« Solorio Hosting Michoacan Governor This Saturday | Main | Red County/OC Blog News Roundup -- Sept. 19, 2007 »

September 18, 2007


You spin me round and round...

If there is an opening for the Bishop of Spin in Vatican City then Mr. Jubal should apply for it!

Spot on!

Jubal is spot on with this one. Monsignor Urell is a good priest and a great man. Not to say there aren't bad apples in any orchard, but the Catholic bashing is getting tiresome.

Allan Bartlett


I think a lot of devout Catholics are still in denial over the depth of these abuse scandals in the Church. We've seen the church trying cover up the scandals for years. It's a fair inference to draw that Monsignor John Urell is trying to escape being deposed. Just my two cents.


Alan--Your "fair inference" is really "unfair speculation."

People for a variety of reasons are unable to finish their depositions. If you've ever had the miserable experience of being deposed--especially by someone like Manly--you'd have a cluse of how stressful it is. You'd also know the lawyer taking the deposition usually tells the deponent in the beginning that if he or she is unable to continue or understand the questions or needs to break to let the questioner know. Its foundational--the person being deposed must be competent at the time of the deposition to give testimony and if for reasons mental or physical they aren't competent to give the deposition then it gets postponed by mutual agreement. That is unless the purpose of the deposition is less investigatory and more accusatory.

Anyway, I'd like to see Msgr. Urell


finish his deposition as well. And as long as we're speculating, my money is that on the specific case that is being litigated--the Mater Dei coach who was was having sex with a minor student---Urell will have done no wrong.

Mas Respeto Por Favor!

Why is it Msgr Urell and not "Mr" Greenhut? Why not "Mr. Greenhut takes aim at Urell?" It changes the tone. More respect for our press corp please Mr. Jubal!!!

Dan Walsh

Of course those of us that know Msgr. Urell are going to defend him, he has earned our respect based on all of the good he has done for so many. But how can the public defend themselves againest irresponsible reporting? In scanning the newspaper stories, most people are led to believe that this good priest has done something wrong. He didn't flee the country, he is hopefully getting the best treatment possible for his health condition. To report that he is "in a place that treats clergy as well as pedophiles" is intentionally implying that Msgr. John is one himself. That sentence is not appropriate, unnecessary and seems to be there to inflame and taint public opinion. We all grieve for the victims and their families however victims can be on both sides. Let's pray for the rightous and let God handle the others.

Joelle Casteix

Let us get back to the meat of the issue here:

"Good Men" and "Good Priests" do not knowingly allow men like Al Ramos to give kids alcohol, violently molest them, and the take them to hotels in San Diego where they are gang raped. They don't. Period.

John Urell knew, and he did nothing to stop it.

Now you may say that I am harsh, but again, like other people have said, perhaps Jubal should spend some time reviewing the documents released in the 2005 Diocese settlement. You will see that the example above is only a small taste of Urell's role in the scandal here in Orange.

I mean, really, if we are to apply Jubal's rationale to others, then I guess Hitler was a good guy because he was a great speaker and made people feel special when he was around. A little flawed, don't you think?

The issue has nothing to do with whether or not Urell is a perp. The issue is that he PERSONALLY destroyed the lives of hundreds of children and families in the diocese. He lied to parents. He lied to victims. He protected criminals. Because of his cover-up and inaction, kids like me, Jane Doe, Ryan DiMaria and many, many others were violated and disgarded.

Let us not forget that.

This is not conjecture - this is fact, laid out very neatly in more than 10,000 pages of the Diocese's own files.

There are lots of "nice guys" in prison. Lots of "Good men" have committed murder, robbed banks, kidnapped kids. Simply because he is a nice guy does not mean that he should get a free pass for what he has done.

He needs to testify. And he needs to be here to do it. Besides, I don't recall the diocese paying for intensive inpatient treatment for anxiety and depressions for ANY of the victims of abuse ...

It is a shame that Urell's actions shatter the illusions of Catholics. Of course everyone wants to believe that he is a good man. Even I wanted to believe he really cared. We all liked him. But don't let your naivete cloud your ability to see, think and investigate what really happened.

Uninformed, knee-jerk reactions do not keep kids safe.

Just read the documents. It will be sad, and you will be disappointed. But then at least you will know and understand our righteous anger.

Allan Bartlett

I was a classmate of Joelle's at Mater Dei(class of 1988). Looking back at those days, I always thought it was weird that Father Harris was having some of my fellow male classmates over to his house for "pizza and movies". Then to hear Joelle's story and what she went through right under everyone's nose that was there at the same time is just really disturbing to me. As Joelle says, the facts are laid out in minute detail for all the disbelievers to view. It's high time that people who are still having trouble believing that all this bad stuff happened, take off their rose colored glasses. It did happen and the church did everything in their power and then some to cover everything up and they are still doing it to this day. The healing won't be able to finish until the Church stops the stonewalling and comes clean on everything that happened.


The" meat of the issue" is this is a discovery procedure in one case involving one person--not a priest--who admitted to having sex with a minor and the now adult suing for damages. Urell was called to give testimony as a witness to this case. Urell has already given depositions concerning his handling of prior cases involving priests and employees of the Diocese of orange. This was a major factor in manly agreeing that the deposition not be continued.

As much as some of the lawyers, reporters and prior litigants would like to re-litigate the prior cases, those are done. Cute slash and burn attacks and weak analogies don't change that fact. Compensation was provided and the litigants signed releases.

Manly stipulated that Urell's deposition need not be finished. He then reneged on the agreement with weak excuses. The sound and fury seems to signify an effort to influence the judge to compel completion of what Manly had agreed was an unnecessary second session of the deposition and to persuade the Diocese of Orange that they should pay even more money then the case might otherwise merit. I can't blame Manly for that---he has a duty to get as much for his client as possible--except as an officer of the Court he shouldn't be engaged in discovery he has acknowledged is unecessary.

I don't have rose colored glasses on. msgr. Urell had an unfortunate role in a disgraceful period of the Church. For Msgr. sinns he will be judged...perhaps harshly...by God. Who, by the way, is not in need of your assistance.

The comments to this entry are closed.