. told me that the Carmelites did not report it because of the statute of limitations. Msgr. Cox is opposed to the removal of Fr. Liuzzi who teaches a one hour course once a week at Crespi reasoning that if he was good enough to be on the Cardinal's staff, he is ok to teach at Crespi h.s. (Disagree.) All homosexuals are not pedophiles. (Agree.) If the Cardinal was to tell the Carmelites to remove Fr. Liuzzi, that is his decision. There has never been a claim about Fr. Liuzzi."
Wednesday, March 20. Sister Judy to John McNicholas. Subject: Storm on the horizon. "Please put a call into Msgr. Cox. He is in santa [sic] Barbara today with the last Boundaries Workshop. The carmelite priest below is well know in the Valley and is a therapist. Presently, some of our priests go to him. An adult came forward and made a complaint that he was molested as a minor. The priest denied this charge but from what I know admitted another which happened years ago. When you reach Msgr. Cox, see if you can find out who their lawyer is and deal with him/her. For the Carmelites (and ours) best interest, they should call this in to law authorities. If the Order does not have some police contact, then suggest Detective Barraclough. As to the other priest, he is the priest who ministered at the acc to gay and lesbian Catholics. He stayed on the narrow line until he wrote his book. He is gay and the Catholic Mission (the off the wall right wing throw-away newspaper) has been gunning for him for years."
Monday, March 25. Monsignor Craig Cox to Cardinal Mahony. Subject: Press Conference. "I just finished meeting with Tod [Tamberg, archdiocesan spokesman] and we spoke about the press conference you will be having this evening. You are in my prayers. I want to add one comment that is -- to my way of thinking -- very important. To say or even give the impression that none of the 'priests removed' were in parish ministry creates multiple problems. First, it 'narrows the search' for any news organizations that are trying to ferret out names. It would realistically almost certainly 'out' one or more. Even those not in parish ministry were assisting in parishes, and you could be challenged about that. Some were resident in parishes. Not being assigned full time to parishes does not mean there was no parish ministry. All the men involved were doing Sunday supply at times. In the popular mind set that will be seen as parish ministry. Secondly, should some names be 'outted' of men who were in predominantly parish ministries, even if restricted, the distinction will not carry any weight in the press. You will again be attacked mercilessly. I recommend that in your press conference you make no indication whatsoever of the 'type' of ministry involved, but indicate that no priest was put into any ministry where we had any concern that he would be a danger to young people. If asked to say more than that, you can respond by going back to your principles about not disclosing names...."
Wednesday, March 27. Cardinal Mahony to attorney John McNicholas and Sister Judy. Subject: Our Big Mistake. Privileged Client-Attorney Communication. "John: when drafting the letter to Parks, we need to state very clearly something along these lines: 'In those few old cases involving allegations of the sexual abuse of a minor, each case has been referred to the appropriate law enforcement agency for their review and investigation. We have no cases, old or new, that have not been referred appropriately.' I think we also need to refresh Parks' memory about other aspects of the statute, including the fact that the responsibility for mandated reporting is an individual mandate, that the statute states clearly that confidentiality must be maintained [11167.5 (a) and (b)]. Since we have only 2 cases of the 8 that fall within the lapd, I think our best approach is to tell him that and give him the lapd case numbers for those two cases. We need to inform him that since they investigated the cases, they would have all the information, even more, than we would have. We need to review a draft of that letter today, if at all possible. Many thanks to all! What a Holy Week -- filled with Good Fridays, no Easter Sundays!!"
Saturday, March 30. Sister Judy to Father Dick and Monsignor Cox. Subject: St. Frances of Rome. [The "H." referred to in this message seems to be a priest whose "case in under scrutiny." He is discussed in the first April 1 message, below -- Ed.] "Now I get to tell the Cardinal, I forgot H. in reply to his 'Question' e-mail. I was planning to do it on Monday which I will do. Early dementia on my part. Oh well, another 'Our One Big Mistake' e-mail. What he hasn't put together and probably never will was my plan that we had to give the lapd some names for continuing cooperation concept. Just consultations without names was not going to cut it."
Saturday, March 30. Cardinal Mahony to Sister Judy, John McNicholas, Father Dick, Monsignor Loomis et al. Subject: Victims. [Here, in private correspondence, Mahony reiterates his reasons for not revealing the names of all of the clerical abusers -- Ed.] "Just a brief note to tell you that I have met confidentially with three victims Thursday and Friday. Worked out really well. All Catholics, all not bitter at the Church. A real life-giving experience. All from very old cases, two from the big 8. They are anxious to have the Church do something for them spiritually, not just psychologically. I was deeply moved! All insisted strongly that I not release the names of their perpetrators since their own personal lives would be placed in jeapordy [sic] -- marriages, jobs, etc. I am now thinking about beginning some type of Victims' Group that would be almost entirely spiritual. It would be headed by two folks: a Sister [sic] and a priest who would be skilled spiritual leaders. I have some names in mind. They would meet probably once a month; purely voluntary. No legal issues would be discussed, etc. This group, or groups, would be spiritual support groups, not therapy groups. I would like to announce some initiatives soon in April, and this would be one of them.... It is my hope to be able to announce three different, broad initiatives: one to help protect our children, one to nourish spiritually our victims, and one to help our priests spiritually...."
Sunday, March 31. From Sister Judy to Monsignor Craig A. Cox. Subject: Status. [Here Sister Judy evinces some annoyance at, it seems, a memo sent by Cardinal Mahony -- Ed.] "When I saw the 'number' memo this morning, I couldn't believe it! His need to bring this to closure is getting in the way. When he said, 'We are in for the long haul,' I guess long for him is 6 weeks. Since you two are 'j's', you can understand, but for this 'p ', we have just begun. As to the dear Sheriffs, should I try for a 'Come to Jesus' meeting with me tomorrow afternoon?"
Monday, April 1. From Monsignor Craig A. Cox to Sister Judy. Subject: Status. "Sister Judy, The plan for H is to have a new evaluation, then return to a restricted ministry, including a move to a parish with no school. I have not been able to free up the time to go visit. I am beginning to fear I will have to do this by phone. Far less ideal, but the time is short."
Monday, April 1. Cardinal Mahony to Father Dick, Sister Judy, John McNicholas, Monsignor Richard Loomis, Tod Tamberg et al. Subject: Giving Numbers. "Good arguments all around re numbers!! I'm still considering how to approach it. Maybe the best thing to do is 'to state that in working closely with the lapd and other law enforcement agencies they prefer that no further public information about the identity of the priests under investigation be given at this time. That may change in the future, and if it does, I would be open to re-visiting the question of numbers.' And since that is weeks and months down the road, I hope interest by then would have waned. We definitely have to get ourselves to July 1st!!."
Wednesday, April 3. Cardinal Mahony to Sister Judy, Father Dick, John McNicholas, Monsignor Richard Loomis, Tod Tamberg et al. [The following refers to an April 3 interview Mahony gave to Larry Stammer of the Los Angeles Times in which the cardinal defended his handling of the clergy abuse scandal. -- Ed.] "Well, the Times article did not turn out as negative as I feared. They were able to get in some positive things for a change. As always, they got a few factual things wrong or inaccurate. But now I am freed from the accusation that I am hiding from the press and unwilling to discuss these issues publicly. Larry Stammer said that a lot of good has been done with the press and media by doing the interview, and that he stands ready to help if we have a story we want to get out. Larry is going to do a story on our Seminaries soon -- that will be helpful. My best estimate is that by mid-May any new problems will have been uncovered, and that we can begin the healing process over the coming months. If it starts before then, that is fine. It's the new cases, like the Jesuits today, that keep the story alive. And I did not give numbers!! In fact, with our various cases now I don't even know what the numbers are myself!!"