OC Blog

What I've Been Thinking

A reader commented regarding yesterday’s Frank Mickadeit column asked, “What were you thinking, Jubal?”

An excellent and appropriate question.

I’ve been thinking about a number of things these past couple of weeks that I’ve been involved in Friends of Monsignor John. First off, I want to express again how sorry I am about posting the unredacted deposition and Memorandum of Understanding from the recent settlement, and ask the forgiveness of those victims whose names are in them. I posted the deposition so people could read it for themselves and draw their own conclusions, rather than rely on third-hand accounts – but I had no intention of making the names public. I didn’t say to myself, “Oh, it doesn’t matter that there are victims names in the depo.” Mentally, I just didn’t think about the names being in there. And the moment it was brought to my attention, I took it down.

I made a mistake and I am deeply, sincerely sorry for it.

Monsignor Urell is my pastor. He’s been there for me and my family when we’ve needed him, and when I learned he’d broken down and been hospitalized, I wanted to be there for him. That’s why I’m part of Friends of Monsignor Urell (and to clarify some misconceptions in the media, neither John Hanna or I founded the group, and we are the only active politicos in it).

But my involvement in the group doesn’t mean I am blind to Monsignor Urell’s role in the Diocese’s disastrous handling of sexual abuse cases. There were faithful, hurt Catholics who came to the Diocese for help and were treated as potential legal liabilities rather than members of the flock to be shepherded and cared for. And in my heart, I can’t account for that. It saddens and angers me they were treated that way, and I believe victims have every right to seek recompense from the Church and the Church has an obligation to make amends to victims of abuse by its clergy and employees. Unfortunately, it has generally taken the blunt instrument of media coverage and litigation for shake the various diocese into action and change, and it’s a shame that is so.

I’ve always felt horribly for victims of clergy sexual abuse, but I have a greater awareness of how these victims feel than I did a few weeks ago. And reading Monsignor Urell’s deposition made me more aware than ever that there but for the grace of God go I. I’m thankful that the priests I’ve known and have helped shape my life have been good and godly men. But the last few weeks have caused me to think more than ever before how my life could have turned out horribly different if it were wolves in clerical garb who had taken an interest in me instead.

I love Monsignor Urell for the great priest and pastor he has been at St. Norbert. But I struggle to reconcile that with his sins of omission and commission while in the Diocese hierarchy, because the Monsignor Urell I’ve read about in some newspaper articles and from victims’ accounts is so different from the pastor I have known. I struggle to reconcile those in my mind and understand why Monsignor Urell took the actions he did – or didn’t take, as the case may be.

But Msgr. Urell has accomplished a lot of good for a lot of people during his 25 plus years as a priest. That’s evident in the hundreds of people who have come forward to express their support for him in his time of trouble. Compassion for Msgr. Urell in his illness does not exclude also having compassion for sexual abuse victims. For me, I want Msgr. Urell to heal and recover so he can return to St. Norbert. And I also want him to return so he can make specific amends to those people to whom he needs to make amends, and seek forgiveness. I’m not sure how else Msgr. Urell and those victims he interacted with can achieve the healing they need.

Video: Bishop Brown Press Conference

Apologies for the delay, but I've finally processed, edited and uploaded video of Bishop Tod Brown's press conference, held following the initial contempt hearing on Tuesday.

First up is Diocesan attorney Peter Callahan:

Then Bishop Brown steps up to extend his apology to the victims:

What I Saw At The Contempt Hearing

I arrived at Judge Gail Andler's courtroom at 9:00 a.m. for the contempt hearing on Bishop Tod Brown, and sat down next to a couple of fellow St. Norbert parishioners. A few minutes later, I was walking over to the clerk's office with the KABC and KNX reporters to fill out media request forms, in hopes of being able to set up the Red County UnSteadiCam.

I handed mine in to Judge Adler's clerk, and took a seat by my friend Meg Waters. In front of me sat Frank Mickadeit, regaling the reporter next to him with some story. In the row behind me sat Gustavo Arellano, and to my my left was a bald guy I didn't know, but had a lawyerly look to him. He was reading what looked like the motion by Patrick Hennessey, Msgr. John Urell's attorney, to quash John Manly's subpoena to Mr. Hennessey.

A Manly Morning
A few minutes later, John Manly, scourge of the Diocese of Orange walked in. I had run a Google Images search on him the night before so I'd know what he looked like.

He obviously knew what I looked like because he glanced over and asked:

Statement From Msgr. Urell's Attorney On Diocesan Settlement

Vacation draws to an end, but I did spy that the Diocese of Orange has settled with John Manly's clients. Guess it wasn't so critical for Msgr. Urell to complete the deposition after all? But the media hype served  Manly's purposes. You can check with Gustavo Arellano over at Navel Gazing to read Manly's thoughts. Here's the statement from Patrick Hennessey, Msgr. Urell's attorney:

I am extremely disappointed at the news of the settlement. Msgr. Urell’s good name has been dragged through the mud by the irresponsible and untruthful comments made by plaintiff’s attorneys.

Rather than try the case under the scrutiny of the court and the rules of evidence, plaintiff’s attorneys tried this case in the news media using half-truths and innuendo.

What John Manly Is All About

John Manly just commented on a previous post regarding his using Msgr. Urell as a pinata to brow-beat the Diocese into a settlement rather than risk losing his case in a trial. I think this comment from Manly sums up what this is all about for him:

Speaking of Church, why don't you just give me the money you're going to put in the collection basket this weekend? It would be quicker.

You mean "give it to the victims," don't you John?

Refreshingly, A Critical View Of Manly's Strategy

A commenter named Sean posted this comment earlier today, and I think it shines a clear light on John Manly's maneuverings in the Andrade case and the sham claims by Manly and his associates that Monsignor Urell is central to their case:

And the fact that California law permits out-of-the-country depositions doesn't mean that the party in question has to cooperate.

Okay, another short primer on California civil litigation for you armchair attorneys.

Yes, there is a chance that Msgr. Urell would be sanctioned for failure to complete his deposition.

But much more likely, and much more damaging, would be the sanctions against the actual defendants in this case: the Diocese of Orange and Bishop Brown.

Monsignor Urell And Trial-By-Media, Part II

I read Frank Mickadeit's column today. I look forward to his column unspinning John Manly's spin.

I also read Gustavo Arellano's article on the Diocese of Orange's clergy sex abuse scandal in the new OC Weekly. Article primarily focuses on Msgr. Urell's role as the diocesan point man for clergy sex abuse cases.

Question: Gustavo knows that the current litigation isn't about Monsignor Urell, but about Mater Dei High School Coach Jeff Andrade conducting a 2-year sexual relationship with a student in the mid-1990s, right? He mentions it in the beginning of the article, but more as a current events peg upon which to publish a recount of events that are already known.

I don't dispute that Monsignor Urell shares culpability in the mishandling of clergy sex abuse cases. I doubt he does, either. If he were the cold, vicious man some seem bent on portraying him as, he wouldn't be in a treatment facility trying recover from acute anxiety disorder.

Monsignor Urell And Trial-By-Media

Someone relying on regular media coverage of Monsignor John Urell and the Jeff Andrade trial could be forgiven for believing the monsignor broke down during his deposition one day and was hustled him onto a Canada-bound plane the next day by the Diocese of Orange.

After all, that is the impression being fostered by the reporting on this story. My friend Steve Greenhut, for example, deploys the word "fled" with the rigid discipline of a propagandist.

Those relying on media coverage of the trial can be forgiven for not knowing that six weeks elapsed between the time of Monsignor Urell's un-completed deposition and his entering Southdown Institute in Canada. By relying on media coverage, you wouldn't know that Monsignor Urell underwent a progressive deterioration during that interval, to the point where his friend and subsequently attorney Patrick Hennessey took him to a doctor, who diagnosed Monsignor Urell as suffering from acute anxiety disorder and requiring immediate hospitalization and treatment.

Here's an example from a Sept. 25 article in the Toronto Sun (H/T to Gustavo Arellano at Navel Gazing):

Halfway through his pretrial testimony, though, a distraught Urell broke down crying and was given a break from testifying in order to re-group.

But he did not return to the stand the next day as ordered.

Instead, he headed north to Canada, and to Southdown.

Nothing like accurate reporting, eh?

Msgr. Urell's Attorney On Media Reports

This statement from Monsignor John Urell's attorney, Patrick Hennessy, cam over the transom a little while ago:

Statement from Msgr. John Urell’s personal attorney, Patrick A. Hennessey

(Sept. 20, 2007)

Once again, I’m compelled to make a statement about Msgr. Urell’s situation in light of the erroneous, misleading and inflammatory reports in the news media. 

During the time Msgr. Urell was Vicar General for the Diocese, he was charged with handling sexual misconduct cases involving clergy. He did not handle cases involving lay people working for the Diocese, including the case coming before the court regarding Jane C. R. Doe and the former Mater Dei coach.

Manly Needs Some Better Excuses

I have great respect for Frank Mickadeit and think he is trying to fair in his coverage of the Diocese of Orange's tribulations in the Jeff Andrade case.

Monsignor Urell's attorney, Patrick Hennessy, told Frank he had obtained a tentative agreement from John Manly (the attorney representing the woman with whom former Mater Dei coach Andrade had a sexual relationship when she was a Mater Dei High School student) "in which they agreed Urell would not have to complete the deposition as long as everything he'd said so far under oath could be used in court, as well as everything he said in a deposition in a 2001 molestation case."

Frank's column continues:

Greenhut Takes Aim At Msgr. Urell Again

Steve Greenhut posted today on Orange Punch regarding Monsignor John Urell. I think Steve tried to set a world record for using the phrase "fled the country," maybe operating on the theory that if you say something enough, it is true.

Steve and I are friends and share a like political world view (with a few exceptions), but in the matter of Monsignor Urell going to the Southdown Institute in Canada, I think he has been genuinely unfair. His post, together with comments on this blog, deliberately convey that Monsignor Urell went to Southdown as part of some Diocesan conspiracy to smuggle the Monsignor out of the country to avoid finishing his deposition. hence Steve's repeated employment of the phrase "fled the country" as if Msgr. Urell is trying to escape the law, rather than seeking treatment for acute anxiety disorder.

Being in Canada does not prevent Monsignor Urell from being deposed. As a commenter pointed out the other day, California Code of Civil Procedure section 2027.010 allows for depositions to be taken in foreign countries.

And if Monsignor Urell were attempting to avoid deposition, why did he show up for it in the first place? Why not "flee the country" before hand?

Contrary to what some folks want to believe -- and despite John Manly and Co.'s attempts to smear him in the media as a pedophile -- Monsignor Urell is not some monster. He is a good man and a good priest, and his years in the Diocese hierarchy dealing with the clergy abuse scandals clearly exacted a great psychological toll on him. And that it has done so does not take away from the sufferings of those victimized by Catholic clergy. It's just further illustration of the terrific damage the actions of a very small percentage of Catholic clergy have wrought upon the Catholic Church, laity and clergy both.

Statement From Msgr. Urell's Attorney

This came over the transom earlier today:

Statement regarding Msgr. John Urell from his personal attorney, Patrick A. Hennessey:

On Sept. 6, Msgr. John Urell entered the medical facility Southdown Institute in Canada following the orders of his medical physician. He suffers from an acute anxiety disorder caused by the strain of his prior responsibility for responding to complaints of sexual abuse by others.

Msgr. Urell has never sexually abused anyone, and he has never been accused of sexually abusing anyone. His treatment at Southdown is specifically related to acute anxiety. In no way is his stay related to pedophilia, and for anyone to imply such is being irresponsible and untruthful.

Regarding Bishop Brown And Monsignor Urell

I've been reading the coverage of the Bishop Tod Brown's deposition and Monsignor John Urell's leaving for the Southbound. I'm a parishioner at St. Norbert Church in Orange, where Monsignor Urell is pastor, and my two youngest daughters go to school there, and wanted to offer some thoughts on this matter.

I would not characterize myself as a member of the Bishop Brown fan club. For example, I'm disappointed in the tolerance of liturgical abuses and liturgical changes that have occurred during his episcopate and in the closure of much-needed Catholic school in central Orange County even as money is being raised for a new Cathedral that is much less necessary (in my opinion) than those schools. I'm angered by Bishop Brown's uncharitable attitude towards Catholics who are devoted to the Tridentine Mass and continued resistance to implementing the Pope's motu proprio regarding it.

That said, I think the accusation now being leveled that the Bishop violated the Covenant With The Faithful is unfair and unwarranted.

42 years ago, Bishop Brown was accused of molesting a 12-year old boy. Both police and Church investigations found the accusation to be without merit.