 Los Angeles Archdiocese Cardinal Roger M. Mahony |
A U.S attorney in California has launched a controversial federal probe into the Los Angeles Roman Catholic Archdiocese’s handling of priest molestation charges, an investigation that some call “creative” and “innovative,” while others have labeled it “strange” and “mystifying.”
After years of investigation into the Catholic Church’s mishandling of molestation complaints, the archdiocese agreed two years ago to pay $660 million to 508 people who accused priests of sexual abuse.
But U.S. Attorney Thomas P. O’Brien has now launched a new, federal grand jury investigation, seeking to prosecute the church on fraud charges related to the clergy abuse scandal.
Los Angeles Archdiocese Cardinal Roger M. Mahony told KNX radio that he is “mystified” and “puzzled” that the church would be under scrutiny again.
“We have been through these investigations for years now: our own internal investigations, outside audited investigations, district attorney, law enforcement, etc.,” Mahony said. “We’ve admitted everything. In all the years since, we’ve reached a settlement with the plaintiffs, and that’s all behind us.”
Mahony also told KNX that of the 22 priests who have been named by the grand jury, two are dead and the remaining 20 have retired from the priesthood.
“I thought all the questions were already looked into and resolved, years back now,” Mahony said.
According to Los Angeles Times sources, O’Brien is targeting the church under a federal statute that makes it illegal to “scheme … to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services,” a law typically applied to public officials and not known to have ever been used against church leaders.
San Diego lawyer Charles LaBella, a former U.S. attorney himself, told the Times he was surprised at O’Brien’s application of the law.
“That’s a strange one. I have never heard of it being used in that kind of situation,” LaBella said. “Usually, it’s used against public officials who owe a duty of honest services to the taxpayers.”
Sources told the Times that in this case O’Brien is considering applying the law to the church, as parishioners should have the right to expect church leadership to provide the “honest services” of keeping children safe from predatory priests.
Laurie Levenson, a Loyola Law School professor and former federal prosecutor, told the Times that O’Brien’s biggest challenge may be persuading jurors that he’s not just stretching the law to apply somewhere it wasn’t meant to govern.
“I’d put it in the category of creative lawyering,” Levenson said. “It doesn’t mean it’s bad. But it will be challenging to not only get charges on these grounds but, if they get charges, to win a conviction.”
O’Brien, it seems, has a reputation for “creative lawyering.”
Last year, O’Brien spearheaded the case against Lori Drew, a Missouri mother who sent fictitious messages via MySpace to her daughter’s teenage peer, prompting the neighbor girl – it was accused – to hang herself.
O’Brien dubbed the prosecution as the nation’s first cyberbullying trial, but a U.S. district judge declared the conspiracy case a mistrial, the jury instead finding Drew guilty of only misdemeanor offenses for accessing computers without authorization.
O’Brien’s office also attempted to prosecute ex-Marine Jose Luis Nazario for the killings of four unarmed Iraqi prisoners in Fallouja. Since Nazario had left the Marines and was no longer subject to a court-martial, O’Brian charged Nazario in civilian court under a law intended to prosecute soldiers’ spouses or civilian Defense employees living in foreign countries. Nazario was acquitted.
Rebecca Lonergan, a former federal prosecutor who worked under O’Brien in the U.S. attorney’s office, told the Times that O’Brien’s methods can be unorthodox.
“The question is whether they’ve been overly aggressive or genuine attempts to make sure that crimes that should get prosecuted do get prosecuted,” Lonergan said. “There are two possible motives. One is to do the right thing. The other is less meritorious, which is attention grabbing.”
Of the new charges being considered against the Catholic Church, Lonergan confessed she couldn’t say which of the two possible motives was driving O’Brien’s investigation.
David Clohessy, national director of the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests, told the Times he supports the investigation as a means of bringing not only the Catholic Church, but also now the church’s leadership – like Mahony – to justice.
“It is long, long overdue,” Clohessy said. “It is just crucial that the hierarchy face criminal charges, because almost every other conceivable means have been tried to bring reform.”
Though the Times’ sources say O’Brien is directly involved in the new clergy abuse case, O’Brien himself refused to discuss or even confirm the existence of the investigation.
Thom Mrozek, a spokesman for O’Brien, however, did defend the U.S. attorney’s record.
“Everything we do is in the pursuit of justice,” Mrozek told the Times. “We have used innovative legal theories in an effort to vindicate the victims of criminal activity. While this may have generated criticism in some circles, we stand by our decisions.”
The Times itself issued an editorial applauding O’Brien for seeking justice but questioning the approach of using a law against elected officials using their office to defraud voters for personal gain in order to allege that the church fraudulently denied its members a rightfully expected service.
“Here too we worry about the elasticity of the law,” the editorial reads. “If Mahony conspired to protect abusive priests, charge him with conspiracy. If he blocked inquiries, charge him with obstruction. But his crimes, if any, are easily defined under tested laws, not as vague denials of service.”
