The Heat is Still on in LA

LOS ANGELES (CA)
The District Weekly

THE MICHAEL BAKER TIMELINE: A FEW DETAILS

Rachel Powers
Thu. December 06


On Monday, when Will Swaim and I first wrote about admitted child molester
Michael Baker and his plea deal, we knew relatively little about his
personal

history: simply that he had done terrible things, that some of those
things had taken place in Long Beach, and that church officials had
allowed him to retain

everything that he had ever needed to abuse children (chiefly clerical
authority, access to minors, and a succession of positions throughout the
southland.)

There are still a lot of gaps, but we've learned a few things:

In December of 1986, 21 years ago, Baker met with Cardinal Mahoney and
confessed to his attraction to children, and to his abusive relationships
with two

different boys over a 7 year period. (Baker later described Mahoney as
having been "very solicitous and understanding" during the meeting.) After
a 5-month

stay at a residential treatment facility for priests with such
difficulties, and with orders to avoid minors, Baker went back to work.
Over the next 14 years he

served in at least 7 different parishes.

In 2000, after the church was forced to make a confidential $1.3 million
payout to the family of two boys who had been victimized by Baker at the
ages of 5

and 7, Mahoney gave up. Baker was "laicized"-defrocked-and sent on his
way.

Criminal charges were brought against Baker and dozens of other priests in
2002, then dismissed in 2003 due to the Supreme Court's reinstatement of
the

statute of limitations. We'll know more about those charges and how Baker
came to the attention of prosecutors soon.

There are reports that in 2003 Mahoney finally notified the police of
Baker's crimes. But at the same time the Archdiocese, directed by Mahoney,
began to

vigorously fight subpoenas of clerical personnel files.

Baker wasn't arrested again until January of 2006.

Just a few of the lingering questions: Did Mahoney actually report the
abuse, and if so, why did he wait for three years? What brought on the
crisis of

conscience? And doesn't the law (never mind personal morality) require
that church officials alert the authorities to violent, habitual
offenders? Does the

record support the church's claim that it was hoodwinked by Baker's
alleged insistence that he was on good behavior?