« Can the GOP Help Janet Avoid a November Run-Off? | Main | Red County/OC Blog News Roundup -- Oct. 6, 2007 »

October 06, 2007

Comments

Christopher H.

On the contrary, Mr. Jubal. The deposition was so critical that it caused a settlement instead of a court ruling. A settlement is just a nice way of saying "I will do/pay anything, just make it stop"

As an outside observer I would have to chalk this one up as a Manly victory. But the diocese can still spin it to make themselves not look so bad, and give the folks 6 months and they will forget. So perhaps a victory to all. But most importantly I'm sure John Urell is breathing a sigh of relief, and I would assume this will allow his return to his beloved parish with godspeed.

Now perhaps there is a church hall or gym we can name in honor of Urell to make his homecoming a bit sweeter. We need a Urell Hall somewhere in Orange County, perhaps at St. Norberts?

"St. Norbert of Urell" has a nice ring to it.

Lord Knows

I hope now the diocese will release all the documents it had been holding pending the court proceeding including the police reports, depositions etc. As to the allegations against Msgr. Urell - the truth will come out and in the end I am sure the good Monsignor will be fully vindicated.

P. Callahan

Urell vindicated? Are you high?

Don't you know that he personally allowed men like Harris (whose going away party he attended), ramos, pecharich and lenihan continue to have access to kids after he knew they were molesters?

Oh wait, I forgot, he also lied to parents (like the DiMarias and the colices).

Oh yeah, and he lied under oath in his depositions in the DiMaria case.

Ooh, ooh, ooh, and in the Andrade case, Bishop McFarland produced the diocese policy that showed that Urell was the point person in ALL diocese abuse cases, including Andrade. (Yes, Jubal, he was in charge of the Andrade investigation at the Diocese, and hence why the JUDGE - not manly - ordered his depo).

There is a special place in hell reserved for men like John Urell.

Lord Knows

P Callahan, I mean John Manly. Keep twisting the truth, and impersonating real lawyers, like that and you'll get that front row seat in Hades.

Brett Nemeth

Matt,

I have to respectfully disagree with your assessment. I believe one factor that encouraged the settlement was the fact that they did not Urell to be forced to answer certain questions. The Diocese is embarassed and is still hiding information which they hope stays hidden in Canada or whereever.

Bladerunner

And what questions might those be that were relevant to the Andrade case?

And what information is the Diocese hiding?

P. Callahan

Lord KNows:

While I am much better looking than the pictures I have seen of John Manly, I do have to agree with him on all of this.

Bladerunner:

Information the diocese is hiding: 1)the names and numbers of perps at MD and in the diocese, 2) the number of secret settlements they have had in the past five years, 3) John Urell 4) Documents about how they let these men quietly leave schools when they should have gone to jail. 5) names of other victims (which should be turned over to a neutral third party, not attorneys).

And again, urell was the diocese point man on ALL abuse during andrades tenure. any question would be relevant, don't you think?

Christopher H.

but, those old cases are done with. Once the "survivorvictim" signs their name on the back of that huge check, or in the settlement agreement, they are releasing everyone involved from their fate regarding that specific incident. If Urell has been involved in so many past crimes, then he has also been released from them by they plantiffs attorneys over and over and over again. He is the most released man there is.

As long as he has nothing to do with a pending case, he is released mode. You keep talking about these past cases, they are done. No one is forcing the "survivorvictims" to accept a settlement,if they dont want the defendants released from their crimes against them. they can decline and pursue it.

I also dont think there has been huge MSM coverage of this issue at all. Its been buried deep inside newspapers, there has been no national coverage at all except for the usual AP Wire releases. It has all been mostly on a few blogs.

And you cant blame them, there was huge drama on Urell's part. He had aspirations to be an actor when he was younger, and God found a way to make those dreams come true. We were a captive audience there for a week or two. Without that drama, it would have all passed over the wires barely noticed. Hence.. drama must remained sealed in the future.

Bladerunner

8:40am commenter--when you get an honest handle I'll respond.

Manly's Conscience

There is a special place in hell reserved for men like John Urell.

I disagree. Urell is clearly regretful and repentant for his role in the clergy abuse cases in OC.

That special place of which you speak is reserved for people like John Manly, who persecute the Church for money. Deep down in whatever shred of conscience he has left, Manly must know that.

Philip R. Callahan

Since when is "bladerunner" an honest handle?

Philip R. Callahan

Since when is "bladerunner" an honest handle?

Bladerunner

Since I began to post consistently with that handle some years ago. And I don't try to get cute with impersonating an attorney who is taking a position contra to what I would post.
Since your handle was duplicitous, I'm not surprised your content would be also.

But here's my comment: your post is too full of speculation to do anything but ask:

1) How do you know the Diocese is currently hiding the names of any "perps" in the Diocese or mater Dei and what is your evidence? If you know of any "perps"(please define with specificity)at either Mater Dei or the Diocese, please share this. And if you know of any, have you informed law enforcement? The Diocese? The school?

2)How do you know there have been any "secret" settlements in the past five years by the Diocese? What's your evidence? How do you define a "secret settlement?" Would you require a claimant to make public their situation even though they don't want this?

3)The Diocese is not hiding Urell so my question would be " Are you so obsessed with this issue that a) its all you comment on and b) you take every bit of information and twist it against the Church?

4)how is it that the Church has anything to do with whether anyone at Mater Dei or the other 3 cases went to jail? Isn't that a decision by law endorcement? Didn't Mater Dei report the Andrade matter to law enforcement?

5)What evidence do you have there are other victims? Aren't you really suggesting that if there were that the Diocese should turn them over to manly?

6) identify and quote from any document that would suggest that Urell was the point man for complaints other then dealing with priests. And define point man--does that mean that people who are victimized were supposed to notify him or does it mean that a Diocese school or agency was supposed to notify him.

Phillip R. Callahan

Duplicitous? Excuse me for using my own name.

So, since you hate Manly so much, why don't you join matt and go to Manly's office and look at all of the documents for yourself? In fact, I would love it if you could help them get all of the documents posted online. It would make arguing with knuckleheads like you much easier. And I am tired of going to superior court to read them.

The one you want to read is the document produced by Bishop Norman McFarland. It's public record in one of the legal submissions (go get it from the court - I did, because I am PROACTIVE in learning about the truth) to demand Urell's depo. In that juicy little morsel, McFarland names the chancellor (that's urell) as the man to oversee and manage all allegations of sexual abuse.

You should read all of the docs; they will answer all of your questions. Until then, your ignorance bores me and humiliates yourself.

Gustavo Arellano

Bladerunner: you should read the OC Weekly's blog more often. For point número six, I discussed it last week. I'd post the document and deposition in question, but we need to get a better scanner first!

Bladerunner

Gustavo--

I read your blog. Pardon me if I don't always accept it as gospel, entertaining as it is. Go back and read what you posted on the policy. It does not say what you conclude. Of course your conclusion is what the plaintiff's lawyer(s) wanted people to think.

Gustavo Arellano

I read it again: same conclusion I originally reached. The document is pretty clear cut; the testimony of McFarland and Urell isn't. That's entertainmen!

duplojohn

I attended mass today, and after a thirty minute Homily about "life" (which incedently never mentioned a hundred thousand innocent Iraqi's murdered).

The Parish manager gave a speech about how Sunday donations were down...........

These guys just don't get it.

Bladerunner

Gustavo--It's only clear cut to you because you always look at information and draw negative inferences when it involves Mahoney, Mcfarland, Brown, the Catholic Church, et al. Not that they haven't mismanaged the whole child abuse scandal, committed every possible p.r. and risk management blunder, made and continue to make John Manly a wealthy man, and generally brought shame and financial and spiritual loss to their respective areas of jurisdiction. In other words, there is enough for you to pounce on without stretching things more then they should be stretched.

This "surprise" Mcfarland written policy did not set up a risk management structure that would set the Chancellor up to investigate any indication of improper and/or illegal sexual activity between a coach or other Catholic school employee and a student.

It's a policy designed for victims and their families to report bad acts and bad actors if they feel they have been victimized. It says they can "generally" report it to the Chancellor. It is not a policy that directs Diocese personnel to report bad acts and actors to the Chancelor who then was obligated to conduct an investigation. You suggested in your post that Mater Dei may have failed to report the incident to Urell. Where in the policy does it say that Mater Dei would have had to report this to Urell? Of course what they did do was report it to the police. I might have missed the post but did you ever write about the law enforcement investigation and decision not to prosecute and the reasons for that decision? You've been pretty thorough about this issue so perhaps you can link me to the piece. They also fired Andrade.

Query Gustavo: Did Jane Doe pick up the phone and call Msgr. Urell? Did her parents?
If they didn't , this "point man policy" would have never kicked in. And you know that they didn't do this because you know how this came to the attention of Mater Dei administrators and it wasn't Jane Doe or her parents.

Dave N.

If the "Friends of Msgr. John" are truly his friends, they will urge him to disclose clearly and fully his efforts to cover up abuse in the Diocese and apologize for those actions (assuming that he regrets these actions, which I'm guessing that he does.) I think posters here on both sides ("Special place in hell" vs. "Msgr. Urell is a saint") have both missed the boat, or at least have a poor understanding of the Catholic vision of the human condition. We all make mistakes but also have the awesome ability to seek the forgiveness we don't deserve. But to paraphrase Luke, if we don't work to confront our own illness, there's nothing the good physician can do for us. Urell has brought public scandal to the Church by placing the desires of his bosses ahead of service to the people--for which he will hopefully soon present a sincere public apology. If he refuses, he will sadly continue to be known as "Monsignor Cover-up" throughout the diocese for the rest of his life. If he comes clean (publically), both he and his supporters will be vindicated. It's his choice. May God grant him healing and peace.

The comments to this entry are closed.


Categories