March 13, 2002 — April 3, 2002


The Complete Text in Chronological Order with Commentary



Reading Copy—Preliminary Draft
July 18, 2003

Links Enhanced on January 30, 2009


A Production of


This edition of the Mahony emails
is dedicated to the “anonymous individual”

who made them public.



And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me,
it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck,
and he were cast into the sea.


Mark 9:42




Keating and the Mahony Emails

Creating a Readable Version


Who’s Who

Photographs of Some Email Writers


The Emails


March 13, 2002

1.   PR Challenges of the Haigh Settlement, Goldberg

2.   Reporting Laws, Nussbaum

3.   Scheduling a Meeting to Discuss Reporting, McNicholas

4.   Scheduling a Meeting to Discuss Reporting, Goldberg

5.    Scheduling a Meeting to Discuss Reporting, McNicholas


March 14, 2002

6.   Arranging Call to Discuss Fr. Tony McDonnell, Goldberg

7.    More on Tony McDonnell, McNicholas


March 19, 2002

8.    Fr. Dominic Savino & Fr. Peter Luizzi, Loomis


March 20, 2002

9.   Background on Savino & Luizzi, Murphy

10. Responding to Delgadillo on Training, Mahony

11. Problems of Delgadillo Training, McNicholas

12. Whether to Remove Luizzi, McNicholas

13. Selecting Delgadillo Trainees, McNicholas

14. Response to Delgadillo (No Training), McNicholas

15. “Safe Folks” for Delgadillo Training, Mahony


March 21, 2002

16. Reporting Savino & Adding to the Rucker File, Murphy


March 22, 2002

17. Bishop Arzube’s Quiet Handling of Savino (?), Mahony

18. Summaries of Fr. McGowan & Fr. Hill, Cox

19. Carmelite’s Lawyer in Savino Case, McNicholas

20. Fr. Kearney of St. Francis High Removed, Loomis

21. St. Francis High School: No Message, McNicholas


March 24, 2002

22. Fr. Granadino Accused and Removed, Cox

23. More Detail on Granadino’s Removal, Cox

24. Mahony Reacts to News About Granadino, Mahony


March 25, 2002

25. Likely Turnout for 3/25 Chrism Mass, Loomis

26. Parishes & Removed Priests at 3/25 Press Conference, Cox

27. Feedback on Prep for Chrism Mass, Cox

28. Only the Facts in Meeting with Sheriffs, Murphy


March 26, 2002

29. Thank You After Meet with Sheriffs, Cox

30. Press Reaction to Exchange with DA, Mahony


March 27, 2002

31. Big Mistake of Not Pretending on 3 Priests, Mahony

32. Individual Reporting: How to Tell Parks, Mahony

33. Making Transcript in Hickman Accusation, Arviso

34. Plan for Responding to Hickman Accusation, Mahony

35. Message to Fresno PD on Hickman, McNicholas

36. Instruct Parks & He Will Leak the Letter, Mahony

37. Planning Letter to Parks, McNicholas

38. One Change to Parks Letter, McNicholas

39. Instructing and Leaking Again, Mahony

40. Teachable Moment for Parks, Mahony


March 28, 2002

41.  Planning Fresno PD’s Interview with Mahony, Mahony

42.  Releasing the Parks Letter Ahead of the Curve, Mahony

43.  Parks Letter on How We Act Now, Mahony

44.  Clarification for Mixed-Up Media, Mahony

45.  Reporting Wasn’t Contemporaneous, Cox

46.  Warning Priests Who Were Reported to LAPD, Mahony

47.  Cardinals’ Confidential Call with Gregory, Mahony

48.  Priests Reported “Previously” Not “Duly,” Goldberg

49.  Letter to Parks Is Excellent, McNicholas


March 29, 2002

50.  Talking with Fr. Gael Sullivan, Loomis

51.  Sullivan Says No Arrest at St. Dominic Savio, Cox


March 30, 2002

52.  Meeting Victims: Spiritual Victims’ Group? Mahony

53.  Making Sure That All 8 Priests Were Referred, Mahony

54.  Handling an Accusation of Priest with History, Loomis

55. Forgetting an Abuser; Feeding the LAPD; Baker, Murphy


March 31, 2002

56.    Excuses for Forgetting; Numbers; the Dear Sheriffs, Murphy


April 1, 2002

57.  Stonewalling on Names Until Interest Wanes, Mahony

58.  Informing Pat H Before Reporting Him, Mahony

59.  Passing Along Baker’s Info, Cox

60.  Evaluating Pat H and Putting Him in a Parish, Cox

61.  Contacting Pat H, Cox


April 2, 2002

62.  Transcript Is Complete in Hickman Case, McNicholas

63.  Reminder: Transcript Complete in Hickman Case, McNicholas

64.   Fresno, Fundraising, Confirmations, and R&R, Mahony


April 3, 2002

65.  Interview with Stammer of the LA Times, Mahony

66.  Msgr. Matt Kelly’s Past Difficulties, Mahony

67.  Fr. Michael Wempe at Cedars-Sinai Hospital, Miller

68.   Priests As Mandated Reporters, Miller





A.  Mahony Ousts Priests, Stammer and Lobdell, LA Times, 3/4/02
B.  Simple Suggestions for Mahony, Lopez, LA Times, 3/13/02

C.  Chrism Mass Homily, Mahony, 3/25/02

D.  Rip the Veil of Secrecy, Editorial, LA Times, 3/27/02

E.  LAPD Already Has Facts on Priests, Mahony Says, Winton, LA Times, 3/29/02
F.  Victims Crushed in a Priestly Silence, Lopez, LA Times, April 3, 2002
G.  Mahony Says Victims' Requests Led to Secrecy, Larry B. Stammer, LA Times, 4/3/02

H.  Mahony E-Mail Talks of ‘Our Big Mistake,’ Garrison, LA Times, 4/5/02
I.    Mahony E-Mails Cite Fears Over Scandals, Stammer and Winton, LA Times, 4/6/02
J.   Sheriff's Department Set to Wrap Up Azusa Priest Investigation, NBC4.TV, 4/12/02



Keating and the Mahony Emails


Gov. Frank Keating’s criticism of Cardinal Roger M. Mahony in a Los Angeles Times interview (6/12/03) and Keating’s subsequent resignation should prompt a fresh look at a batch of chancery emails that were leaked to a Los Angeles radio station in April 2002.  The emails are of enduring interest for several reasons.


Keating got on Mahony’s bad side recently by calling him a bishop “who listen[s] too much to his lawyer and not enough to his heart.”  Sure enough, the leaked emails show Mahony intensely engaged with not one or two but five lawyers, and their exchanges are not motivated by a concern for the victims of sexual abuse.  The emails illustrate Mahony’s early efforts “to suppress the names of offending clerics, to deny, to obfuscate, to explain away,” as Keating would later say in his resignation letter.  After some of the emails were read on the air by talk show hosts John Kobylt and Ken Champou, in a broadcast from the sidewalk in front of Mahony’s offices, the cardinal went to extraordinary lengths to suppress the documents, arranging a quixotic late-night hearing (4/4/02) with Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe.


When the judge refused to find for prior restraint and the emails were published, Los Angeles got an un-spun look at a diocesan administration famous for its devotion to PR.  Although the emails were written during Lent and Easter, religious feeling is surprisingly absent.  Instead, Mahony and his inner circle seem consumed by a desire to game and one-up the prosecutors and manipulate the press.  Mahony happily describes in one email his use (so he seemed to think) of the very reporter to whom Keating would give his defiant last interview.  Most depressing of all is the complete indifference shown toward the victims of abusive priests.


Creating a Readable Version


The emails are no longer available on the KFI Web site at, but we have posted the original PDF of the emails.  It is not an easy read.  The messages are not in chronological order, and many emails are nested in reverse chronological order within subsequent replies.  Lines are broken and the email addresses are difficult to keep straight.  In order to help people read these important exchanges, the staff of has produced a reading copy of the file.  We have placed the messages in chronological order and supplied cross-references to the original KFI file, so that our work can be easily checked.  We have also removed the prevalent “reply” marks (<<<) and replaced the various email addresses with the last names of the participants.  Titles have been added for the reader’s convenience, and the messages have been numbered.  Our bracketed comments are carefully distinguished from the text, and an appendix of relevant documents is provided.  We hope that the result is a readable and informative version.  This is a preliminary edition—as questions are answered and documents released, will issue a fuller commentary.  Please contact us with corrections and explanations at





The KFI emails span a three-week period, beginning on March 13 and ending on April 3, the Wednesday after Easter.  A Chrism Mass for priests, held on March 25, the day after Palm Sunday, figures in the exchange.  See Appendix Document C for Mahony’s homily at the Mass, and Appendix Document D for the response in the LA Times.


On March 4, 2002, Larry Stammer and William Lobdell wrote in the LA Times that Mahony had removed six to twelve priests in February for sexual abuse allegations (see Appendix Document A).  The Geoghan and Shanley cases had just broken in Boston, and the LA Times revelation prompted law enforcement authorities to press the archdiocese for an accounting of the priests involved.  Reporting of such cases is governed in California by a 1997 statute, and several of the Mahony emails are dedicated to answering a request from Bernard C. Parks, the LA Chief of Police, who was concerned about compliance with that law.  Mahony and most of his advisors want to “instruct” Parks that the statute mandates reporting by individuals, not by institutions like the archdiocese.  Besides the 1997 reporting statute, the archdiocese was committed to a 1988 abuse policy, and Mahony was also bound by an agreement he was compelled to sign as part of the 2001 DiMaria settlement.  See Appendix Document A for more on this background, and Appendix Document E for a description of the letter that was ultimately sent to Parks.


Some of the emails introduce the reader to priests like Baker and Wempe, whose cases would soon become huge problems for Mahony.  Messages 59, 60, and 67, seem like routine communications that pass along contact info, summarize a reassignment, and communicate a phone message.  But the routine they document served to hide abusers, transfer them with terrible consequences, and expose children to harm during hospital stays.  Other abusive priests mentioned in the emails (Pat H. and Tony McDonnell) still remain unidentified, as Mahony continues to stonewall on the release of names, nearly a year later.  This silence has likely prevented some victims from learning that their perpetrator has other victims, and is exposing others to harm.  Mahony’s refusal to release names is related to his conviction that as time passes, interest in the crisis will wane.  He expects that will happen by May 2002 (Message 65).  Or July 2002 (Message 57).


The KFI emails revealed a false accusation of Mahony himself, which is treated almost boyantly by Mahony and his advisors, presumably because it poses no threat.  The contrast is stark between Mahony’s eagerness to be questioned on the subject of the Hickman accusation and his general counsel’s “just the facts” advice, when detectives come to call at the chancery about the priests whom Mahony removed back in February.


The emails also show the involvement of Mahony and his advisors in responding to accusations that come through on the new help line.  See, for example, the Granadino investigation, which comes up in several messages; see also Appendix Document J.


On April 3, the last day of the emails, the Haigh case against John Lenihan was settled (see Appendix Document F).  The settlement had been imminent all through the emails, and the very first email contains PR advice on the Haigh settlement from one of Mahony’s lawyers.


For reporters’ assessments of the emails at the time they first appeared, see Appendix Documents H and I.



Who’s Who


[Notes in brackets describe how email addresses were translated into last names by the editor.]


Craig A. Cox - A canon lawyer and the archdiocese’s Vicar for Clergy.  He was formerly (through June 2000) the archdiocese’s Judicial Vicar. [Cox =


Charles Goldberg - Partner with Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons in Denver (; former Denver District Court judge (1974–78) and head of RJ&L’s Religious Institutions practice.  (See their resource library at  Goldberg has been the general counsel for the Archdiocese of Denver since 1982 and became the general counsel of the Diocese of Fargo in 2001. [Goldberg =]


Richard A. Loomis - Monsignor and director of the archdiocese’s Secretariat for Administrative Services.  Formerly the archdiocese’s Vicar for Clergy (1995–2000)  [Loomis = and and]


Roger Mahony - Archbishop of Los Angeles ( since 1985 and cardinal since 1991.  Formerly bishop of Stockton (1980–85) and auxiliary bishop of Fresno (1975–80). [Mahony =]


John P. McNicholas - Partner with McNicholas & McNicholas in Los Angeles (, a firm that specializes in personal injury work.  He taught at Loyola Law School, and his clients include the Holy See, the Apostolic Vatican Library, the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, and the Archdiocese of Milwaukee.  John Paul II gave McNicholas the Pontifical Order of St. Gregory the Great.  McNicholas is a member of the Knights of Malta. [McNicholas =]


Judith Anne Murphy - A sister of the Congregation of St. Joseph and general counsel for the archdiocese. [Murphy =]

L. Martin Nussbaum - Partner with Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons in Denver, and member of RJ&L’s Religious Institutions practice.  Nussbaum’s clients include the archdioceses and dioceses of Boston, Cheyenne, Colorado Springs, Denver, El Paso, Fargo, Jackson, Los Angeles, and Richmond.  He has served as an expert witness in 1st amendment defenses. [Nussbaum =]


Tod M. Tamberg - Director of the archdiocese’s Office of Media Relations. [Tamberg = and] - Unidentified addressee on a number of emails from Mahony and several replies from others.  No emails in the PDF are from this person; s/he listens but doesn’t talk. In August 2007, this person commented online regarding an article in the Ventura County Star. See Law Limits Abuse Liability to Catholics, by Mark F. Sullivan, Ventura County Star, August 24, 2007, and accmed14's comment.


Paul M. Albee - Secretary to the cardinal (appointment announced 9/8/98).  Recipient of one email from Mahony, asking that someone check the back files of Fr. Matt Kelly.  [Albee = and]


Paula Arviso - Employee of McNicholas & McNicholas whose assistant keyboarded the Pat Gordon transcript.  [Arviso =] - Unidentified employee of McNicholas & McNicholas, copied on a 3/13 scheduling email sent by John P. McNicholas.


Lucille Miller - Executive assistant to Craig A. Cox in the Office of Vicar for Clergy. Informed Loomis of two calls while Cox was away.






L. Martin Nussbaum Charles Goldberg Msgr. Richard Loomis
Roger M. Mahony John P. McNicholas  





[A very interesting email from Goldberg on the “public relations challenges” of the imminent Haigh settlement.  Indents and bullets are supplied by the editor.]



03/13/02 12:09PM

[To: Tamberg]

[No Subject] [WKFI PDF p. 30]


Hello Tod,


What follows is obviously highly confidential at this moment in time:


It appears that we will soon (Friday is the target) accept the outstanding offer to settle the Haigh matter for $1.2 million dollars in exchange for a complete, comprehensive release of all claims. As of this moment, there is no reason to believe that this settlement will be confidential. The settlement sum will be paid 80% by the Diocese of Orange and 20% by the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.


Subject to our self insured retention obligation, the Archdiocese of Los Angeles' portion of the settlement will be paid by our insurers who insured the Archdiocese in 1978-1979. The same carrier insured us post 1979 until The Ordinary Mutual was formed.


Here are the public relations challenges:


1.   At the moment we have not asked that this settlement remain confidential. Unless there is a strong contrary view, we do not anticipate asking for confidentiality.


2.   Regarding the 80/20 split, the question arises whether we inform Ms. Freberg at the time of acceptance of her offer (which will likely occur on Friday, March 15th) of the precise split? Do we hold that information and release it to her later when the releases are prepared and executed? Do we keep the 80/20 confidential. We are leaning toward disclosing the split in the acceptance letter to Ms. Freberg subject, of course, to your advice from >>> a p.r. perspective.


3.         Here are some the questions that come to mind that the press will likely raise:

·        Why is the Archdiocese of Los Angeles ("ADLA") contributing at all to this settlement?

·        Who is the ADLA priest who is accused of sexually molesting Ms. Haigh? Where is he now?

·        If he is not in ministry, why not?

·        When was he removed from ministry?

·        What were the reasons for his removal?

·        Tod, we think we know who he is but, at this moment, are not absolutely certain who it is. Further, we have never indicated to Ms. Freberg that we know who he is although she has asked repeatedly?

·        Why is Ms. Haigh receiving $1.2 MM when the victims in Boston may receive less than $300,000 per victim? Did you report Ms. Haigh's allegations to the police under the Child Abuse Reporting Statute?

·        Why are you paying so much money when her claim appears to be so old? Where is Fr. Lenihan now?

·        When was he removed?

·        Is he going to be laicized by Rome?

·        Is this settlement being paid by insurance?


4.   Note that Ms. Freberg could go public upon receipt of our letter and prior to any releases being executed. These are some of the issues that we need to conference with everyone about between now and Friday. Please let us now when we can all gather fo discuss these sensitive p.r. issues.



Charles Goldberg, Esq.

Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons LLP

1200 17th Street, Suite 3000

Denver, Colorado 80202




The information contained in this electronic communication and any document attached hereto or transmitted herewith is attorney-client privileged, work product, or otherwise confidential and intended for the exclusive use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any examination, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone or reply e-mail and destroy this communication. Thank you.




[A very useful summary of the reporting laws, which disparages Lopez but described his 3/13 “screed” as an “overly lenient description of the Archdiocese’s reporting duties.”  For the “screed” itself, see Appendix Document B.  Compare Mahony on individual reporting in Message 32.]


From: Nussbaum

Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 14:32:27 -0700

To: Mahony,Loomis, Tamberg, Cox, Murphy, McNicholas, Goldberg

Subject: Press & Reporting Issues Related to Haigh Settlement [WKFI PDF p. 27]

Privileged Attorney-Client Communication


In addition to the possible public relations issues identified by Chuck, I would suggest we need to put on the agenda discussion of the additional issues below related to the Haigh settlement. As suggested by Chuck, I think we would benefit from several or all of us convening a meeting to discuss how to handle these issues. Tod, will you attempt to convene a meeting of the appropriate set of people. (I have a court appearance on Friday morning which will occupy me from 7:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. (Pacific time). Otherwise, I am available on both Thursday and Friday of this week.


1.   Should ADLA announce the settlement in advance of Ms. Freberg and thereby, get in front of her on this story?


2.   When and how should ADLA coordinate with the Diocese of Orange re PR issues and the settlement?


3.   Other questions which may come from the press:

a.   Who is the ADLA priest mentioned in the complaint? What has been done to find him?

b.   Has ADLA reported the ADLA priest mentioned in the complaint to law enforcement? Has ADLA complied with the reporting law as regards Lenihan and the un-identified ADLA priest?

c.   Is the ADLA priest mentioned in the complaint still in service?


4.   I would also note that Steve Lopez's screed in today's LA Times, while predictable in its criticism of the Church, is really rather surprising in his overly lenient description of the Archdiocese's statutory reporting duties. He contends that the statute:

a.   Does not require clergy to report instance of child abuse which occured before 1987 (we think the correct date is 1996 , when the legislature added clergy to the list of mandatory reporters);

b.   Does not require clergy to report if the victim is an adult when the cleric learns of the earlier abuse (Lopez says that a prosecutor told him that this is how the statute reads. I think that this is only a possible interpretation of the statute which requires "mandated reporter" to report whenever he or she "has knowledge of or observes a child whom the mandated reporter knows or reasonably suspects has been a victim of child abuse . . . "); and

c.   Does not require clergy to report unless "a minor makes a complaint (I see no support in the statute for this interpretation. Accordingly, I read the statute as requiring clergy to report regardless whether a minor complains.


5.   With all the vultures circling, we should continue to closely analyze whether ADLA's personnel are complying with the reporting statutes:

a.       See paragraph 3(b) supra.

b.   Does ADLA, for example, require its mandated reporter employees to sign the statutorily-prescribed form which puts the employee on notice of his statutory duties. Section 11166.5 requires this. Does ADLA maintain copies of these forms?

c.   When ADLA's mandated reporters report, do they do so both verbally and in writing. (A written report is good risk management and is also required by 11166(a). In fact, the written report must be on the state-prescribed form. See Section 11168.)


6.   As a point of information, I would note that even if ADLA were inclined to release information about previous reports to law enforcement, any such actions would violate the statute which makes the release of any such reports a criminal misdemeanor punishable by not more than 6 mos. in jail and a fine of $500 or both. See Section 11167.5. Further, if ADLA had made reports to the three sheriffs mentioned in the LA Times' articles and editorials, the sheriffs would violate the statute if they released the names of any individual or entity which had made a report. Section 11167(d)(1) which states: "The identity of all persons who report . . . shall be confidential and disclosed only among agencies receiving or investigating mandated reports, to the district attorney . . .", etc. It also states that "No agency or person listed in this subdivision shall disclose the identity of any person who reports under this article." Section 11167(d)(2).


7.   Finally, I continue to fear that the next wave of this press feeding frenzy may well focus on clerics who have had romantic or sexual liaisons with other adults. I think it prudent to begin reviewing personnel disciplinary files to assess the scope of any such problem.

[RL&S confidentiality statement; see Message 1.]



[From:] McNicholas

03/13/02 03:41PM

[No Subject] [WKFI PDF p. 26]




I am available Thursday 9:00 am -11:00 am and from 2:00 PM until the end of the day.


I am travelling on Friday.







From: Goldberg

Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 18:05:11 -0700

To: McNicholas,

Subject: Re: Press & Reporting Issues Related to Haigh Settlement [WKFI PDF p. 25]

As for me, I am available anytime Friday and tomorrow from 1 P.M. (PDT) and thereafter.




[Goldberg contact info.]


[RL&S confidentiality statement; see Message 1.]





[Teleconferencing is a pricey option.]


[From:] McNicholas

03/13/02 06:09PM

[No Subject] [WKFI PDF p. 25]




Can we teleconference Thursday at 2:00pm?






[McDonnell is an as-yet unidentified priest.]


From: Goldberg

Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 09:49:10 -0700

To: McNicholas

Cc: Mahony,Tamberg, Loomis, Murphy, Nussbaum

Subject: Re: Press & Reporting Issues Related to Haigh Settlement [WKFI PDF p. 24]






I just received a call from Tod who is in the midst of some training exercises with priests; he told me he and Fr. Dick will be calling me at 3:30 P.M. (PDT). He gave me no options. Are you available. If so, I'll see you are tied in. Let me know.


Most importantly, does the description of the priest you interviewed, Rev. Michael Anthony McDonnell provided by Katherine Freberg in her letter dated March 12, 2002 (Martin faxed this to you yesterday). Does Rev. McDonnell fit the description of one, 20 years ago who was short, stocky, possibly in his 40's, tight curly hair? Please let us know ASAP by e-mail in advance of our call today so we can begin to think of how we craft our p.r. responses.




[Goldberg contact info.]

[RL&S confidentiality statement; see Message 1.]




From: McNicholas

To: Goldberg

Cc: Mahony, Tamberg, Loomis, Murphy, Nussbaum

Sent: 3/14/2002 11:24 AM

Subject: Re: Press & Reporting Issues Related to Haigh Settlement [WKFI PDF p. 24]




1. I'm on for 3:30 PM today.

2. It is possible that Tony McDonnell could have fit that description 20 years ago. I repeat, "possible." He told me very forcefully that he was never involved with minors. Lets discuss.







From: Loomis

To: Murphy, McNicholas

Sent: 3/19/2002 9:27 PM

Subject: Storm on the horizon [WKFI PDF p. 35]



Sister & John,


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. Father Savino is the President of Crespi HS. I do not know when the announcement will be  made but it will undoubtedly draw a great deal of public attention. The Carmelites are introspective as an order and may not think to warn us before notifying the school community.


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.


If Monsignor Cox is not in direct communication with the Provincial, I suggest that he ought to speak with Father Quinn Connors at tomorrow's workshop and establish direct communication on this matter. Since Father Connors was out here for our workshops and is himself a former Provincial, he was delegated by the current Provincial to confront Father Savino with the allegations. If you agree with my concerns, would a call from legal counsel to Monsignor Cox be better than one from me to set this in motion?


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 -- 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.



Rev. Msgr. Richard A. Loomis

Director, Secretariat for Administrative Services

3424 Wilshire Boulevard

Los Angeles, CA 90010

Voice: 213 637-7890

Fax: 213 637-6890



From: Murphy

Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 07:10:38 -0800

To: McNicholas

Subject: RE: Storm on the horizon [WKFI PDF p. 35]




Please put a call into Msgr. Cox. He is in santa 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.


Thank you,

Sister Judy





From: Mahony

Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 10:16:56 EST

To: Nussbaum, Murphy, McNicholas, Goldberg, Loomis, Tamberg,

Subject: Delgadillo letter [WKFI PDF p. 33]


Privileged Client--Attorney Communication




I would appreciate your drafting a response to Delgadillo for me. We should take him up on his offer to assist training sessions--we will need those for teachers, parish staffs, youth folks, etc.


That would give us the opportunity to give them the summary of the law and to have them sign that form which the Act requires anyway.


I say--let's go for it!









[McNicholas is concerned that if the city attorney gets involved in training, Q&A sessions could open the church to “uncontrolled ‘free’ discovery” like that of a grand jury.  McNicholas also raises the Constitutional issue of the city attorney’s involvement in an “ecclesiastical function.”]


From: McNicholas

Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 10:13:49 -0800

To: Mahony

[forwarded by McNicholas to Loomis on 3/20/2002 1:13 PM]

Subject: Re: Delgadillo letter [WKFI PDF p. 32]



I am working on a draft. However, I think we should discuss his offer in the third paragraph. We have taken the position that we have complied with the statutory reporting laws and continue to do so. We are, even now, cooperating with investigations initiated by the Los Angeles Police Department and by the Los Angeles Sheriff's Office. Sr. Judy, as you know, has met with both agencies and has established a god working relationship with them.


So, what am I worried about having the City Attorney ("C.A.") conduct training sessions with clergy, et al.? I am concerned about direct contact with our clergy and lay personnel. For example, training sessions usually have a question and answer period. Judging from the reception of Di Maria settlement, the monetary amount and the non-monetary terms, a question and answer period could be problematic and "misunderstood" by the Deputy City Attorneys providing the training. The third paragraph is, in my opinion, the kind of investigation done by Grand Juries. In essence, the third paragraph provides the C. A.'s office with uncontrolled "free" discovery.


Martin [Nussbaum] called me as I was preparing the e-mail. He agrees with the above and sees a Constitutional issue as well: this is an ecclesiastical function; we should not hand over our authority to the C. A.


We suggest that we provide him with our policies and welcome suggestions. . [sic] We then can make a choice to include them or not. If we include them we have the imprimatur of the City Attorney.


Best regards






[Note that the Carmelites fail to report because it’s out of SOL.]


From: McNicholas

To: Murphy

Cc: Loomis

Sent: 3/20/2002 1:03 PM

Subject: Re: Storm on the horizon [WKFI PDF p. 34]


Dear Sister,


I spoke with Msgr. Cox. On the subject of who should report the matter to the authorities, he wants to talk to you first. He is of the opinion that you should be the one to report it because of your working relationship with Det. Barraclough. I disagreed but acquiesced to his request--there being no choices. He also said that you and he agreed that this is not reportable under the statute.


The Carmelite's attorney is Jim Geoly, Warren, McKay & Serentella in Chicago. (I got this from Fr. Kevin McBrien, O. Carm., whose name was given to me by Msgr. Cox. Fr. McBrien 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.


I left a short version of the above on your Audex.


Let's discuss.







From: McNicholas

To: Mahony

Cc: Murphy, Loomis; Nussbaum

Sent: 3/20/2002 3:02 PM

Subject: Response to Delgadillo letter [WKFI PDF p. 38]




As I draft a reply, the thought occurs to me that perhaps we could designate someone or a few select individuals for the training suggested by Delgadillo in the third paragraph of his letter(?).


Let's discuss.








From: McNicholas

To: Mahony

Cc: Murphy, Loomis, Nussbaum

Sent: 3/20/2002 4:25 PM

Subject: Reply to Rockard Delgadillo, L.A. City Attorney [WKFI PDF p. 37]


Dear All,


I offer the enclosed draft reply to Mr. Delgadillo's letter for your suggestions.


In the interest of consistency I have borrowed generously from the Pastoral Statement and from the March 13, 2002 letter to the District Attorney, Steve Cooley.


I did not include a paragraph accepting in part Mr. Delgadillo's training offer. In my last e-mail I suggested a partial acceptance by designating someone or a trusted select few to receive the training and then to train others. Such a paragraph is easily grafted onto this or whatever letter you decide to send.





<<Delgadillo 03/20/02>>





[Mahony suggests using “’safe’ folks” from the archdiocese to go through a “dry run” of the training that Delgadillo proposes, with those “folks” leading the real training for others.  This so that “it doesn't sound as if we are rebuffing him.”]


From: Mahony

To: McNicholas

Cc: Murphy, Loomis, Nussbaum

Sent: 3/20/2002 8:11 PM

Subject: Re: Response to Delgadillo letter [WKFI PDF p. 14]




Yes, we could take some "safe" folks from the AD, maybe at the ACC, and have them go through their session to see what it's like.


We could tell him that his staff could do a dry run for us, and we in turn, could then do the training for the rest of our lay employees.


I like the idea. It doesn't sound as if we are rebuffing him.







[Murphy’s email arranges to have a copy of Rucker’s police report put in his file -- at this late date?!  Murphy paraphrases Tammy Helm’s mother on the case: “the mother of Tammy references her phone calls with Bishop Manning. The gist of the phone conversations is that Bishop Manning wanted the church to take care of the matter, and he would see that it was done properly. It appears that based on this representation, the mother refused to press charges and wrote: ‘I just want the Father helped and feel the Church can best do it.’"]


From: Murphy

Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 19:33:44 -0800

To: Mahony

Cc: McNicholas, Loomis, Cox

Subject: Update [WKFI PDF p. 38]


Attorney-Client Privileged Communication




1. I made contact with Detective Barraclough and told him to expect a call from a Fr. McBrien about a complaint from an adult victim re a Carmelite priest that happened over 20 years ago. The priest at that time had been a teacher at Crespi High School. I said the complaint had come through our hotline and referred to the Carmelites. Although this complaint does not fall under the mandating reporting law, I wanted our lines of communication to stay open. I then contacted Fr. McBrien and encouraged him to contact Detective Barraclough. Hopefully contact was made.


2. John had been in contact with the Carmelites attorney in Chicago. Comments were made re their proposed letter to the Carmelite High School Family. In conversation, John was told that the priest in question had molested a teenager when he was a parish priest at St. Jane Frances de Chantal Parish in 1979. This is a parish staffed by the Carmelites. The matter was handled quietly, the priest was sent for treatment, and the Archdiocesan contact was Bishop Azube. John, if you could follow up with this with the attorney to see if they have anything in writing. Msgr. Cox can you check to see if anything in the Carmelite files. It is amazing the connections.


3. John retrieved his old file in the Tammy Helm civil litigation against us and sent me a copy of the police report I will make you a copy, Msgr. Cox, to place in Fr. R's file. Throughout the El Segundo Police report, the mother of Tammy references her phone calls with Bishop Manning. The gist of the phone conversations is that Bishop Manning wanted the church to take care of the matter, and he would see that it was done properly .It appears that based on this representation, the mother refused to press charges and wrote: "I just want the Father helped and feel the Church can best do it."


All for now.


Sister Judy





[Note Mahony’s jokey comment on yet another report of abuse: “Never a dull moment!!”]


From: Mahony

To: Murphy

Cc: McNicholas, Loomis, Cox

Sent: 3/22/2002 6:59 AM

Subject: Re: Update [WKFI PDF p. 13]

Privileged Client--Attorney Communication


Sr. Judy:


Many thanks for the update. Sad to learn of the St. Jane Frances de Chantal connection, as well as Bp Arzube.


We need to investigate fully to see what is there in the files. John may need to interview Bp Arzube.


Never a dull moment!!






From: Cox

To: Loomis

Sent: 3/22/2002 10:03 AM

Subject: Fathers McGowan and Hill [WKFI PDF p. 23]




Would you please be so kind as to print out (or email) and supply me the summary you did of the records of these two priests? The Cardinal and I meet with Tim on Monday of Easter week. I am trying to schedule a trip to see Pat in the near future.








From: McNicholas

To: Murphy, Mahony

Cc: Loomis, Cox

Sent: 3/22/2002 11:55 AM

Subject: Re: Update [WKFI PDF p. 38]



I have calls into Jim Geoly, the attorney who is handling this matter for the Carmelites.


Regards to all,






From: Loomis

Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 12:45:53 -0800

To: Murphy, Tamberg

Cc: McNicholas

Subject: St. Francis High School [WKFI PDF p. 40; appears twice in PDF]




Sister, John & Tod,


Father Chris Kearney (sp?), OFM Cap., a former faculty member at St. Francis High School (not the principal), has been removed from his position at San Lorenzo Seminary, due to allegations of past abuse of minors.


From what I found out from Msgr. Cox, he was discussed on one of the talk shows and the Capuchins did a quick check. Also, an anonymous complaint came in on Orange's 800-line about a Father Chris, but there was no last name and no further reference as to what school. Due to whatever they found out, Father Chris has been removed by the Capuchins. Msgr. Cox sais that this Father Kearney used to supervise Saturday detention. Kids could get leave early if the would wrestle with him. The winner was the one who could grab the other's testicles while wrestling.     :-P


Msgr. Cox told me that the Capuchins were supposed to be sending us a copy of whatever they were going to announce this weekend. (The "this weekend" reference came from Bishop Curry who was told they were announcing it this weekend.)


That's all I know at this point. Msgr. Cox will call the Capuchins this afternoon and see what their plans are.




Rev. Msgr. Richard A. Loomis

Director, Secretariat for Administrative Services

3424 Wilshire Boulevard

Los Angeles, CA 90010

Voice: 213 637-7890

Fax: 213 637-6890





From: McNicholas

To: Loomis, Murphy, Tamberg

Sent: 3/22/2002 2:32 PM

Subject: Re: St. Francis High School [WKFI PDF p. 40; appears twice in PDF]


[No message - perhaps McNicholas’s message (a reply to “St. Francis High School”?) was redacted before the PDF was made.]





From: Cox

To: Mahony

Cc: Loomis, Murphy

Sent: 3/24/2002 3:11 PM

Subject: Allegation Against Rev. David Granadino [WKFI PDF p. 22]



As I believe Sr. Judy Murphy communicated to you, on late Friday afternoon an anonymous complaint came in our 800 number alleging that Fr. David Granadino was abusing altar servers. As you are also aware, the L.A. County Sheriff's Office has been investigating an unnamed priest at St. Francis of Rome, Azusa.


Given that the hotline message provided the name of apriest, Monsignor Loomis and I arranged to meet with Fr. Granadino at 2:15 p.m. today. In accord with his duty as Auditor, Monsignor Loomis is preparing his formal report to you and will communicate that to you on Monday.


In summary, I can say that Fr. Granadino denied forcefully any misconduct. He was shocked and chagrined by the allegations. When asked to provide for us a roster of the altar servers in order to asisst the Sheriff in their investigation, he showed no hesitancy whatsoever. He will fax that to me right away, andI will have Sr. Judy provide that to the Sheriff. I will ask Sr. Judy to communicate with the Sheriff to stress the need for them to act quickly.


Fr. Granadino reluctantly accepted the need for him to move out of the parish for a brief time while the investigation is underway. Given that it is Holy Week and with Easter around the corner, this was agonizing for him. I offered several options, and he agreed to go to St. Andrew's Abbey, Valyermo. I was particularly pleased with that. It is a supportive environmnet, with good spieritual directors he can consult, and if he has to stay there through Holy Week and Easter will enable him to take part in the liturgies of the Triduum. I have already spoken with Abbot Francis and made the arrangements for Fr. Granadino to go there Monday afternoon.


Obviously, Fr. Granadino is hurting. We both encouraged him to be in touch with his counselor and spiritual director.


I will keep you posted.







From: Cox

To: Murphy

Cc: Loomis

Sent: 3/24/2002 3:18 PM

Subject: Fr. David Granadino [WKFI PDF p. 22]



You should have received a copy of my email to theCardinal on this.

Fr. Granadino firmly denies any misconduct. He will be faxing me the server roster on my confidential fax. I'll have that to you ASAP Monday morning. Monsignor Loomis will have his summary of the conversation with you.


When you communicate the roster to the Sheriff, I'd appreciate it if you could strss the urgency that they act quickly and discreetly. This is Holy Week and Easter. Fr. Granadino's absence is paerticularly noticeable and creates burdens on others in our most sacred and busiest of times. If there is something to the allegations, then we want to be sure he is removed from ministry. But if the allegations are unfounded, the sooner that can be established and he restored to ministry, the better. If he is innocent, I am most concerned that his reputation not be damaged more than it will already be by having things drag on and on and on. I know we cannot require the Sheriff to act promptly, but if we can at least

communicate the importance that they act promptly that would be appreciated.


If the Sheriff's office needs to speak with Fr. Granadino, he will be at St.

Andrew's Abbey, Valyermo, and available to them. The phone there is (661)

944-2178. In fact, my sense is that he will be eager to tell his story to the



I'll keep you posted.







From: Mahony

To: Cox

Cc: Loomis, Murphy

Sent: 3/24/2002 3:44 PM

Subject: Re: Allegation Against Rev. David Granadino [WKFI PDF p. 13]


Privileged Client--Attorney Communication



Really sad news. I am pleased with his openness to the process, and his willingness to provide the altar server list, etc.


Let's hope that the investigations can proceed quickly so that this can be finalized as early as possible. The Sheriff's dept will want to speak to each altar server, I presume.

It's too bad that the allegation did not at least specify a name or two--someplace to begin with.


Thanks for your work on this!







From: Loomis

Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 9:33 AM

To: Cox, Murphy, Tamberg

Subject: LBPD [WKFI PDF p. 20]


We have the Long Beach police on board for this evening's Chrism Mass. I explained that there would be a large contingent of clergy, including 400 to 500 priests, five bishops and the Cardinal. They also know that lay people from all over the Archdiocese will be there representing their parishes.  ’’I also informed them that media coverage will be heavy due to the announced topic of the sermon: the child abuse scandals in the Church -- and that there would almost certainly be demonstrators from SNAP or other victim organizations, as well. 


My contact is Lt. Jerry Gadbaw, who is the assistant to the Chief of Police in Long Beach. If he does not command the operation himself, he will make sure that someone competent is in charge and will make sure we have open lines of communication. 







[Prepping Mahony for the 3/25 press conference after the Chrism Mass.  Cox is concerned that Mahony avoid saying that “none of the ‘priests removed’ were in parish ministry.”  First, that would allow “news organizations” to narrow the search for names.  Some [does Cox contradict himself?) were in “parish ministry,” others were “assisting in parishes,” some were “resident in parishes,” and all were "doing Sunday supply at times.”  Second, for those in “predominantly parish ministries” whose ministries were “restricted,” Mahony will be attacked by the press.  Cox recommends Mahony avoid any reference to type of ministry, saying instead 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.”]


From: Cox

To: Mahony

Cc: Loomis, Tamberg, Murphy

Sent: 3/25/2002 10:14 AM

Subject: Press Conference [WKFI PDF p. 21]


I just finished meeting with Tod and we spoke about the press conference you will be having this evening. You are in my prayers.


Tod has briefed me with regard to the kinds of dialogue about questions and advice that you have received up to this point. 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. If you say something that the press later decides was inaccurate, they will be merciless in attacking. 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.


I will be arriving at the parish around 3:15 today and will remain there through the time of the press conference in case I will be needed.





From: Cox

To: Loomis

Sent: 3/25/2002 10:22 AM

Subject: RE: LBPD [WKFI PDF p. 20]




Well done. Thanks.





From: Murphy

Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 5:58 PM

To: Cox, Loomis

Cc: Mahony

Subject: 8:00 AM visit [WKFI PDF p. 19]


Attorney-Client Privileged Communication


Well, Men, here's the drill. William Bevins to be known as Bill and Thomas McNeil to be known as Tom will be at the ACC at 8AM to interview Msgr. Cox and Msgr. Loomis. Badges are down at the mezz. level and instructions left was for them to call you Msgr. Cox when they arrive and you will direct them from there. Your extension is on the badges. I will leave the tape of the anon. call on your chair Msgr. Cox to be given to the Sheriffs. The addresses were faxed to Sergeant Boyett. As to the interview, remember Sergeant Joe Friday - "Only the facts sir, only the facts." Listen to their questions and take your time answering. Do not volunteer information. This is not a session to be chatty. I am not sure if you will inteviewed together or separate. I believe in the spirit of cooperation, therefore, I will not be present and besides 8AM is against my religion. You both will be fine. I'm afraid this investigation will take some time. I was asked when Easter vacation began, etc. If they decide to go the school route, I see no activity until April 8th. Sergeant Boyett interviewed a victim today for this case. The DA's office is involved but a specific DA has not been appointed. Sergeant Boyett said this is happening because the Sheriffs want to avoid mistakes. It will not be inappropriate to push for a speedy investigation at the end of the interview. The number 94 has them scrambling. At the end of the day, Sergeant Boyett left a long message on my audix which will be typed out tomorrow praising our cooperation and how happy the Captain is. I guess they figured out that honey works better than vinegar. 


All for now. 


Sister Judy




From: Cox

To: Murphy

Cc: Loomis

Sent: 3/26/2002 7:32 AM

Subject: RE: 8:00 AM visit [WKFI PDF p. 19]


Attorney-Client Privileged Communication


Sister Judy,


Thank you for the advice, and all your extraordinary efforts in these months. I haven't taken the time to express my appreciation and admiration for all you have done.


Msgr. Loomis and I will keep you posted.







From: Mahony

To: Tamberg, Loomis, Murphy, Cox

Sent: 3/26/2002 5:13 PM

Subject: Re: Letters [WKFI PDF p. 12]



No problem with releasing the DA letter exchange.


Yes, the media will be disappointed! But they will also be disappointed with the Parks letter and our response--since no names will be given out.

We can chat tomorrow.







[The “big mistake” isn’t lying about Baker and transferring abusers.  Mahony is criticizing Murphy for not “consulting” quickly with the police about three unreported priests, so that Mahony could claim that all 8 priests had been properly reported “over the years,” which of course is not true.  Mahony fears “that [otherwise] I will get hauled into a Grand Jury proceeding and I will be forced to give all the names, etc.”  For the Parks letter, first mentioned here and in Message 30, see Appendix Document E.]


From: Mahony

To: Murphy, McNicholas, Nussbaum, Goldberg, Loomis, Cox

Sent: 3/27/2002 7:00 AM

Subject: Our Big Mistake [WKFI PDF p. 11]


Privileged Client--Attorney Communication


Sr. Judy,


As the drum beats continue from every side for us to release the "names," I must still point to what I consider our greatest tactical mistake of the past few weeks.


If I recall, of the 8 priests involved, 5 had already been reported to local law enforcement agencies. That leaves 3.


Recall also that I pressed for you to meet with Det 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.


You resisted quite strongly that suggestion.


I hope you have changed your mind by now! By doing it back then, we would not appear to be crumbling under public pressure. It was a huge mistake on our part.


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.


I'm not sure you grasp the gravity of the situation and where this is heading--not only with the media, but with the law enforcement and legal folks.


The best place to state it would be in my letter to Parks, and then in a follow-up letter to Cooley.


If we don't take immediate, aggressive action here--the consequences for the AD are going to be incredible: charges of cover-up, concealing criminals, etc., etc.

PLEASE make this task your highest priority this morning! I have reached the point where if I cannot guarantee that all 8 have been appropriately reported, then I will have to call the Det. and do it myself--today.


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.


Thanks for listening. This public media pressure will never stop until we can announce that those few priests have all been reported to the appropriate authorities over the years.







[Mahony outlines the picture that he wants to present - the cases are few and old.]


From: Mahony

To: Murphy, McNicholas, Loomis, Loomis, Cox, Goldberg

Sent: 3/27/2002 9:33 AM

Subject: Re: Our Big Mistake [WKFI PDF p. 1]

Privileged Client--Attorney Communication


Sister Judy,


Thanks so very much! I truly appreciate your getting this task done.


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!!







From: Arviso

Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 11:08:23 -0800

To: McNicholas

Subject: Phone message - Pat Gordon [WKFI PDF p. 43]


Phone message on 3/27/02 at 11:06 am:


Pat Gordon Message: My assistant is working on the transcript as I speak. It may take her all day and tomorrow to complete the tapes. I should be able to get the statement to you by tomorrow some time. Any questions call me.




From: Mahony

To: Tamberg,, Murphy, McNicholas, Loomis

Sent: 3/27/2002 11:26 AM

Subject: Fresno Statement [WKFI PDF p. 10]


Privileged Client--Attorney Communication




I am sending along an updated possible press release/statement.


I agree fully with you: should we get any inquiries from the media about the Fresno matter, I need to hold a press conf. The press conf would do two things:


1. I would read the statement about Fresno, and respond to questions. Hopefully, we would have more info about what the Fresno PD is doing, as well as a transcript of the interview to hand out.


2. I would also state that with regards the small group of priests no longer carrying on priestly ministry, each and every case was duly reported to the appropriate law enforcement agency over the years.


Please review the updated Statement and make suggested changes.





<<hickman Statement march 02.doc>>





From: McNicholas

To: Mahony, Murphy

Cc: Loomis, Tamberg

Sent: 3/27/2002 2:09 PM

Subject: FW: Phone message - Pat Gordon [WKFI PDF p. 42]




The message (infra) from Pat Gordon is a follow-up to my voicemail message left earlier today. Transcript tomorrow. When I receive it I will distribute it to the team and then send a copy to Chief Dyer, Fresno P.D. (see, infra). I have just learned from Sr. Judy (who received the information from Det. Barraclough) that this matter has been reported to Jerry Dyer, Chief of Police, Fresno. I called Chief Dyer. He is out for the rest of the day. I told Debra, who took the call in the Chief's absence, the following:


(1) that the LAPD had referred a matter relating to a claim by Flora Mae Hickman of Fresno against you;


(2) that you self-reported the matter to Det. Barraclough, LAPD;


(3) that you followed up that report with a letter to Det. Barraclough;


(4) that I thought that LAPD had probably forwarded a copy of your letter to them;


(5) that the Fresno Police Dept. has a file for Flora Mae Hickman relating to a stolen baby; and,


(6) that Pat Gordon, H. R., Diocese of Fresno, has a two hour tape of his interview with Flora Mae.


It is problematic how much of this Derba wrote down. She said that she will have the Chief call me tomorrow.


I will keep all posted.








From: Mahony

To: Loomis,Goldberg,Cox,Murphy,McNicholas

Cc: Nussbaum

Sent: 3/27/2002 2:46 PM

Subject: Re: Initial Draft Response to the Chief Parks letter [WKFI PDF p. 10]


Privileged Client--Attorney Communication


Msgr. Loomis and all:


I agree with Msgr. Loomis' points. Chief Parks needs some instruction on the Act and how it works. I think we need to give it to him--and by so doing, will be giving it to the media since he will surely make sure the media gets it.


Let's take a crack at a new draft that incorporates these various points.









From: McNicholas

To: Mahony, Loomis, Goldberg, Cox, Murphy

Cc: Nussbaum

Sent: 3/27/2002 3:17 PM

Subject: Re: Initial Draft Response to the Chief Parks letter [WKFI PDF p. 45]


Dear Cardinal,


I agree . . . working on it.






From: McNicholas

To: Mahony, Murphy, Goldberg, Nussbaum, Loomis, Tamberg,

Sent: 3/27/2002 4:50 PM

Subject: Re: Parks Response [WKFI PDF p. 44]


Dear Cardinal,


Excellent letter. Need to change "identify" to "identity" on line 72.








From: Mahony

Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 17:46:29 EST

To: Loomis, Goldberg, Cox, Murphy, McNicholas

Cc: Nussbaum

Subject: Re: Initial Draft Response to the Chief Parks letter [WKFI PDF p. 45]


Privileged Client--Attorney Communication


Msgr. Loomis and all:


I agree with Msgr. Loomis' points. Chief Parks needs some instruction on the Act and how it works. I think we need to give it to him--and by so doing, will be giving it to the media since he will surely make sure the media gets it.


Let's take a crack at a new draft that incorporates these various points.









[The patronizing tone of “we need to make this a teachable moment for Parks” is characteristic of Mahony.  Mahony’s sarcasm about leaks from Parks’s office is bizarre in an email leaked from Mahony’s offices.]


From: Mahony

Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 18:56:53 EST

To: Murphy, McNicholas, Goldberg, Nussbaum, Loomis, Tamberg,

Subject: Parks Response [WKFI PDF p. 44]


Privileged Client--Attorney Communication




I have tried to take all the suggestions and have crafted a response to Parks.


I agree with Loomis: we need to make this a teachable moment for Parks. He and his staff obviously don't understand the Act. Since this will end up in the hands of the media, maybe they will learn something along the line!!


I would like to finalize the letter by noon on Thursday, if possible, and then have it delivered to Parks' office.


I have placed it in double-spaced, numbered lines, format.


Sr. Judy: do we have the LAPD case numbers I refer to in line 69? Were both prosecuted and served probation? I don't know the precise facts here.


Thanks to all!!







From: Mahony

To: McNicholas, Murphy

Cc: Loomis, Tamberg

Sent: 3/28/2002 7:01 AM

Subject: Re: Phone message - Pat Gordon [WKFI PDF p. 9]


Privileged Client--Attorney Communication




Good work! It will be key to get the Flora Mae transcript into the hands of both the Fresno PD and the LAPD.


They should then interview her themselves.


I would find it difficult to drive up to Fresno during these days for an interview, but would gladly do so on the telephone. Would that work for them?


With all the Holy Week services, Easter, etc., these days are busy. On April 3 I have to go to Dallas, back on the 4.


But the Fresno PD can call me anytime for a telephone interview; they can tape record the interview, and I don't need an attorney on the line. Since I have no recollection of every meeting the lady, I welcome the interview.


Please give them my home number if they wish to call during these days of Holy Week or over the weekend.









From: Mahony

To: Murphy, McNicholas, Goldberg, Nussbaum, Loomis, Tamberg,

Sent: 3/28/2002 7:04 AM

Subject: Re: Parks Response [WKFI PDF p. 9]


Privileged Client--Attorney Communication


Sr. Judy and all:


Sister has good suggestions. I'm incorporating them this morning, and will send them to you.


I think a final letter is at hand.

Re media: should Tod speak with the Chief's office and suggest that we jointly release the two letters? I think we should get ahead of the curve.







From: Mahony

To: Murphy, McNicholas, Goldberg, Nussbaum, Loomis, Tamberg,, Cox

Sent: 3/28/2002 7:19 AM

Subject: Almost Final Version: Parks Letter [WKFI PDF p. 8; this email appears twice in PDF]


Privileged Client--Attorney Communication


All: I have incorporated Sr. Judy's excellent suggestions into the draft of the Parks letter.


Please review at your earliest convenience and let me know if it is OK to finalize and deliver to his offices.


Suggestion: that Tod then release both letters to the media, with a brief media advisory and with a clarifying statement from me [I'm working on that piece right now]. We are in a good position to clarify once again our policies and what we have done, and how we act now.


Thanks to all!!




<<parks letter march 28 02.doc>>



From: Mahony

Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 8:12 AM

To: Murphy, McNicholas, Loomis, Tamberg,, Nussbaum, Goldberg, Cox

Subject: Clarifying Statement [WKFI PDF p. 19]


Privileged Client--Attorney Communication




It is obvious that the media has got several things mixed up. I propose my issuing a clarifying statement; it could go out with the Parks letter release.


It tries to separate two issues, and uses language from the Chrism Mass homily.


I welcome ideas, etc.






[For Mahony’s sermon at the Mass, see Appendix C; for the editorial about the sermon, see Appendix Document D.]


From: Cox

To: Mahony, Murphy, McNicholas, Loomis, Tamberg, Tod,, Nussbaum, Goldberg

Sent: 3/28/2002 8:27 AM

Subject: RE: Clarifying Statement [WKFI PDF p. 18]


Privileged Client--Attorney Communication


Dear Cardinal and all,


I share Tod's concerns. You have been clear; it is the media that has not listened. The perfect example was the editorial in The Times yesterday. Either they deliberately distorted what you said, or they simply did not listen. I fear the clarifying statement will be viewed as a sign of defensiveness. The letter to Chief Parks, RELEASED BY US and not by him, is good.


If you decide that some sort of clarifying statement is needed, I am uncomfortable with lines 24-27 of the current text. As written, it gives the impression that for years we gave names over to law enforcement contemporaneously with the time we learned of events. If an example of even one case comes out where we didn't pass on the name then, but only more recently, it will blow up.





From: Mahony

To: Loomis, Cox, Murphy

Sent: 3/28/2002 8:49 AM

Subject: Phone Calls [WKFI PDF p. 8]

Privileged Client--Attorney Communication


Dick and Craig,


Following on Sr Judy's very good meeting with the LAPD folks yesterday, do you think it would be wise for you to call those priests whose names were given to the PD for review? They should probably have some heads up lest the PD comes knocking at their doors without notice.







[Marked confidential three times, uniquely in these emails.]


From: Mahony

To: Murphy, McNicholas, Loomis, Loomis, Cox,, Goldberg

Sent: 3/28/2002 8:52 AM

Subject: Confidential Matter [WKFI PDF p. 7]


Privileged Client--Attorney Communication





On Good Friday morning, the USA Cardinals and Bp Wilton Gregory (our Conference Pres.) will have a phone conference call.


We will be discussing all of the current problems in the Church across the country.


I would welcome any ideas, suggestions, etc., that you think I could bring to the conversation.


I presume that we need to discuss the extent of the damage, what next steps need to be taken for the good of the Church, etc.


Thanks for the input!!


Privileged Client--Attorney Communication




[Again the anxiety surfaces about claiming that the reporting of priests was done in a timely fashion: Goldberg suggests writing “previously” instead of “duly” in the letter to Parks.]


From: Goldberg

Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 10:23:56 -0700

To: Mahony,Loomis,, Tamberg, Cox, Loomis, Murphy, McNicholas, Nussbaum

Subject: Re: Almost Final Version: Parks Letter [WKFI PDF p. 46]

Dear Cardinal,


The most recent iteration of the letter is good and should be sent. The letter is a direct response to Chief Parks and a good tutorial. I have a couple of stylist observations for your consideration:


In the 3rd to the final paragraph, do you think substituting the word "previously" for "duly" would aid the reader? The sentence would then read:


"Recently dismissed priests who were in the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles Police Department have been previously reported."


Instead of the final closing line, consider:


"I trust this fully responds to your inquiry. With ever best wish, I am"


Nice work.




[Goldberg contact info.]


[RL&S confidentiality statement; see Message 1.]





From: McNicholas

To: Goldberg, Mahony, Loomis,, Tamberg, Cox, Murphy, Nussbaum

Sent: 3/28/2002 11:51 AM

Subject: Re: Almost Final Version: Parks Letter [WKFI PDF p. 46]


Dear Cardinal,


The letter is excellent as presently constituted. Kudos to all. Happy and Holy Easter,







From: Loomis

Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 10:08 AM

To: Cox

Subject: St. Dominic Savio [WKFI PDF p. 18]


I still have a note to keep in contact with Fr. Gael Sullivan. Though I left messages, I never actually reached him. I heard you speaking with him yesterday. If this has been handled, please let me know.






From: Cox

To: Loomis

Sent: 3/29/2002 10:49 AM

Subject: RE: St. Dominic Savio [WKFI PDF p. 17]




I spoke with Gael. Ntohing has happened at the school as of that conversation yesterday midafternnon.


Obviously, school is now out for the Easter break. So if there is an arrest, it will not be in the "on campus highly public" fashion, or it will be delayed.







From: Mahony

To: Murphy, McNicholas, Loomis, Loomis, Cox, Nussbaum, Goldberg

Sent: 3/30/2002 7:57 AM

Subject: Victims [WKFI PDF p. 6]


Privileged Client--Attorney Communication




Just a brief note to tell you that I have met confidentially with three victims Thursday and Friday. Separately for one, with two others together. Folks were referred to me by two priests--calls sent to my private phone since one is a Dean and has the number. 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--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 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.


I have a couple more in mind, and will share those with you shortly.


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. We must move forward with some key things, in my opinion.


A blessed Easter to all.






[Mahony on the priests referred to LAPD being “group A.”]


From: Mahony

To: Murphy, McNicholas, Loomis, Loomis, Cox

Sent: 3/30/2002 1:24 PM

Subject: A Question [WKFI PDF p. 5]


Privileged Client--Attorney Communication


Sr. Judy,

I just want to confirm that the big 8 included in group A have all been either directly referred to a local police unit over the years, or you at least "consulted" with Barraclough about them.


That is really important information for me as I am having an interview with Larry Stammer on Tuesday. I want to have that fact really correct!









[The allegation left by phone was from someone who knew that Mike was at the parish “to supervise Dave ‘because of his history’.”  Note the resentment about an investigation that lets parishioners know there’s an accusation.  Note also the singling out of Channel 4.]


From: Loomis

To: Cox, Murphy

Sent: 3/30/2002 4:30 PM

Subject: Re: St. Frances of Rome [WKFI PDF p. 17]


I would really like to follow your path, Craig. If they will let us make the announcements, we can explain that an investigation is under way, as we have in the past. Do we need their permission to make announcements? This is a free country and it would hardly interrupt their efforts. The sheriffs' activities have been on Channel 4 and other media, after all. We certainly would not be tipping their hand.


When our counselors go to Saint Frances of Rome, they will be taking the heat the sheriffs ought to be taking -- or Dave should be taking if indeed he has done something. If we can minimize further disruption and panic among the people of God, we ought to try.


To be fair, I have to give one thought, however: if my memory serves me well, the message on the tape says that Fr. Mike is there to supervise Dave "because of his history," as well as saying something about altar servers now. It was the "history" phrase that led me to think it might be the same family as the young man Msgr. Richey and I went to see. And I hoped the sheriffs would start their investigation by identifying the caller and her concerns rather than a shotgun attack on the parishioners.







[The issue isn’t compliance but giving “some” names to make LAPD think that "continuing cooperation” was happening.]


From: Murphy

Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2002 5:18 PM

To: Loomis, Cox, Murphy [sic]

Subject: RE: St. Frances of Rome [WKFI PDF p. 16]


May I suggest that I request a meeting with whomever the Sheriffs wish to send on Monday afternoon to discuss next steps. Both or either one of you can be present. No assignment list until a meeting. It would be helpful if Sunday night or Monday morning one of you can obtain from Fr. Mike the pulse of the parish.


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. If you all remember permission to do this was not given until Tuesday. He was reluctant about B[aker]. Msgr. Cox, you could help me if you cold get for me B's full name, birth date, social security number, and last known address. This would also be helpful for C. I know we do not have address. We better do the same for P.


Happy Holy Saturday and Easter Sunday!


Sister Judy





From: Murphy

Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2002 11:08 PM

To: Cox

Cc: Loomis

Subject: Status [WKFI PDF p. 15]


Attorney-Client Privileged Communication


As you can probably determine, I decided not to answer the Cardinal's question as to all reported. The reason being - What will be the status of H? Is it restricted ministry as it was before he went to study? I believe that's why my subconscious helped me to forget him.


On another note, Msgr. Loomis, I now wish we had removed OG from the list. His case should not be part of the count since not "recently removed". In fact, he was never removed as far as I know. But "so be it".


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?


Sister Judy





From: Mahony

To: Loomis, Murphy, McNicholas, Loomis, Cox, Tamberg,, Nussbaum, Goldberg

Sent: 4/1/2002 7:08 AM

Subject: Re: Giving Numbers [WKFI PDF p. 5; first email in this thread not in PDF]

Privileged Client--Attorney Communication




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!!


Thanks for the input!






From: Mahony

To: Cox, Loomis, Murphy, McNicholas

Sent: 4/1/2002 7:14 AM

Subject: Pat H. [WKFI PDF p. 4 and 14]


Privileged Client--Attorney Communication


Craig and Dick:


I think we need to think through carefully how to deal with Pat H. His case troubles me.


Craig definitely needs to call him and let him know that his case is under scrutiny now, and that we will await his return before finalizing our decision. But I am leaning towards giving it to the LAPD to review. We could be very vulnerable on any case where there is a dispute between folks, and we have not referred it out.


I would appreciate your guidance here!




[Response to Message 55.]


From: Cox

To: Murphy

Cc: Loomis

Sent: 4/1/2002 8:09 AM

Subject: RE: St. Frances of Rome [WKFI PDF p. 16]



Sister Judy,


Here is the data you requested:



DOB: December 26, 1947 in Pasadena, CA

SS: 570-68-0856

Last known address: P.O. Box 1117, La Mirada, CA 90637

Last known phones: home: (562) 435-8058

cell: (818) 618-8443


As to Azusa, I like your recommendation. A red envelope with the assignment data is on your chair. I was not planning to be in the office this afternoon, but can be if needed. If Monsignor Loomis can go, that would be fine.


I'll try to get Mike Sears this morning.





[Cox assumes that after a “new evaluation,” Pat H. will “return to a restricted ministry, including a move to a parish with no school.”  The result of the “evaluation” seems a foregone conclusion.]


From: Cox

To: Murphy

Cc: Loomis

Sent: 4/1/2002 8:18 AM

Subject: RE: Status [WKFI PDF p. 15]

Attorney-Client Privileged Communication


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.







From: Cox

To: Loomis

Sent: 4/1/2002 11:56 AM

Subject: FW: Pat H. [WKFI PDF p. 14]




We may need to talk about this before my break is over. If so, please call. I could conceivably call Pat from up in the mountains too.







From: McNicholas

To: Mahony

Cc: Murphy, Loomis

Sent: 4/2/2002 11:25 AM

Subject: Fresno [WKFI PDF p. 2]


Dear Cardinal,

I just spoke to Pat Gordon, H. R., Diocese of Fresno. They completed the transcript last night. It is 40 pages.


At 2:30 p.m. they will take the transcript to Flora Mae for signature and release.


They then will take a copy to Det. Attkisson at Fresno P. D. and send me a copy.


Best regards,





From: McNicholas

To: Mahony

Cc: Murphy, Loomis

Sent: 4/2/2002 12:13 PM

Subject: Fresno [WKFI PDF p. 47]


Dear Cardinal,

I sent you an e-mail at 11:25 this morning in which I said that the transcript was finished last night and that it is being taken to Flora Mae at 2:30 p.m. for signature and release; thence to Det. Atkkisson at Fresno P. D. and a copy sent to me.


I am concerned that you did not receive the 11:25 a.m. e-mail -- and that you may not receive this one. I have a lunch appointment and will try to contact you when I return.







From: Mahony

Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 14:40:01 EST

To: McNicholas, Murphy

Subject: Fresno [WKFI PDF p. 48]


Privileged Client--Attorney Communication




I was wondering if you have heard anything from Fresno yet. For your info, I depart in the morning for Dallas, back on Thursday morning. A quick overnight to Dallas--hope to bring back a good Cathedral gift!


If the PD up there wants to speak with me, then they should contact me here at home today; I will have my cell phone with me on the Dallas trip: (213) 706-4014. Should be back by early noon on Thursday; here that day and Friday. Home phone the best.


This coming weekend, I have two Confirmations on each Sat and Sun, so away a lot.


Off next week until Friday noon--some R & R. Would like to do the PD interview before next Monday, if possible.


Many thanks!!







[See Appendix Document G for the interview with Stammer.]


From: Mahony

To: Murphy, McNicholas, Loomis, Cox, Tamberg,, Nussbaum, Goldberg

Sent: 4/3/2002 6:49 AM

Subject: Times Story [WKFI PDF p. 3]


Privileged Client--Attorney Communication



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!!






[Note the euphemism “past difficulties.”]


From: Mahony

To: Cox, Loomis, Albee

Sent: 4/3/2002 7:39 AM

Subject: Msgr Matt Kelly [WKFI PDF p. 3]




Someone needs to check the back files on Msgr. Matt Kelly at Nazareth House. He is surely dying now.


Since I will be gone next week, that may be a blessing. It may be best if someone else were to handle his Funeral anyway given his past difficulties.


Please keep an eye on all of this.








[Mahony assigned Wempe to Cedars-Sinai in 1988 without telling the hospital about Wempe’s past, although there is a pediatric unit there.  While he worked at the hospital, Wempe lived in two parishes: St. Ambrose in LA (1989–99) and Immaculate Heart in LA (2000–02).  Mahony assigned Wempe to Cedars-Sinai after removing him from St. Sebastian in Santa Paula and sending him to the treatment center in Jemez Springs run by the Servants of the Paraclete.  Wempe’s assignments before his chaplaincy were: St. John Chrysostom in Inglewood (1967–69); St. Andrew in Pasadena (1969–70); St. Rose of Lima in Simi Valley (1970–73); St. Jude in Westlake Village (1974–77); Sacred Heart in Ventura (1978); St. Mary in Palmdale (1979­85); and St. Sebastian in Santa Paula (1985–87).


Mahony finally removed Wempe in March 2002, and the hospital only learned about Wempe’s past when LA Times reporters made inquiries, probably shortly before Gary Leo of Cedars-Sinai placed the call referred to in this email.  On April 11, 2002, Mark and Lee Bashforth filed suit against Orange County Superior Court alleging they had been sexually abused by Wempe from about 1976 to 1985. The suit also names the archdiocese, alleging that senior priests knew--or should have known--of Wempe's misconduct but failed to intervene.]


To: Loomis

Sent: 4/3/2002 2:34 PM

Subject: Call from Mr. Gary Leo [WHFI PDF p. 2]

Importance: High


Gary Leo, Senior Vice-President from Cedars Sinai Community Relations (which is in charge of Chaplains) would like to speak to Monsignor Cox regarding Father Mike Wempe. He asked if he could get a call soon. His number (310) 423-3661. This was an audix message. If you think it should wait for Monsignor Craig's return, let me know.







[Priests who still don’t know their responsibility as mandated reporters.]


From: Miller

To: Loomis

Sent: 4/3/2002 3:28 PM

Subject: Call I took for Monsignor Craig this afternoon.... [WKFI PDF p. 2]




This is a call I took for Monsignor Craig this afternoon. I thought you might want to know about it. He did not want me to transfer the call to you, but since you are involved with the Victim Abuse I am sending it to you as an F.Y.I.:


- Fr. John Mayhew called from St. Louis Montfort, Santa Maria. He said he spoke to you at the Clergy Workshop in Santa Barbara about a family who had talked to him about a man who had relations with their daughter who was 16 or 17. He knows both families. At the time he did not know that he was a mandated reporter. He discussed this with you at the workshop and you said he needed to report the incident. He met with the family to let them know what he was going to do, and they asked him for a few days so that they could speak to the man and ask him to turn himself into the authorities. Two days later he committed suicide and he just buried him today. He just wanted you to be aware of what can happen in these matters. His number is (805) 937-4555. I offered to transfer him to Monsignor Loomis, but he just asked that I pass this message on to you, since you are the one with whom he discussed this matter.




A.  Mahony Ousts Priests in Sex Abuse Cases
Clergy: Church sources say as many as 12 are involved. They are quietly fired or forced to retire.

By Larry B. Stammer and William Lobdell
LA Times
March 4, 2002

As many as a dozen Southern California priests who were involved in past sexual abuse cases have been directed by Cardinal Roger M. Mahony to retire or otherwise leave their ministries.

The forced retirements, which church sources said ranged from at least half a dozen to 12 priests, were the latest repercussions in the growing scandal of priestly sexual abuse within the Roman Catholic Church in the U.S.

The church's Los Angeles Archdiocese made no public announcement of the dismissals, which occurred during the last two weeks. Numerous efforts seeking comment from officials were unsuccessful.

In a separate case, a popular Orange County priest who admitted molesting a teenage boy 19 years ago bid farewell to his parish Sunday. Father Michael Pecharich was asked to leave last week by the Bishop of Orange, the Most Rev. Tod D. Brown. Pecharich's case had been known to the church since 1996.

None of the priests in the Los Angeles Archdiocese are believed to be involved in any recent cases of sexually abusing minors. Their cases occurred as long as a decade ago, and all had undergone psychological counseling, according to one of the sources.

Nonetheless, since the scandal over the sexual abuse of minors erupted anew in the Boston archdiocese last month, dioceses across the country, including the Diocese of Orange and Diocese of San Bernardino, have been under increasing pressure to rid themselves of any priests with a history of sexual misconduct.

"Boston sent a red alert," said one church source, who asked not to be named because it would aggravate his relations with superiors.

The Catholic Church has been dogged for decades by sporadic complaints of child molestation. But the magnitude of the Boston case and several high-profile settlements of civil suits by the church have drawn unusual attention. In Boston, the archdiocese was found to have known for years about, but failed to act against, a priest who had been accused of molesting 130 children.

As that scandal mushroomed, Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston reluctantly turned over to law enforcement officials the names of 80 priests who had been accused of abusing children during the last 40 years. Boston's action was soon followed by similar disclosures in Philadelphia.

In San Bernardino on Sunday, the controversy prompted Bishop Gerald R. Barnes to write an open letter to his parishes seeking to reassure parishioners of his diocese's long-standing policy of removing errant priests. Barnes also spoke on behalf of "good" priests whom he said have been unfairly tarnished by the scandal.

Legal Outlook Is Uncertain

It was unclear Sunday whether the names of any of the priests in the Los Angeles Archdiocese--which includes Los Angeles, Ventura and Santa Barbara counties--would be given to law enforcement authorities, or whether any of the priests planned to appeal their dismissals.

A knowledgeable law enforcement official said it did not appear any of the cases had been previously referred for criminal prosecution by the archdiocese. This official could recall only one referral of a priest for criminal prosecution for molestation in the last several years. He said that case resulted in a conviction.

The archdiocese in past statements has promised to cooperate fully with civil authorities and the legal system. Mahony, the archbishop of Los Angeles, was a member of a national bishops conference committee that recommended such steps.

Nor was it clear why the Los Angeles priests were being asked to leave only now, since the archdiocese has had a stated policy since 1988 to "never deal with a problem of sexual abuse on the part of a priest or deacon by simply moving him to another ministerial assignment."

Sources familiar with Mahony's actions suggested they were prompted not only by the Boston scandal but by a 2001 court settlement in which the Los Angeles archdiocese promised to rid itself of anyone who had been found guilty of sexual abuse in the past, either by an admission or in civil or church proceedings.

That case involved a victim, Ryan DiMaria, who claimed he had been sexually abused as a teenager by a priest at a church high school. The $5.2-million settlement, approved by the dioceses of Los Angeles and Orange, required the church to remove any other employee found to be guilty of sexual abuse.

DiMaria's attorney, Katherine K. Freberg of Irvine, said she was elated by the dismissals.

"This was our very vision: that both Los Angeles and Orange would literally go through their files and determine if they had any priests that have molested someone, and that they get ousted," Freberg said. "I cannot tell you how happy this makes me--and the way it's been played out. I see this as the culmination of all the victims across the country banding together and saying we will no longer live in the secrecy or tolerate the cover-up."

Of the targeted priests in the Los Angeles archdiocese, those who are 62 or older have been asked to retire. Younger priests were told that their status as priests was now "inactive." Those who resided in a parish rectory or other church facility were asked to move out.

In one case, a priest was said to have been given 72 hours to pack his belongings and leave.

In face-to-face meetings with Mahony, the priests were also reportedly asked to consider leaving the priesthood entirely through a process called laicization, a step rarely taken upon retirement, a knowledgeable church source said. They were also offered what one churchman called a "generous" severance package.

Word of the dismissals came a week after Mahony issued a strongly worded pastoral statement published in the archdiocesan weekly newspaper in which he reiterated a "zero tolerance" policy when it comes to sexual abuse of a minor.

Mahony promised that the archdiocese "will not knowingly assign or retain a priest, deacon, religious or layperson to serve in its parishes, schools, pastoral ministries, or any other assignment when such an individual is determined to have previously engaged in the sexual abuse of a minor."

The problem of child sexual abuse by priests threatens not only the church's credibility but its finances. Various estimates by legal experts have suggested the church had paid out hundreds of millions in settlements over the years. The $5.2-million settlement in DiMaria's case last year in Orange County is believed to be the largest sum involving a single individual.

One church source noted that if Mahony were accused of failing to abide by the terms of the DiMaria settlement, his diocese would be liable.

"If he were accused of anything, his pockets are the deepest. He owns everything," the source said. "Now the archbishop is able to answer unequivocally when asked 'are you keeping any sexually abusing priests in your archdiocese?' that the answer is an unequivocal no."

Mahony Voiced Concern to Peers

Mahony became archbishop in 1986, two years before the archdiocese said it adopted a sexual abuse policy. In 1992, Mahony publicly expressed concern about clergy sexual abuse during a meeting of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, then known as the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. Meeting in Washington, the bishops conference hotel was picketed by individuals who said they had been sexually abused as minors by priests. The issue was not on the bishops' agenda, but they quickly consented to a private meeting led by Mahony.

"These were good people who have been deeply wounded by the misconduct of some of our priests," Mahony said in reporting back to the bishops in unscheduled public remarks. "These were people whose faith has been shattered and in some cases lost."

The bishops then voted unanimously to step up efforts to remain vigilant against sexual abuse, but victims complained then that the pledge was inadequate.

As recently as last month, the president of the bishops conference, the Most Rev. Wilton D. Gregory of Belleville, Ill., renewed the pledge by U.S. bishops to "continue to take all the steps necessary to protect our youth from this kind of abuse in society and in the church."

Gregory said the church was confident that "few" of the nation's 47,000 priests were involved in such conduct. "The damage, however, has been immeasurable. The toll this phenomenon has taken on our people and our ministry is tremendous. This is a time for Catholic people--bishops, clergy, religious and laity--to resolve to work together to assure the safety of our children," Gregory said.

As part of Gregory's statement, the bishops conference announced an Internet site that details church policies and actions taken to fight sexual abuse. That site is trust.htm.

How that will play out, however, is a difficult question as individual bishops work to address the injury to and needs of victims and their families, and to care for accused priests.

In Los Angeles, one church source said the ousters suggested the archdiocese had stopped dealing with priest molestation as a treatable mental health problem.

"The mental health model is being set aside and the criminal-justice model is being inserted. So all you have for these priests is a retribution model," the source said. "My fear is the church is going from being careless in treating abused children to being careless in treating abusing priests," the churchman said.

Times staff writers Rosemary McClure and Greg Krikorian contributed to this report.



B.  Simple Suggestions for Mahony


By Steve Lopez

LA Times

March 13, 2002


Across the land, the Catholic Church is being forced to come clean about the sins of the fathers, and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles appears to be falling into line. But the million-dollar word there is "appears."


As reported in The Times, Cardinal Roger Mahony recently dismissed as many as a dozen priests for allegations of sexual abuse. But local authorities said they hadn't gotten any calls from church officials regarding those allegations.


A reasonable person might ask, What gives? Does the church consider itself to be above the law?


On Sunday, the archdiocese sent priests into pulpits to read a statement from Mahony. My hat is off to the author, whether it was Mahony himself, a team of lawyers or a high-priced flack, because it was a beautiful piece of work.


"Some press reports have implied that the archdiocese has not passed along information on suspicions of child abuse to the proper authorities," said the statement, which went on and on about Mahony's knowledge of the legal requirements to report sexual abuse.


But despite assurances that the archdiocese will not tolerate abuse, the statement brilliantly steered clear of saying whether anyone actually did call the police. We have the appearance of the diocese coming clean, but it was such a quick dunk, I'm not sure we can call it a baptism.


The question remains: Did they call police? And if not, why not?


I'd like to give you the church's answers, which would be the fair thing to do, if not the Christian thing. But no answers are forthcoming. Archdiocesan officials did not return my calls. It's possible they were busy siccing the cops on someone, but if so, why not admit that they're finally playing hardball?


You'd think they'd have learned the cost of silence and denial by now, given the horrific pedophilia scandal in Boston, the humiliating resignation of a bishop in Florida and a payout to victims nationwide in the neighborhood of $1 billion.


Look, the new cathedral is set to open in Los Angeles this September. Wouldn't it be smart to clean out the closet now? I know that if I'd donated hard-earned cash to the $200- million Rog Mahal, I'd like to be certain it was spent on kneelers and prayer books rather than molestation settlements.


While holding out faith that the archdiocese would return my calls, I talked to prosecutors George Palmer and Irene Wakabayashi in the L.A. County district attorney's office, and here's the way I figure it:


There are so many loopholes in child abuse laws, it wouldn't be hard for the Catholic Church or another institution to hide behind a technicality and legally avoid calling the police in most cases.


If a claim of sex abuse is made during confession, for instance, the priest can keep it quiet because of clergy privilege. If the alleged crime occurred before 1987 but was reported afterward, the church doesn't have to call the police because clergy, for reasons only the devil knows, essentially got a waiver prior to 1987.


If an adult walks into a church today and tells a priest he was molested as a boy, the priest doesn't have to call the police, even if the abusive priest is still on the job. The law presumes the adult can call the police himself.


A member of the clergy only has to call the police, prosecutors told me, if a minor makes a complaint. But is there anyone out there who thinks a sexually abused child is going to march into the rectory or the principal's office and file a complaint?


It's as if the pope himself wrote these laws.


But let's forget about legal requirements for a moment and talk about a higher authority. Isn't there a moral obligation for the church to report anything and everything that might root out molesters before they abuse again?


"Of course there is, but they don't do anything unless they're made to do it," says Mary Grant, who, as a teenager, was abused by an Orange County priest in the 1970s.


The priest was not canned despite a diocesan cash settlement with Grant. Only last year, after the priest confessed to me that he had had several relationships with consenting women, was he dumped as pastor of his church. He has since been sued for another alleged molestation that goes back to the 1970s.


In 1988, Mahony established a policy designed, in his words, "to do all that is humanly possible to prevent sexual abuse... "


In his Sunday statement, he invoked that policy and vowed that his church "will not knowingly assign or retain a priest, deacon, religious, or layperson ... when such an individual is determined to have previously engaged in the sexual abuse of a minor."


Well, given that the policy goes back 14 years, how is it that as many as a dozen accused molesters were still on the payroll? Did Mahony just now hear about them? And by the way, what exactly did these priests do?


The church has acknowledged six molestation complaints in the past five years alone, but it's anyone's guess what, if anything, became of those priests.


Are they still hearing confessions?


Some people in the church argue that Mahony has done more to crack down on bad priests than his predecessors.


I'm not sure how flattering a distinction that is, but there's a simple way to restore some of the faith the church has burned.


First, he can level with parishioners and the public about what he knows and what he's doing about it. Second, he can invite the police in and let them root through the files.


In my Catholic school days, I was taught there are no secrets on Judgment Day.




C.  Cardinal Mahony's Chrism Mass Homily

Monday, March 25, 2002


The Tidings (LA Archdiocesan Paper)

March 29, 2002




Year after year, we listen to these challenging Scriptures at our Chrism Mass. But this year, they take on new and deeper meaning because of the extraordinary crisis swirling about the Church across the country.


Only one human being throughout the course of history could have listened to the Isaiah prophecy and then respond: "Today this Scripture passage is fulfilled in your hearing." And that person was Jesus Christ.


Jesus set the tone, the theme, and the modeling for all of us who would be his disciples, all who would come after him in the service of the People of God.


Each Chrism Mass we pause to measure ourselves against Jesus Christ, the Isaiah prophecy, and all of his words and actions. In past years we have always come up short - we always had need for a further change of heart, a deepening of our discipleship. And we priests always had to gauge how we measured up to our priestly commitments.


But this year: the Church and the priesthood are undergoing an incredible purification because of the sinful and deplorable actions of a small percentage of priests.


In previous years we could hold our heads high as we listened to Jesus proclaim: "Today this Scripture passage is fulfilled in your hearing." But-not this year; we have come up incredibly short.


In my 40 years as a priest and 27 years as a Bishop, I have never felt to devastated, so sad, so besieged because of the horrific and sinful crimes of priests across the country. I never dreamed that any priest could so betray and defile his vows and wreak such havoc upon innocent children and youth. I personally find this egregious conduct incomprehensible. But more, I am outraged at the colossal harm that has been done, and commit myself to use every energy that I have to not only correct any possible lingering problems here in Los Angeles, but to make certain that the Church across the country responds with swift action to correct all the wrongs.




Each year we bless the Oil of Catechumens, the Oil of the Sick and Sacred Chrism-these blessed oils are then sent out to our 290 Parish Communities to be used in the Sacramental life of the Church.


The blessed Oils are poured out on babies in Baptism, and on young people in Confirmation; yet, some of our children and youth have been violated by the very priests who poured upon them the Church's life-giving Oils.


We plead for forgiveness from our youth, our young adults who have been so harmed, and from our adult Catholics who have placed their trust in us and have found us wanting.


This year's Chrism Mass, in a special way, is a Mass of reparation for the sins of those priests who have sinned and created such devastation in the lives of the innocent; a Mass seeking deeper forgiveness from all the victims who have suffered so much; a Mass for the healing of those so gravely wounded; and a Mass to help the Church become more open, honest, and trustworthy.


As members of the Church, we need these consecrated Oils to be poured over us to heal us of our sins and our illnesses, to help eradicate the evil that from time to time grips us.


The blessed Oils are given for sinful and struggling disciples, not for saints; that insight is painfully clear this year.


How I wish that this year we could pour out these blessed Oils upon all of us Bishops and priests, over the whole Church, so that the purification through which we are struggling could be even more powerful and swift!


This year, the sins of us Bishops and priests are exposed and trumpeted for all to see. Our shame is all the more intense as the glaring lights of public opinion shine back and forth across us. We feel trapped and incapable of escaping the penetrating glare of all - both Catholics and those outside the Church.


Jesus' words, "Today this Scripture passage is fulfilled in your hearing" seem so distant - the challenge to live up to the call so impossible to approach, much less to imitate as we should.


As we take this year's blessed Oils back to our parish communities, I know that on our lips will be fervent prayers that their inner power - through the Holy Spirit - will bring about that much-needed conversion and renewal for which we all long.


But the fog and mist that surround us seem never to lift so that we can all return to the mission upon which Jesus set us: to fulfill in our midst his faithful love and concern for all peoples:


-Good News is preached to the poor


-Captives receive their liberty


-The blind recover their sight


-The oppressed go free.


Nonetheless, I believe deeply that the Spirit of the Lord is upon us, that we have been anointed to carry on Jesus' work in the world; but that we have been found unworthy at this moment in salvation history.


I truly believe that we need to be washed clean once again, especially in the repentance and penance to which we are now called.




As I look out this evening and see so many of our brother priests gathered prayerfully during this time of purification, I am struck by the incredible imbalance: here we have a large group of faithful, committed and zealous priests who are striving day after day to be trustworthy to their priestly vows and promises; and yet, why are not the bright lights and the cameras focusing upon them?


And here is the imbalance: a small group of priests has managed not only to harm so many children and young people, but this small group has also dragged the blanket of shame and guilt over the rest of us, and their damaging exploits obliterate the goodness of the 98 percent-plus who are participating in Chrism Masses across the country this week.


Each year we enter into the Renewal of Commitment to Ministry; it is a time of the repetitious "I am" response to my questions - dutifully said, but possibly without the depth of inner application that those words have this year.


This year, I have asked that the Renewal of Commitment to Ministry be re-written to reflect the current painful moment in our history, and to help call forth from all of us a more profound and deeper loyalty to our priestly commitments and promises.


You will hear shortly specific questions relating to our ministry, with pointed questions to each one of us asking for our dedication to continue to love God and his people in chaste celibacy.


I beg you to enter fully into this year's rite of Commitment with a new vigor and resolve - far greater than in any previous year.


Like Simon of Cyrene, we are being called to carry the crosses of others - both the innocent crosses of the many victims of priestly abuse and misconduct, and the guilty crosses of those priests who have perpetrated such deplorable conduct.


Our people await anxiously both for signs and for visible and concrete actions - we owe them no less this evening.


The Church's truthfulness, honesty and credibility have been deeply wounded these past several months; I pray deeply that we will be able to recover some of those virtues in the coming months, but it will not be easy.


A new standard of openness and frankness has been established, and I eagerly welcome that standard; anything less betrays our own trust and that of our people.




There is a very wide gap to be bridged now within the Church and between the Church and the world.


People still long to hear Jesus' words, "Today this Scripture passage is fulfilled in your hearing," and to find his love, caring, and ministry visibly at work in the Church.


I believe that the Archdiocese of Los Angeles has been very proactive in dealing with the issue of clergy sexual misconduct and abuse over the years. That effort began in 1986, and the first Archdiocesan Policy was formally issued in 1988.


One of the key groups advising me on developing our policies and in dealing with all of these cases is the Sexual Abuse Advisory Board. They review each and every case, new and old, and offer me their recommended course of action for each case. I follow their advice and recommendations fully. This group has been invaluable to the Archdiocese progressing forward with sound policies that protect children, youth and all Catholics.


The Board is made up primarily of lay people, including a couple whose sons were abused by a priest. The Archdiocese could not have a finer body assisting in the Church's response to any cases that arise.


The policies and procedures have been enhanced and updated over the years as we have learned more about this terrible sin and devastating scourge.


Our beginning and continuing goal remains the same: the total protection of children and young people, and the swift and ongoing care of any victims. Neither I nor anyone in the Archdiocese will accept a lesser standard.


As we learned more about this intolerable abuse and misconduct, we began strengthening our policies especially with respect to any re-entry of priests into partial or full pastoral ministry. Gradually, that policy shifted over the years to its present state: a zero tolerance for any priest to function in this Archdiocese who has been determined to be guilty of child abuse.


This policy is firmly in place and will be followed for all the years to come precisely because we have this wide gap to bridge - our goal is still to have all priests, deacons, and ministers resonate with Jesus' goal: "Today this Scripture passage is fulfilled in your hearing."


A very few priests involved in old cases were impacted because of our stringent zero tolerance policy.


Some have inquired why we have not released the names and numbers of these few priests who were involved in the final phase of our new policy implementation. Please understand that there are two different sets of situations that require our attention:


Current or new active cases: In all of these cases, we follow a very strict policy of full disclosure adapted to each situation. Parish staffs, parishioners, parish school personnel, and others are notified promptly - the name of the priest is used. We follow that policy fully ourselves if an Archdiocesan priest is involved, and we strongly urge the Religious Communities to follow a similar policy.


We have several examples over the past several years demonstrating the Archdiocese's open, forthright, and swift handling of new cases of misconduct or abuse.


Old cases: In those cases going back many years - sometimes decades - a major criterion is whether the release of the information will further help or harm victims. The last thing victims want is to be re-victimized all over again many years later.


I concluded, with the advise of the Advisory Board, that such action would not in any way help protect children or youth from harm, but rather, the opposite effect was a real danger: that new harm could be inflicted upon victims of many years back.


If I thought that making these few names public would aid in any way to protect children and youth, or to help victims in their recovery, I would do it. But all indications in these few cases point to the opposite happening, and I will not permit further harm or exploitation to occur.


Please remember that victims find differing ways of healing. For some, a vigorous and public display helps them; and I respect them for their right to do that. Some of the victims' rights groups advocate this approach.


But other victims prefer a different and less public approach to their healing, and I must respect their right to privacy and to handle their situation in their own way. No victim can be forced to "go public" as a healing remedy.


If any past victims change their minds and wish to make their stories public, I support that decision fully.


As your Archbishop, I accept fully my responsibility to protect all members of the people of God from any misconduct or abuse. If my actions have at times been inadequate, or my response not as swift as it should have been, then I offer my sincere apologies. While I believe we have put in place sound safeguards and policies to protect all our people, but most especially our precious youth, we will still need to monitor the situation and to take whatever further steps may seem appropriate. I will not and cannot flinch from my duty and responsibility.


The new 800 number has proven to be very effective in helping people in various stages of their healing, as well as giving us new information to make certain that no one in ministry is abusing children or youth.


I ask your bold advice, innovative recommendations, and whatever counsel you can offer to help me serve as a better Archbishop and to have our Archdiocese of Los Angeles unparalleled in rooting out misconduct problems, safeguarding our people, and proclaiming once again the Good News of Jesus Christ.


We clergy understand and have accepted our responsibility as mandated reporters in the state of California these past five years, joining the ranks of thousands of other Archdiocese mandated reporters, and we pledge our continuing total compliance in filing the necessary reports when we suspect child neglect or abuse. As your ministers, the well-being and protection of children and young people, one of God's most precious gifts, is of utmost concern to us.


I assure you that the Archdiocese has worked closely with the various law enforcement agencies within our three counties over the years, and we renew our pledge to file all mandated reports. Our working relationship with law enforcement agencies has enabled us to consult with them where there is some doubt, and to seek their guidance to make certain all reportable cases are dealt with properly.


We understand that it is our most important duty to keep children and young people safe from sexual misconduct of any kind.




And so, what might we expect next? Many lay people and priests have asked me in the past weeks, "When will all of this end, be over with?"


And I respond, when we once again will be able to hear the words of Jesus, "Today this Scripture passage is fulfilled in your hearing," and be convinced that the anointed works of Jesus Christ will once again dominate our Church - not scandals.


I truly believe that the hoped-for day will come, but not before the purification process has surfaced every past and present problem, and not before all those guilty of child abuse - whether they be bishops, priests, religious or laity - are no longer engaged in any ministry of the Church.


We are moving towards that day, but I fear it is not yet at hand. We have many more days - possibly weeks - of our Good Friday journey before we reach the joys of Easter Morning. Our ongoing purification process gives me great hope for the Church and for the health of priestly ministry in the Church. I do not fear the continuing media focus upon us at this time; rather, I fear that we may have still missed someone in ministry - priest, deacon, religious or lay - who has abused a child or youth, despite our proactive efforts.


Until I can stand at the cathedra of our new Cathedral and proclaim that our Local Church of Los Angeles has been fully cleansed of this insidious disease, I will not rest nor spare any effort to bring that full cleansing about.


But I sincerely believe that our collective efforts are working to restore the health and vibrancy of the Church for which we pray and eagerly yearn. While I cannot give you a final completion date right now, I can assure you we are on the right path to reaching our goal.


And while I am quite optimistic that a stronger and more healthy Church will emerge from this purification, I am also aware that some unintended fallout may occur: I would anticipate some false accusations being made against Bishops, priests, religious and lay ministers. These false charges would not necessarily spring from evil intent, but possibly from a confused rush to hasten the purification. We must be ever alert to following all our policies and procedures carefully in order to avoid harming innocent parties.


While my heart remains yet heavy with the darkness that swirls about us, I can see those early signs of the light of God's presence and nurturing that are beginning to emerge.


Our credibility as a Church in this country has been seriously challenged and in many ways eroded, and we must face the long and arduous task of restoring credibility among the many, inside the Church and beyond, whose confidence has been shaken, and in some cases destroyed.


May we together pass through the needed purification process so that our Church may be the more holy, the more faithful, and the more reflective of our calling to be a light to the nations, a sign of hope amidst a deeply wounded world.


Only then will we be able to hear the words of Jesus with a fresh, challenging and hope-filled sense of mission: "Today this Scripture passage is fulfilled in your hearing:"


-Good news is preached to the poor


-Captives receive their liberty


-The blind recover their sight


-The oppressed go free!!


Thank you, and God bless you.


-Cardinal Roger M. Mahony




D.  Rip the Veil of Secrecy



LA Times

March 27, 2002


After a prolonged and troubling silence, Cardinal Roger M. Mahony on Monday accepted responsibility and apologized for the sins of the small minority of priests that has brought shame to the Los Angeles Archdiocese. At an extraordinary "Mass of reparations," the cardinal said from now on the archdiocese will cooperate fully with law enforcement when parishioners allege sexual abuse. But in adding that he will not give police the names of priests accused of past sexual crimes, he asks society to take an unacceptable leap of faith.


When did the alleged abuse occur? Who stands accused? Are these priests even now abusing teenagers and other children? Civil, not religious, authorities need to answer these questions. Soon.


Meanwhile, the scandals grow wider and uglier. Week by week across the nation, new allegations of abuse against children leak out, and last weekend Times staff writer Glenn F. Bunting reported that a monk and a priest at a Jesuit retreat in Los Gatos had for at least five years sexually abused two mentally disabled men.


The Catholic Church is not by any means the only church in which some clerics have abused their power and injured those they should be comforting and protecting. But the institution stands alone for having so spectacularly botched its handling of the decades-old problem.


We encourage Catholic leaders to put aside sectarian pride and learn from the Episcopalians, who have taken a much more aggressive approach to sexual abuse by the clergy. The key is openness. If a parishioner makes a credible charge of abuse against an Episcopal priest, that church, under a written policy, passes the information on to the congregation.


In contrast, the Catholic Church, faced with what may be its gravest crisis in modern history, has followed the bad example set by large corporations that keep information about dangerous products secret by demanding confidentiality agreements in their legal settlements.


On Monday Mahony said he would support victims of past sexual abuse who want to break such legal deals and talk. We encourage victims of abuse to do so and to cooperate fully with civil authorities to make sure that bad priests don't harm others.


Slowly, belatedly, the Catholic Church is getting the message. Modern seminaries now work not just to shape incoming priests' spirituality but to bolster their emotional maturity and give them a clear sense of social responsibility. To fully redeem itself, however, the church must turn over to prosecutors the name of every cleric accused of abuse and leave it to civil authorities to decide whether more investigation is warranted. The wall separating church and state was never meant to be a veil of secrecy to protect criminals.




E.  LAPD already has the facts on dismissed priests Mahony says

by Richard Winton
LA Times
March 29, 2002

Abuse: The cardinal responds to a demand from Police Chief Parks for the names of those involved

Responding to a written demand from Los Angeles Police Chief Bernard C. Parks for the names of priests recently dismissed for sexually abusing minors, Cardinal Roger M. Mahony wrote back Thursday that those men already are known to the Police Department.

"Recently dismissed priests who were in the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles Police Department have been duly reported," Mahony wrote. "They were prosecuted and served probation many years ago. These cases are a matter of public record and known to your detectives."

In his own letter Monday, Parks had cited a police investigation that was prompted by reports in The Times about the recent dismissals. Parks requested that the archdiocese comply with state law requiring members of the clergy to report any allegations of abuse to authorities. Parks also asked for the names of victims, as well as the dates when the archdiocese reported the alleged abuse to the Police Department.

Under growing pressure to publicly disclose the names of priests involved in past or current child abuse allegations, it remained unclear Thursday what information Mahony may have passed on to authorities.

Mahony told 300 Catholic priests gathered in Long Beach on Monday that he would support the decision of victims of past sexual abuse to speak publicly, including some who had signed confidentiality agreements. But he said the archdiocese would not release the names of their abusers.

Mahony said in his Thursday letter to Parks that although individual clergy are required to report abuse allegations, the law does not extend to the church.

"We are confident each individual has carried out their responsibilities under the [California Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act]," Mahony wrote. "The law also provides for a penalty to any mandated reporter who fails to report. But institutions, as such, do not report."

Mahony wrote that priests who report abuse to authorities are not required to notify the archdiocese or their superiors. "Thus there are undoubtedly reports of which we have no knowledge," Mahony said in his letter to Parks.

In addition, Mahony wrote, the archdiocese stretches far beyond Los Angeles itself, encompassing Los Angeles, Ventura and Santa Barbara counties. "Consequently, there are mandated reporting cases which occur in county and local law enforcement jurisdictions outside the city of Los Angeles and hence outside the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles Police Department."

Parks wrote that on March 8, LAPD Dets. Dale Barraclough and Steven Hales met with Sister Judith Murphy, the archdiocese legal counsel.

Murphy told the investigators that all the abuse cases had "been reported to the appropriate law enforcement authorities."

LAPD Cmdr. Gary Brennan said Juvenile Division detectives met again with archdiocese officials Wednesday, after they had received the chief's letter.

Detectives, Brennan said, were given additional information but he would not disclose specifics.

At Wednesday's meeting, he said, "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."

Lt. Daniel Mulrenin, head of Juvenile Division's sexually exploited child unit, said his office has received several phone calls in recent days from alleged abuse victims, and a number of LAPD probes are now underway.

In a letter earlier this month, Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley also urged Mahony to report any instances of alleged child abuse by priests.

Cooley said he has not been able to confirm whether any such cases in Los Angeles County have been reported to police or child welfare officials.

During Monday's Mass, the cardinal apologized for "the sinful and deplorable actions of a small percentage of priests" and said he had adopted a zero-tolerance policy for child abusers.

Mahony said, however, that the release of abusers' names going back years ago would further harm victims.

When new cases of abuse arise, he said, the names of priests removed for sexual misconduct will be announced to parishioners.

In a news conference after the Mass, Mahony said church officials are cooperating with police.

He cited a tip to an archdiocese hotline that led to the dismissal last week of a priest who headed a Catholic high school in Encino and another that led to a Los Angeles County sheriff's investigation of the sexual abuse of a minor.

The LAPD has asked that anyone with information on child abuse cases telephone (213) 485-2883.

Times staff writer Jill Leovy contributed to this report.

F.  Victims Crushed in a Priestly Silence

by Steve Lopez
LA Times
April 3, 2002

Well, there goes another round of Sunday offerings. Your Easter tithes won't pay for hymnbooks or boost the salaries of underpaid Catholic schoolteachers, but will go straight into the scandal management fund.

You read about these sex abuse cases each day and wonder if the national spectacle of hypocrisy and betrayal can get any more outrageous, and now we know the answer is yes. The latest case involves an Orange County priest who allegedly got a teenager pregnant roughly 20 years ago and then quietly paid for her abortion, breaking perhaps a half-dozen commandments in this one relationship alone.

But I can't say I'm surprised. The priest happens to be an acquaintance of mine. Father John Lenihan got the boot from his Dana Point parish last year after filling my ear with details of another, unrelated molestation, and "several" relationships with women, four of which he called serious. Shortly after I wrote about it, I got a message from Lori Haigh under the heading: "Father John molested me."

Haigh went on to say:

"I went to the authorities. I was called a liar by priests in high places. I was crushed."

In other words, it was like a lot of mail I get.

Haigh, whose old wounds were reopened when she read my columns about Father Lenihan, decided to do something about it. On Monday, the Orange and Los Angeles dioceses paid $1.2 million to settle her lawsuit, and then she filed a criminal complaint against Lenihan, who has finally been asked to leave the priesthood now that his sins are costing the church real money.

But no matter how unforgivable those sins, the Father Lenihans of the church constitute a minority of priests, and are not the biggest part of the problem. The greater obscenity is described in a single sentence of Lori Haigh's e-mail to me.

"I was called a liar by priests in high places."

On Monday, Haigh said two other priests ignored her pleas for help when she was being molested. Those two priests now happen to be high-ranking officials in the Orange Diocese, and one is in charge of molestation cases.

Is Haigh lying about her rebuffed pleas for help, as one of those two officials said Monday?

I can't tell you the answer. But I can say that throughout the country, priests have climbed to the highest levels of church leadership by keeping their mouths shut about their own sins and those of others, protecting the church's public image even at the cost of crushing victims and putting more people within reach of known predators.

That doesn't mean there's a greater percentage of pedophiles inside the church than outside, as readers keep telling me. In fact, based on six months of interviews with priests and parishioners, I can tell you that priests having sex with women, seminarians and other priests is far more rampant than the abuse of children.

But church practice has always been to keep quiet about uncomfortable realities. And so now we have Boston, and West Palm Beach, and questions about what church leaders knew in New York and Los Angeles and dozens of other places in this country and around the world.

The lesson of so much public shame is as obvious as the cross on top of every church: The silent priest is as dangerous as the abusive one. And yet we still can't get simple answers from the likes of Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony, who refuses to explain why recently dismissed priests had been kept on the job if they were known molesters.

Lori Haigh was not the first teenager Father Lenihan went after. The first was Mary Grant, whose father complained way back in 1978 to the then-cardinal. Rather than calling the police or at least defrocking him, church officials kept Lenihan's career kicking along nicely. When I met with him, it was at a well-heeled church with an utterly spectacular ocean view. Tall and tanned, he spoke of his jogs on the beach.

Lenihan came to my attention last year as part of the $5.2-million sex abuse settlement involving Msgr. Michael Harris in Orange County. An ex-bishop was asked in deposition about priests like Lenihan being kept in jobs where they could do more damage, and the bishop all but vilified Lenihan's first victim, Mary Grant, saying she might have been "very precocious or adult-looking."

Yes, and so was Lori Haigh. Two teenagers, molested by a priest twice their age, were probably asking for it.

When I challenged the ex-bishop's remarks about Lenihan, he said I had "no integrity" and added, "I wouldn't talk to you if the pope told me to."

Of course he wouldn't.

For the first 2,000 years, at least, silence has served church leaders well.

G. Mahony Says Victims' Requests Led to Secrecy

Catholics: In interview, he defends decision not to reveal accused priests' identities


By Larry B. Stammer

LA Times

April 3, 2002


Cardinal Roger M. Mahony, in his first interview since the priest-abuse scandal broke, said Tuesday his refusal to give details about priests dismissed from the Los Angeles Archdiocese was based on requests from police and victims.


The cardinal, the archbishop of Los Angeles, requested an interview with a Times reporter to clear the air about the archdiocese's role in the sex abuse cases. He compared the church's sexual abuse crisis to a cancer, saying that until the "last injurious cell" is removed, the church will not be able to move on.


However, Mahony did little to clarify the types of abuses committed by the six to 12 archdiocese priests sources said he removed earlier this year. Nor would he say exactly how many priests were dismissed. He said two victims in "heart-wrenching pleas" urged him not to reveal the priests' identities.


A lieutenant in the Los Angeles Police Department unit that specializes in sexually exploited children cases said based on recent meetings he has attended, the church was never asked not to disclose the number of priests Mahony recently discharged.


While refusing to say how many priests were dismissed, Mahony said that none were currently involved in any ministry involving children or youths. The scandal, which has sent tremors throughout the worldwide church, erupted in January in Boston, when it was reported that a priest who had allegedly molested more than 130 boys had been transferred by superiors from parish to parish.


Boston Cardinal Bernard Law has come under pressure to resign. Mahony declined to take a stand on Law's future Tuesday, but said, "I don't know how I could face people. I don't know how I could walk down the main aisle of the church myself comfortably, interiorly, if I had been [guilty] of grave neglect." He said later in an e-mail that his use of the term "grave neglect" was not a personal judgment, but a frequently used characterization by Catholics in Boston.


While emphasizing that even one case of sexual abuse brought "terrible agony and tragedy" to the victim, Mahony said problems in the three-county Los Angeles archdiocese paled in comparison to Boston.


The cardinal also discussed the demanding regimen of celibacy, saying it was not connected to child abuse. Asked how he models a celibate life for his priests, Mahony said support groups and spirituality are essential.


"We must have a life of prayer. We need a good spiritual director, and I particularly promote the use of support groups, especially prayer support groups. I've belonged to one almost my entire priesthood," Mahony said.


The cardinal said there are only two current sex-abuse cases in the archdiocese. One was reported last year, involving a permanent deacon. Another, involving the abuse of youths in an Azusa church, was recently phoned in to the archdiocese's hotline. Mahony said it has not been determined whether that case involves a priest. Sheriff's detectives on Monday said they were investigating but would not identify the suspect.


Mahony said the paucity of new cases shows that the archdiocese's sexual abuse policy, first put in force in 1988 and strengthened last month, is working.


He said current cases of priestly abuse are handled openly and that there is no hesitancy to inform a parish when circumstances warrant. The church, he said, fully complies with the civil law that mandates that all suspected child abuse and neglect be reported to authorities.


"Our number-one job is to protect children and young people. Our second job is to reach out to victims in the best way we can," Mahony said. Next, he said, parishioners and priests need support during a crisis Mahony called "one of the most difficult things I've ever been through."


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. Their names, he said, had been known to law enforcement officials.


Two victims in the old cases, Mahony said, pleaded with him not to release the names of the abusing priests because the records would also show the names of the victims. In one case, a man said the disclosure that he had been sexually abused as a boy would threaten his marriage. In another case, a man who was abused told Mahony he had managed to avoid answering an employment question about any history of abuse. If it came out that he had been abused as a youth, the man told Mahony, he could lose his job.


Mahony acknowledged during questioning that it may appear that he is protecting the priests and not the victims. But he said he was convinced by the two victims who feared releasing the priests' names would "lead to their front door."


"It's been a very, very difficult thing for me because I really sincerely believe what they [the victims] told me and the anguish of their hearts. I promised them I wouldn't do it."


Repeating a statement from a week ago, he said that he had no objection if victims want to disclose the names of their priest offenders.


Mahony said he was convinced by church attorneys that it would not be practical to name a specific number of dismissals because there were several reviews of old cases.


The archdiocese, Mahony said, has gone so far as to ask the LAPD to look at old cases that fell in the jurisdiction of other police departments. Mahony said some smaller departments had, in effect, dropped the ball years ago and that the archdiocese wanted to be sure nothing had gone unnoticed. He declined to name the smaller departments he had in mind.


The Times reported on March 4 that six to 12 priests had been dismissed by Mahony in February, according to sources in the church. Mahony at the time refused to confirm or deny the report. Later, he said only that "a few" priests, almost all of them retired, were involved.


"There was no Black Monday when all of a sudden a bunch of people got dumped," Mahony said Tuesday. He said most of them were already retired. Some were living outside the archdiocese. But he said he took action because they receive pensions from the Los Angeles archdiocese and remain canonically attached as priests to the archdiocese.


Some dismissals were delayed until February, he said, to make sure the priests had a supportive environment. "If you just toss them out on the street, and with great trauma, maybe that triggers acting out again, endangers youth again," Mahony said.


He added that most of the priests agreed that the church had to dismiss them, although it was difficult for some of the men because they had had a clean record since their cases were disposed of by the criminal justice system.


Mahony rejected suggestions by some conservatives in the church that homosexual priests were responsible for much of abuse.


"I think it has nothing to do with homosexuality, heterosexuality or with celibacy," Mahony said. "It is a problem of sexual maturation on the part of the priest. That's where the problem is. It doesn't make any difference who it is or what line of work they're in."


Eventually, Mahony said some good will come out of the scandal.


"I've been doing a lot of reflection during Holy Week and preparing for Easter," he said. "Out of all this bad and evil has come some good. Maybe that's always true in God's plan," he said. "The controversy is a purification that will only make the church stronger and more humble and better."


Times staff writer Richard Winton contributed to this story.


H.  Mahony E-Mail Talks of ‘Our Big Mistake’
Scandal: Archdiocese unsuccessfully seeks to block publication of messages in which he criticizes failure to give names to police

By Jessica Garrison
LA Times
April 5, 2002

Cardinal Roger M. Mahony of the Los Angeles Archdiocese told one of his lawyers in a recent e-mail that the diocese made ‘our big mistake’ by not turning over three cases involving priests accused of wrongdoing to the LAPD, according to e-mails obtained Thursday by the Los Angeles Times.

“It was a huge mistake on our part,” Mahony wrote in an e-mail dated March 27. “If we don’t, today, ‘consult’ with the Det[ective] 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.”

Since The Times reported that Mahony had released between six and 12 priests accused of sexual misconduct, the archdiocese has declined to say precisely how many priests overall have been implicated in the scandal.

For the first time, the e-mails suggest that the actual number is eight.

“If I recall, of the 8 priests involved, 5 have already been reported to local law enforcement agencies,” Mahony wrote. “That leaves 3.”

That and other e-mails emerged at the center of an extraordinary legal debate late Thursday night, as a lawyer for the archdiocese sought to prevent publication of e-mails between Mahony and his lawyer pertaining to the sexual misconduct of priests. Some of those e-mails had been broadcast by KFI Radio talk show hosts John Kobylt and Ken Champou on Thursday afternoon; KFI was named in the action brought by the church, but did not appear in court.

After the archdiocese lawyers contacted the show, Kobylt and Champou stopped reading the emails and began a heated discussion of their contents. Church officials reported the matter to the FBI, where a spokeswoman said the bureau was investigating whether Mahony’s e-mail had been “compromised and leaked.”

By Thursday evening, church officials had turned their attention to blocking publication of the e-mails by The Times. But Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe refused to grant the petition of Sister Judith Ann Murphy, Mahony’s attorney.

“That’s what I don’t think the Constitution permits me to do,” Yaffe said in a ruling handed down just before midnight.

Donald H. Steier, attorney for the archdiocese, said that the e-mails were protected by attorney-client privilege.

Before the hearing began, Los Angeles Times counsel Karlene Goller asked Steier, the lawyer for the archdiocese, if the e-mails were authentic.

“Yeah, they are,” Steier answered. “We wouldn’t be here if they weren’t.”

A terrible harm would be inflicted upon the archdiocese by publishing the documents, he argued, while there was no harm at all in asking the newspaper to wait a few days before publication.

“Whether or not it’s attorney-client privilege is irrelevant,” argued Kelli Sager, the lawyer representing The Times. “The California Constitution provides an absolute right to publish.”

The move by the archdiocese represented a highly unusual attempt to block publication of information that it considered sensitive. Such moves, known as “prior restraints,” almost never are granted by courts, and when they are, they almost inevitably are overturned on appeal.

In this case, Steier, the lawyer for the church, maintained that California law prohibited the “use” of material that was illegally obtained.

The U.S. Supreme Court, however, held last year that if a news organization lawfully obtains such information, the First Amendment protects the organization’s right to publish it. Sager cited that case Thursday night as the hearing approached midnight, and Steier conceded that he could not produce cases with the legal authority to overcome that argument.

“I don’t have authority,” he said. “I wish I had authority.”

The e-mails that the archdiocese was seeking to keep secret include communications between Mahony and his staff, including his lawyers.

In one, Mahony urged that his lawyers and aides meet with a police detective and clarify that all priests implicated with possible wrongdoing had been discussed with authorities. In addition to the five priests already reported to authorities, Mahony suggested that three more needed to be discussed with police.

Repeatedly stressing the gravity of the situation, Mahony said he was preparing a response to Los Angeles Police Chief Bernard C. Parks and wanted to be able to tell Parks “that every single case of the few priests was reported to the appropriate law enforcement agency over the years.”

The following week, in an interview with The Times, Mahony declined to say precisely how many cases were involved, but said that in two instances, victims made “heart-wrenching pleas” to him not to disclose the identities of the priests.

Near the end of the March 27 e-mail, Mahony reiterated his concern about the growing scandal and its implications for the Los Angeles archdiocese.

“If we don’t take immediate, aggressive action here-the consequences for the [archdiocese] are going to be incredible,” Mahony wrote. “Charges of cover up, concealing criminals, etc., etc.”



I.  Mahony E-Mails Cite Fears Over Scandals

By Larry B Stammer and Richard Winton
Los Angeles Times
April 6, 2002

A series of confidential e-mails written by Cardinal Roger M. Mahony show how pervasively the nationwide child-abuse scandal in the Catholic Church has affected the Los Angeles Archdiocese.

The e-mails, leaked to radio station KFI, which provided copies to The Times, paint a picture of a sometimes-agitated archbishop alarmed that he is losing public relations ground.

The memos, written during the past three weeks, capture an archdiocese confronting political, legal and moral challenges: where to place a priest newly accused of molesting children; whether the church should start a victims support group; how to anticipate and counteract media accusations; how to give "instruction" in child-abuse law to Los Angeles Police Chief Bernard C. Parks, and how to measure the number of weeks or months before a "healing" process begins in the church. The e-mail also reveals that a Fresno woman made a 32-year-old unspecified "claim" against Mahony. Questions by reporters prompted the cardinal Friday night to issue a categorical denial of "ever having molested anyone."

Fresno police Lt. Keith Foster confirmed Friday that an investigation is underway. The Fresno Diocese turned over a recent two-hour taped interview with the woman to police, an e-mail says.

The woman told The Times on Friday that Mahony molested her in 1970 when he visited the San Joaquin Memorial Catholic High School, where she was a student. She provided few other details, saying police asked her not to talk.

Mahony, who was then a priest in Fresno and rose to the position of auxiliary bishop, "categorically" denied "ever having molested anyone."

In a March 28 e-mail, Mahony expressed willingness to be interviewed by Fresno detectives and wrote his advisors that he did not need an attorney because he had no recollection of the woman making the complaint and informed the LAPD the same day he was told of the accusation.

Other e-mails focus on the growing demands that Mahony fully disclose the names of the eight priests he had fired in February for molesting minors. The archdiocese subsequently turned the information over to police but has yet to disclose it to the public.

In one e-mail, a top Mahony advisor recommends that the cardinal remain deliberately vague about where the eight priests served before Mahony fired them. While Mahony told The Times in a separate interview that none of the priests were in parish ministries, the e-mail from Msgr. Craig Cox, vicar for clergy, says that some did serve on a part-time basis in parishes--a fact that implies they had were around children.

At times, Mahony and his inner circle are shown attempting to promptly cooperate with police on new allegations of sexual abuse. In other e-mails, there is a clear determination to protect the institution.

The communications also reveal that:

ٱ Mahony was so upset by the archdiocese's failure to turn over some names of several dismissed priests to police that he warned his general counsel he might be subpoenaed by a grand jury.

"If we don't, today, "consult" with the [detective] about those three 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.," Mahony wrote to his top lawyer, Sister Judith Murphy.

At that point, March 27, the archdiocese had not turned over to police the names of three of eight priests he dismissed in February. The names were subsequently turned over to authorities.

ٱ Mahony wrote Murphy in that same e-mail that the archdiocese had made a "huge mistake" by withholding the names of the three priests.

"I'm not sure you grasp the gravity of the situation and where this is heading--not only with the media, but with the law enforcement and legal folks," Mahony wrote Murphy.

"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.," Mahony wrote.

* In another e-mail, Mahony says he wants to step up outreach to sexual abuse victims. While the archdiocese already provides counseling and cash settlements, Mahony said he wanted to start a victims support group that would be "almost entirely spiritual."

*  Archdiocesan attorney John McNicholas in another e-mail recounts debate over whether a well known and highly regarded gay priest should continue to teach a course at Crespi Carmelite High School in Encino, whose president was recently removed because of an allegation of sexual abuse in his past. Sister Murphy, in a separate e-mail, notes that a critical "off-the-wall right wing throw-away newspaper has been gunning for him [the gay priest] for years."

*  Sister Murphy in another e-mail invokes the slogan of television's Sgt. Joe Friday--"only the facts, sir, only the facts"--in advising church officials about a pending visit from two police detectives. The police were coming in response to an alert by church officials of possible abuse.

"Listen to their questions and take your time answering," Murphy wrote. "Do not volunteer information. This is not a session to be chatty."

*  Outside attorney L. Martin Nussbaum worries on another day that "the next wave of this press feeding frenzy" about pedophile priests may focus on priests who have had adult "romantic or sexual liaisons." Nussbaum advises Mahony to comb through the files of every priest ever disciplined to "assess the scope of any such problem."

*  Mahony in another missive wrestles with his decision to release one priest's name to police. "His case troubles me." Mahony writes to Msgr. Cox. "I am leaning toward giving it to the LAPD to review. We could be very vulnerable on any case where there is a dispute between folks, and we have not referred it out."

*  Mahony's aides confront the problem of a priest who last month was reassigned after being accused of molesting youths at his Azusa church. The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department is investigating. Cox writes that the priest "denied forcefully any misconduct."

"If there is something to the allegations, then we want to be sure he is removed from ministry," Sister Murphy writes. "But if the allegations are unfounded, the sooner that can be established and he restored to ministry, the better. If he is innocent, I am most concerned that his reputation not be damaged more than it will already be by having things drag on and on and on."

FBI Investigating Who Leaked E-Mails

The FBI on Friday launched a criminal investigation to uncover whether a computer hacker broke into the e-mail system or a church insider leaked the information.

Laura Bosley, an FBI spokeswoman in Los Angeles, said the bureau is investigating whether Mahony's e-mail was "compromised and leaked."

At the same time, Los Angeles Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley said he was prepared to launch his own investigation into the "illegal access" of the e-mails. He also served notice that Mahony's written statements in the communications are "of grave concern." Cooley said he wants to find out if the archdiocese illegally withheld information about child abuse from authorities.

At the first banquet held at the archdiocese's downtown Cathedral Conference Center on Friday, Mahony stepped quickly through a door to avoid reporters following a speech to the downtown Rotary Club.

Mahony confined his remarks before 500 Rotarians and guests to the new $193-million Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels, which opens Sept. 2. An aide cautioned reporters before the speech that Mahony would refuse to take any questions about the sexual abuse scandal rocking the Roman Catholic Church.

Mahony did respond Thursday night to an e-mail from The Times with a no comment. "I cannot and will not comment on privileged client-attorney communication that was criminally stolen," Mahony wrote in a return e-mail.

At the archdiocese's administrative headquarters in the Mid-Wilshire district, employees said many were on edge. "It's getting tense," said one.

Cardinal Asked Judge to Block Publication

The tension began to build Thursday when KFI disclosed that it had obtained leaked copies of scores of e-mails which were written late last month and early this month by Mahony and trusted confidants.

Ray Lopez, KFI producer, said he received the e-mails from an "anonymous individual." He said the person called him and offered to fax him the e-mails, then sent them via computer.

Two of the station's talk show hosts, John Kobylt and Ken Champou, began reading portions of the e-mails on their show Thursday afternoon in a remote broadcast from outside the cathedral.

As word reached the archdiocese of the disclosures, Mahony moved forcibly Thursday night to block publication of the e-mails by The Times.

Lawyers who anticipate filing a late-night motion usually contact the writs courtroom's clerk during business hours. But a lawyer for the archdiocese obtained their hearing by telephoning a retired presiding judge of the Superior Court, Richard Byrne. Byrne called a judge who specializes in writs. That judge provided a referral to a senior colleague who set a highly unusual 10:30 p.m. hearing.

In a ruling delivered just before midnight, Judge David Yaffe held that the U.S. Constitution prevented him from preventing publication of the documents.

In denying the Fresno molestation allegation Friday, Mahony saidin a written statement, "Such false allegations are hurtful and troubling to me, yet I continue to pray fervently for those who make them.

Reached by telephone Friday night at her home in Fresno, the woman said she reported her allegation recently to the school and that school officials informed Fresno police.

"It kept eating away at me," she told The Times.

In a March 28 e-mail, Mahony expressed willingness to be interviewed by Fresno detectives and wrote his advisors that he did not need an attorney because he had no recollection of the woman making the complaint.

"The Fresno PD can call me any time for a telephone interview; they can tape-record the interview, and I don't need an attorney on the line. Since I have no recollection of ever meeting the lady, I welcome the interview. Please give them my home number if they wish to call during these days of Holy Week or over the weekend," the cardinal wrote. He sent the message to Msgr. Richard Loomis, who heads the administrative services secretariat of the archdiocese, and to media relations director Tod Tamberg.

Mahony said in his Friday night statement that he was informed of the allegation March 22 by Fresno Bishop John Steinbock.

The e-mails shed new light on a debate that began March 4 when The Times reported that Mahony had dismissed six to 12 priests.

Alerted by the story, LAPD Chief Parks wrote Mahony on March 25 and pressed him for the names. He said a criminal investigation was underway.

Times staff writer Michael Krikorian contributed to this story



J.  Sheriff's Department Set To Wrap Up Azusa Priest Investigation
Nearly 100 Altar Boys, Students, and Others Interviewed

April 12, 2002

LOS ANGELES -- The Sheriff's Department is about to complete an investigation into allegations that a Catholic priest molested boys at his church in Azusa. The department interviewed nearly 100 altar boys, students and other youths.

The interviews were conducted over the last two weeks in connection with allegations against the Rev. David Granadino of St. Francis of Rome Catholic Church.

Detectives expect to complete the investigation in the next few days, the Los Angeles Times reported.

Granadino, who also served as a Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department chaplain, was removed by the archdiocese as head of St. Francis when the investigation began. He has denied engaging in misconduct.

The Sheriff's Department inquiry was triggered by an anonymous call on March 22 to a hot line set up by the Archdiocese of Los Angeles to field sexual-abuse allegations.

Archdiocese officials provided sheriff's detectives with a tape of the telephone call. The hot line is providing scores of tips, including many false leads, officials said.

Thursday, Cardinal Roger Mahony was cleared by authorities of an abuse allegation made by a Fresno woman.

In the Azusa case, sheriff's Capt. Patti Minutello said 15 investigators are interviewing boys, girls and parents, as well as gathering evidence and following up on new allegations.

The Sheriff's Department did not reveal the name of the priest to the Times, but law enforcement sources confirmed that Granadino is being investigated.

Investigators are conferring with the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, advising prosecutors about what they've learned, Sheriff's Sgt. Dan Scott told the Times.






Any original material on these pages is copyright © 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.