"I recognize that I should have found some way to react more aggressively because this was a current allegation, the first one we've had, it didn't take hold immediately that this was current" and he should have found a way to remove McCormack.
Remember this and keep reading:
At first diocesan officials didn't know how to handle abuse because they said they:
1. Thought people could be cured
2. Didn't believe the victims
3. Thought they could intimidate the victims into silence (worked well for a while but was really a stopgap measure)
4. Thought reassigning the priest would make it stop.
Back to the article:
As problems with the handling of the McCormack case emerged, George removed from ministry another priest who had also been monitored. Questions remain about why that priest apparently had no supervision for a year after abuse allegations were made.
Wait, I thought Cardinal George JUST SAID, this (the McCormack case) was THE ONLY ONE.
Prosecutors alleged in court Thursday that the abuse of the third victim occurred over a period that ended in December. McCormack had been under church monitoring since last fall after abuse allegations first surfaced, though prosecutors determined there was not enough evidence to charge him.
"Monitoring" ah yes, a new weapon in the arsenal to stop abuse of children. I don't recall reading about monitoring in the Dallas Charter. I remember reading a lot about Zero Tolerance.
McCormack was released after his brother posted the required $30,000, according to court officials.
Could this be the same brother with whom McCormack is staying? The brother who is a police officer? Now I know what you're probably thinking- could the reason that the allegation in August 2005 was not believed by the police, not acted upon by the police and the report was never given to the Cardinal be because McCormack's brother is a police officer. That would be a very cynical view of things indeed.
And it gets worse for McCormack when he allegedly denied his identity when an investigator with the Department of Children and Family Services approached him. Ah, this reminds me of another case when the old "deny your identity" trick was tried. Didn't work then either.
The following day when DCFS investigators returned, he admitted lying to them the day before, Muldoon alleged.
That was good of him.
And his attorney is comparing his treatment to the Salem Witch trials. One small difference is that the witches were killed in Salem. That is an outcome that though tempting we cannot hope for here.
The mother of the latest victim discussing why she allowed her son to do chores around the rectory:
"I was real angry," the mother said. "They (the kids) were trying to earn a little change. I would rather have them do it that way, than be out there trying to sell drugs and stuff."
Tough call- is it better to have your child doing chores at the rectory or be out selling drugs. Hmmmm.