Report: Cardinal is under investigation by L.A. grand jury

That's according to the Los Angeles Times, which says that Cardinal Roger Mahony is under investigation for how he handled the priest-sex-abuse cases from a few years ago. Mahony's attorney, however, says the cardinal is NOT the target of the investigation.

Specifically, Mahony is accused of fraud because he didn't "adequately" respond to the complaints. Snip from the LAT:

Authorities are applying a legal theory in an apparently novel way. One federal law enforcement source said prosecutors are seeking to use a federal statute that makes it illegal to "scheme . . . to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services."

In this case, the victims would be parishioners who relied on Mahony and other church leaders to keep their children safe from predatory priests, the source said.

Hat Tip: Many thanks, Keith G in PV!

(AP Photo/Nick Ut, File)

Comments

[Sasquach]

Good. I hope they crucify him, so to speak. I have been wondering how, up till now, much of the church leadership who were aware of these problem preists and did not report it have escaped prosecution. The only time preists are excused from the reporting requirements that apply to the rest of us is when they are providing spiritual advice/services. I doubt playing the hide the molseting priest version of 3 card monty counts.

[Roger]

Alleged abuser Fr. Jerold W. Lindner, S.J. taught at Loyola High, Los Angeles

The Jesuit Order failed to notify authorities of accusations against Fr. Jerold W. Lindner, S.J. who taught at Loyola High School in Los Angeles in the 1980s and 1990s according to Fr. Thomas H. Smolich, S.J. now arguably the top Jesuit USA leader with an office in Washington, DC.

Fr. Jerold W. Lindner, S.J. was named in a 2003 lawsuit by a girl who said he molested her at Corpus Christi in Piedmont while he was serving at St. Ignatius Prep School in San Francisco. The lawsuit contends that from the 1950s to the 1980s, Lindner "abused and molested his 5-year-old nephew in Arizona and Berkeley," "sodomized and molested two brothers, ages 4 and 7," "orally copulated and sodomized his 11-year-old nephew" and "molested three nieces."

Lindner was accused by 10 men and women in Southern California, Phoenix and the Bay Area, the Los Angeles Times reported. Lindner denied the allegations, but he was part of a secret $625,000 settlement in 1997, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Lindner is now believed to teach English as a second language in the San Jose, Calif. area.

Under the leaderships of Fr. Thomas Smolich, the Jesuit Order paid $7.5 million in 2004 to two men who said they were sexually molested for 30 years at the Los Gatos, California retirement home for priests where they worked as dishwashers.

"We thought the settlements were in the best interests of all parties,” said Fr. Thomas Smolich, head of the California Province in 2004.

[Mikeybackwards]

Jesus loves the little children . . .

What exactly was the church thinking by perpetuating this abuse. However, as many have also noted, while there seemed to be a systemic pattern of abuse and cover-up within the Roman Catholic Church, there are untold numbers of victims of Protestant, Orthodox Catholic, and non-Christian clergy abuse that simply fails to attract the headlines because there simply aren't the numbers coming out associated with 'one' organization like there is about the Roman Catholic Church.

Sexual abuse of children (like rape) is far more about power and violence than it is about sex. And we place far too much power in the hands of our clergy regardless of the religion, sect, or denomination.

Having said all of that - I am all for using whatever tools we have in whatever novel way possible to bring those responible (either directly or through permitting/enabling) this abuse to justice.

[KC Cicero]

As one can tell from the comments above, this is a very emotional issue. I doubt there is any Roman Catholic who is not feeling betrayed by this scandal.

That having been said, it would be a terrible idea to allow the United States attorney to prosecute anyone on this "intangible right of honest services" theory. To do so would allow a prosecutor to file criminal charges based entirely upon his subjective belief as to what is and is not sufficient to be "honest".

For some time US attorneys have been attempting to utilize this theory -- usually when bringing prosecutions that are marginal against politicians that are unpopular. Often they have used threats of long prison sentences in order to induce pleas of guilty in such cases. They would love to have a high-profile case that would not be viewed as political and would be popular with the public in order to legitimize this theory.

The problem with this theory is that it would allow every action by every citizen to be second guessed -- with the threat of criminal punishment -- the federal law enforcement establishment. Is there anything that could not be considered a fraud under such a definition? Any disagreement over any policy could be twisted into a criminal charge. They will have taken a law designed to prevent actual economic frauds and twisted it into a weapon that could be used to intimidate citizens even more than our runaway, highly politicized prosecutors already do.

In A Man For All Seasons, there is a very important scene in which Sir Thomas More is urged to improperly use his power in order to destroy a potential enemy. More replies by explaining the danger of such abuse: Twisting the law even to chase the devil is a bad idea, because when the devil then turns up on you, there will be no law to protect you.

[KC Cicero]

Actually I just had a chance to read the post just above mine and I think it is important to address what was said in the last paragraph.

Criminal laws are not supposed to have NOVEL expansive uses. Every citizen is a pose to be able to look at a criminal statute and understand it's clear meaning. Nothing could more clearly demonstrate what Sir Thomas More condemned than the idea that we should expand the application of criminal statutes in "novel" ways. That way lies tyranny. I will

[Mikeybackwards]

Cicero,

Then perhaps use of RICO to pursue the church for its criminal conspiracy to disguise, enable, and abet in the commission of the serial rapes of children by its duly appointed officials, which given its endemic and systematic nature defines a corrupt and criminal enterprise?

While your point is taken about exanding the law, something must be done to hold both the individuals as well as the institution of the Roman Catholic Church accountable not only for rapes themselves, but for the lies told to parents and children regarding the rapes those children experienced to prevent those parents from reporting these acts to the authorities, their conspiracy to hide and move priests around parishes and permitting them continued access to children to perpetuate their crimes, and in many cases and jurisdictions breaches of existing law requiring educators, clergy, and others in a position of authority to report such abuses to the authorities.

It is time to rip the veil of secrecy and protection off the so-called Holy Mother Church and expose her for the fiend and harlot she is; held up to all revilement and punishment for her crimes.

[Sasquach]

Cicero,

While I agree with you about "novel" uses of criminal law (which is why I think the Lori Drew case was BS), I still think there should be means by which the people who hid these priests should be charged. Heck, most people who assist in the cover up of a crime can be charged as accessories after the fact. Why not this guy?