G
GloriaPatri4
Guest
****Can You Really Forget Child Rape? ****
**Revelations from Cardinal Mahony’s Court Deposition **
**BY CHRISTOPHER ZEHNDER **
**Did Cardinal Mahony perjure himself? **According to Larry Drivon, a lawyer representing alleged victims of molestation by priests, he did, during a 1998 trial in Stockton. In this trial centering on Stockton priest Oliver O’ Grady, Cardinal Mahony testified that O’Grady was the only priest accused of molestation during Mahony’s years as bishop of Stockton (1980-85).
But in a deposition given on November 23 (and released to the public December 9), the cardinal said that when in Stockton he had dismissed two visiting Mexican priests, Antonio Munoz and Antonio Camacho, accused of molesting minors. Mahony had Camacho deported. In the November 23 deposition, Mahony said he had forgotten those incidents at the time of the O’Grady trial. How could you forget dismissing priests for child molestation, asked victim’s lawyer John Manly? “This trial was some 13 years after I had left the Diocese of Stockton,” Mahony replied. “We had many events in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, and I was very preoccupied. We had the visit of the Holy Father. We had the earthquakes. We had riots. We had everything. And I simply did not remember everything that happened many years ago in Stockton.”
Did Mahony perjure himself in 1998? On December 10, Manly told the Los Angeles Times, “the evidence speaks for itself. No one forgets about the first time they find out about a priest abusing a child — especially a bishop. There could have been a nuclear detonation and you wouldn’t forget about that. Mahony himself interviewed victims and talked to the police.” But archdiocesan spokesman Tod Tamberg said that the inconsistency between the 1998 testimony and the 2004 deposition merely shows “human beings forget things.”
During his deposition, Mahony was asked directly by alleged victims’ attorney, John Manly, “do you think if a child were raped during your tenure at Stockton, that that would be something that you would forget?” But the cardinal never got a chance to answer; his lawyer, Donald Woods, instructed Mahony not to reply. “Harassing” is what Woods called Manly’s question.
The deposition session was not too civil, with Mahony’s counsel interrupting questions, asking for definitions of what (to a layman, at least) seem rather easy-to-comprehend words and turns of phrase, frequently objecting and advising Mahony not to respond. Though Manly seemed rather restrained, plaintiffs lawyer Venus Soltan’s sarcasm and restrained disdain for Mahony flamed through the drabness of the deposition transcript.
During part of her questioning, Soltan seemed to want to establish that Mahony was negligent as bishop of Stockton for not having in place a policy for dealing with sexual molesters. The cardinal explained that canon law gave him the “authority” and the “tools” to deal with molesting priests — and he had used these when dealing with the Mexican priests. This was not good enough for Soltan, who wanted to know if the Stockton diocese had had in place background checks for priests and teachers in Catholic schools and whether it required fingerprinting of the same — especially after the first molesting priest was discovered and dealt with in 1981. Mahony explained that the 1981 accusation against Father Munoz was an isolated incident, and so it didn’t occur to him to establish any policies or procedures. Mahony did say that in 1985, after a meeting of the bishops in Collegeville, Minnesota, that discussed the question of priest molestation, he informed the vicar general, Monsignor James Cain, “that we needed to proceed to develop procedures, written procedures, to deal with this matter.” “To your knowledge, was that done?” asked Soltan. “I don’t know,” Mahony replied, “because I left. I was reassigned shortly thereafter.” Mahony was appointed archbishop of Los Angeles.
continue reading this by clicking on the link below…
losangelesmission.com/ed/articles/2005/0502cz.htm
**Revelations from Cardinal Mahony’s Court Deposition **
**BY CHRISTOPHER ZEHNDER **
**Did Cardinal Mahony perjure himself? **According to Larry Drivon, a lawyer representing alleged victims of molestation by priests, he did, during a 1998 trial in Stockton. In this trial centering on Stockton priest Oliver O’ Grady, Cardinal Mahony testified that O’Grady was the only priest accused of molestation during Mahony’s years as bishop of Stockton (1980-85).
But in a deposition given on November 23 (and released to the public December 9), the cardinal said that when in Stockton he had dismissed two visiting Mexican priests, Antonio Munoz and Antonio Camacho, accused of molesting minors. Mahony had Camacho deported. In the November 23 deposition, Mahony said he had forgotten those incidents at the time of the O’Grady trial. How could you forget dismissing priests for child molestation, asked victim’s lawyer John Manly? “This trial was some 13 years after I had left the Diocese of Stockton,” Mahony replied. “We had many events in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, and I was very preoccupied. We had the visit of the Holy Father. We had the earthquakes. We had riots. We had everything. And I simply did not remember everything that happened many years ago in Stockton.”
Did Mahony perjure himself in 1998? On December 10, Manly told the Los Angeles Times, “the evidence speaks for itself. No one forgets about the first time they find out about a priest abusing a child — especially a bishop. There could have been a nuclear detonation and you wouldn’t forget about that. Mahony himself interviewed victims and talked to the police.” But archdiocesan spokesman Tod Tamberg said that the inconsistency between the 1998 testimony and the 2004 deposition merely shows “human beings forget things.”
During his deposition, Mahony was asked directly by alleged victims’ attorney, John Manly, “do you think if a child were raped during your tenure at Stockton, that that would be something that you would forget?” But the cardinal never got a chance to answer; his lawyer, Donald Woods, instructed Mahony not to reply. “Harassing” is what Woods called Manly’s question.
The deposition session was not too civil, with Mahony’s counsel interrupting questions, asking for definitions of what (to a layman, at least) seem rather easy-to-comprehend words and turns of phrase, frequently objecting and advising Mahony not to respond. Though Manly seemed rather restrained, plaintiffs lawyer Venus Soltan’s sarcasm and restrained disdain for Mahony flamed through the drabness of the deposition transcript.
During part of her questioning, Soltan seemed to want to establish that Mahony was negligent as bishop of Stockton for not having in place a policy for dealing with sexual molesters. The cardinal explained that canon law gave him the “authority” and the “tools” to deal with molesting priests — and he had used these when dealing with the Mexican priests. This was not good enough for Soltan, who wanted to know if the Stockton diocese had had in place background checks for priests and teachers in Catholic schools and whether it required fingerprinting of the same — especially after the first molesting priest was discovered and dealt with in 1981. Mahony explained that the 1981 accusation against Father Munoz was an isolated incident, and so it didn’t occur to him to establish any policies or procedures. Mahony did say that in 1985, after a meeting of the bishops in Collegeville, Minnesota, that discussed the question of priest molestation, he informed the vicar general, Monsignor James Cain, “that we needed to proceed to develop procedures, written procedures, to deal with this matter.” “To your knowledge, was that done?” asked Soltan. “I don’t know,” Mahony replied, “because I left. I was reassigned shortly thereafter.” Mahony was appointed archbishop of Los Angeles.
continue reading this by clicking on the link below…
losangelesmission.com/ed/articles/2005/0502cz.htm