Church knew for years L.A. bishop had been accused of abuse

[Cathoholic]

Church knew for years L.A. bishop had been accused of abuse​

By RICHARD WINTON

DEC 19, 2018 | 5:30 PM Los Angeles Times

The Archdiocese of Los Angeles knew for at least 13 years that one of its bishops had been accused of sexual abuse at a parish but did not inform the public until this week, despite repeated vows to disclose such information.

The archdiocese, which over the years has paid out a record $740 million in settlements to victims of priest abuse, had promised to publicize the names of clergy accused of wrongdoing. But Bishop Alexander Salazar’s name was not on several lists released by the church, even though he’d been investigated by the Pasadena Police Department in 2002. The inquiry involving Salazar only became public when Pope Francis accepted his resignation Wednesday as auxiliary bishop of Los Angeles. . . .

Church knew for years L.A. bishop had been accused of abuse - Los Angeles Times

We ALSO need to be concerned for adults who are homosexually (or hetrosexually) victimized by bishops which these articles are silent on. Especially our vulnerable seminarians.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

This is nothing new underbthe sun anymore

 

[poche]

If he is not guilty as he claims and the prosecutor declined to prosecute then why should he be forced to resign?

 

[angel12]

I’d want to know more about why the DA declined to prosecute, before saying the diocese was wrong not to make this known.

 

[poche]

Could it be because the bishop was innocent of the accusations?

 

[Theo520]

Could it be because the bishop was innocent of the accusations?

exactly my thought. I work with teens and false accusations of staff are very common.
We still take them all very seriously and CPS investigates.

 

[Cathoholic]

poche . . .

Could it be because the bishop was innocent of the accusations?

I don’t know.

But to that I would say a couple of things.

1. This article is not merely an indictment of another alleged predator-bishop.

Part of the article shows the Diocese of Los Angeles publicly saying they have divulged ALL accusations they deemed credible. – They didn’t.

(Credible? The police themselves recomended prosecution. The D.A. did not carry that out and we don’t know exactly why. But the police made this recomendation.).

It appears the Diocese was less than honest about making public “all” the names.

(We are seeing a pattern of this showing up in at least some other Dioceses too.)

1. As stated above, the police felt there WAS enough evidence to at least recomend prosecution.

As far as I know, the records are sealed (that is only my conjecture otherwise I would expect the media outlets reporting on this to take citations from the police record.)

L.A. auxiliary bishop resigns 13 years after church learned of sex claim​

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS | VENTURA COUNTY STAR

Updated 10:56 p.m. CST Dec. 19, 2018

LOS ANGELES — Pope Francis has accepted the resignation of a Los Angeles auxiliary bishop, Monsignor Alexander Salazar, following an allegation of sexual misconduct with a child in the 1990s, officials said Wednesday.

The Vatican announced the resignation in a one-line statement. It was the latest in a string of misconduct allegations against bishops to come to light this year, following the scandal of ex-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington that exposed how bishops have largely avoided punishment for improper behavior.

Pasadena police recommended in 2002 that Salazar be charged with committing a lewd act on a child, but prosecutors declined to bring charges over a lack of evidence, Lt. Jesse Carrillo said. He had no further information.

The current archbishop of Los Angeles, the Most Rev. Jose Gomez, said the archdiocese learned of the claim in 2005. Gomez said the archdiocese forwarded the complaint to the Vatican office handling sex abuse cases.

Gomez said that office, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, imposed precautionary measures against Salazar and that a further investigation by the archdiocese’s independent review board found the allegation to be credible. . . .

. . . the alleged misconduct occurred while Salazar was a parish priest in the 1990s and that the claim was never directly brought to the archdiocese.

Critics decried how long it took between the archdiocese learning of the allegation and Salazar’s resignation as well as the lack of details in the announcement, which called it an “early retirement.”

"It takes 13 years for LA Catholic officials to disclose this allegation and even now, they withhold key details . . .

. . . Salazar’s name wasn’t included in archdiocese lists of credibly accused priests released in 2005, 2008 and this year. . .

(Bold addition mine.)

https://www.vcstar.com/story/news/2...s-after-church-learned-sex-claim/2372832002/8

 

[poche]

Could it be that the prosecutor chose not to prosecute because he knew that he would not be able to get a conviction because the bishop was innocent?

 

[Cathoholic]

poche . . .

Could it be that the prosecutor chose not to prosecute because he knew that he would not be able to get a conviction because the bishop was innocent?

Nobody knows.

The DA has refused to share details.

The Vatican only said they accepted his resignation and would not offer any details.

Bishop Gomez refuses to provide details.

There is probably a hush pay out here (a non-disclosure agreement). Those are invariably paid for with diocesan contributions in other cases, but here again we are left in the dark with more lack of transparency that as late as a couple of days ago, the Pope was again calling for.

What IS clear, is the “complete” list of credible accusations that the Los Angeles Archdiocese said they made public was a . . . prevarication.