and more fun with files
By Diogenes (articles ) | October 12, 2005 11:23 AM
Bouncing around the PDFs released by the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, we can see that they don't reflect real personnel files, but rather give a career synopsis of various priests in the form of chronologically-ordered postings, treatment periods, and various complaint reports whose wording clearly shows the hand of an attorney. For example, check out this entry for Father Michael Baker:
09/19/86: pursuant to Cardinal Mahony's invitation during a retreat for priests to talk with him about their problems, requests meeting with Cardinal.
Typical file entry, right?
12/22/86: Meets with Cardinal Mahony and Vicar for Clergy Curry to discuss his relationship with two boys from 1978 to 1985.
Well, the Cardinal sent him off to art therapy camp at Jemez Springs. The cure was miraculous, as evidenced by this roster of subsequent parish assignments:
08/01/88: Assigned to Residence at St. Elizabeth Church (Van Nuys), subject to restrictions.
02/24/89: Meeting of Vicar for Clergy, pastor, and Baker to discuss a breach of restriction by Baker at St. Elizabeth's re contact (non-sexual) with a minor.
06/01/91: Assigned to St. Linus Church (Norwalk) as Administrator Pro-Tem.
11/01/91: Assigned to St. Gerard Majella Church (Los Angeles) as Administrator Pro-Tem.
01/11/92: Assigned to St. Mary Church (Palmdale) as Administrator Pro-Tem.
03/15/92: Assigned to St. Lucy Church (Long Beach) as Administrator Pro-Tem.
04/04/92: Assigned to Sacred Heart Church (Lincoln Heights) as Administrator Pro-Tem.
08/01/92: Assigned to Residence at St. Elizabeth, Van Nuys.
01/15/93: Assigned to Residence at St. Columbkille Parish (Los Angeles)...
Sharing his gifts with eight parishes in just five years -- what a guy! -- with four different assignments in 1992 alone, showing the kind of versatility we've come to expect from LA's utility infielders. Baker was finally removed from the priesthood in 2000, after it was known -- and impossible to hide -- that he had molested as many as 10 victims over the previous 20 years. The LA Weekly gave a picture of the endgame two years ago:
In 2000, two brothers from Tucson, Arizona, charged that the Rev. Michael Baker molested them in Arizona, Mexico, Palm Springs and Los Angeles, from 1984 to 1999. Tucson lawyer Lynne Cadigan demanded that Baker respond to the charges, which he did, by calling her and offering $1 million, Cadigan said. Baker had confessed to Mahony to sexually abusing minors back in 1986. "Just don't tell Roger [Mahony]," Baker said, according to Cadigan. "I'm supposed to be staying out of trouble but I'm still doing things I shouldn't do. Roger will be mad if he finds out."
Cadigan advised Baker to get a lawyer. Before long, she was on a plane to Los Angeles, where she met with Baker's lawyer. Soon after, Baker and the archdiocese paid the brothers $1.3 million. The archdiocese paid almost half. Cadigan didn't have to lift a finger.
Oddly enough, the payment to Cadigan that year didn't make it into Baker's file. But this did:
08/31/00: Cardinal Mahony signs Decree Opening Canonical Investigation pertaining to Baker's violation of duty of obedience by performing baptisms.
We are an Easter People.
An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus:
Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach five million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you!
Our Fall Campaign
Progress toward our final 2013 goal ($24,494 to go, assuming receipt of matching funds):
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: -
Oct. 17, 2005 10:11 AM ET USA
I have difficulty understanding how anyone could be molested for 15 years without any objection. Why didn't the "victim" stop the situation after the first offense? You don't suppose they condoned it do you? Now maybe they see a chance to capitalize on their own sinful ways? Suing the Church for the activities of so called members that violate its doctrines will one day come back to haunt those who have received such ill-gotten sacreligious gains. God punishes those who malign his Church.
Posted by: Fr. William -
Oct. 12, 2005 11:19 PM ET USA
There is no, let me say it again, NO defense for what Cardinal Mahony has done in just this one case alone with "Father" Michael Baker. NO DEFENSE. In black & white print, what Cdl. Mahony has done is clearly methodical & evil & unjustifiable. As we pray for God's mercy on the Cardinal's soul, might we ask: How much more damage can the Church allow the "prince" in L.A. to do before removing him? How much more evidence or "serious reasons" does the Church need before invoking Canon 401-2?
Posted by: O'Solanus -
Oct. 12, 2005 1:59 PM ET USA
How fitting it is that on the day we begin to see the rot, corruption and criminal cover-ups of Cardinal Mahony, the life story of one he persecuted, Mother Angelica, is #23 on the New York Times Best Seller List and moving up. Truth is the daughter of Time!
Posted by: www.inquisition.ca -
Oct. 12, 2005 1:33 PM ET USA
"We are an Easter People." Stop, stop, Uncle D! I'm going to wet my pants laughing! :-D
Posted by: Catholicity -
Oct. 12, 2005 12:49 PM ET USA
"Roger" will be mad if he finds out? “[Roger], even if he rightly orders his own life, if he does not have an anxious care for [the souls of his flock], yes and those of all those around him, will depart with the wicked into hell; and often when not betrayed by his own conduct, he perishes by [his flocks], if he has not rightly performed his part.” --St. John Chrysostem