My Photo

Insight Scoop

Catholic World News Top Headlines (CWNews.com)

The Curt Jester

JIMMY AKIN.ORG

Poor Box

Render Unto Us

Tip Jar
Blog powered by Typepad

« More On Monsignor Urell & The Orange County Register Answers Diocesan "Spin" | Main | Planned Parenthood: Deceptions Exposed »

Sunday, September 30, 2007

Comments

Christopher H.

Brown should take the offensive and tell him to retract his statement or he will sue him.

You dont pull a lions tail just to hear it roar.

If people file false police reports, they should get punished. It might cause people to think twice.

But I also think that if one person takes they polygraph the other should also. Once we start having both tests come out nondeceptive then we have the real issue to deal with.

What is the history of polygraphs being used in any of these cases?

Terry

I honestly do not know about this case, but as far as recovered memories, I know they can be authentic. Both my sister and my brother were abused as children - I knew about it as a younger sibling. Both had no recollection of it, although my brother, who went through therapy suddenly recalled what happened, but couldn't accept it untill I told him I knew about it had occured. My sister has never gone through therapy and can still not recall the events, although she continues to suffer from nightmares - which she cannot recall the substance of - and she is in her 60's. I do believe the phenomenon is real - when it has happened to children. I don't know about adolescents.

Aaron

While I think that Bishop Brown has essentially failed as a Bishop, I am very skeptical of this charge. As Catholics looking for a change in OC, we don't want to hitch our cart to a lame mule.

Consanescerion

Not recovered memories! Will he start accusing bishops who abused him in his past lives as well? Will he accuse bishops of dressing up as aliens to abduct him? Recovered memories are so much more INTERESTING (think World Weekly News and 9/11 Truthers) than real memories.

RobK

The article reminded me of the McMartin allegations where kids were coaxed into remembering events that did not happen. I am not a fan of some of the bishop's decisions (in fact a lot of them), but if this is the kind of evidence that makes it into the press, then this is shameful.

jameswrich1234

As a therapist myself, the late 80s and very early 90s were years of pronounced fascination with "repressed" memories. There is some research on the topic that is mixed at best. The field fell into disrepute by legal debacles starting with McMartin and some others. Numerous lives have been ruined by faulty repressed memories.

Without any independent corroborating details or testimony, plus the lack of any other allegations concern Bishop Brown, it is unlikely, in my opinion, to have happened. More allegations from other disinterested people, however, would change my mind.

Does someone who risks getting another adult to help rape a boy sound like a one-timer? Finding another scum bag like this would take some exposure in the environs of child sexual abuse. Is someone so incredibly reckless so as to molest a boy on Church grounds never going to commit the crime previous or after? Come on. There should be dozens of victims, given this M.O. These are the actions of a serial child rapist (e.g., the La Habra Priest).

It's been ten years since this allegation came out, plenty of time for other victims to share their similar stories. This doesn't mean he never did any of these things, but taken together with the dubious repressed memory field, and I think I have to give the benefit of the doubt, for now, to Bishop Brown.

Thomas A.

I'm much more respectful of a "repressed memory" case when the victim was of tender years at the time of the molestation - 4 to
9 or 10 years of age. By age 12, I have a harder time believing that a 12 year old would not remember the details of 1 or 2 incidents of molestation. Yet, several troubling facts give me reason to feel uneasy about the whole scandal:

1. Bishop Brown's response so far is nothing short of a DISASTER, which is very interesting, considering the fact that he is said to rely heavily upon publicity agencies for public image mgmt.:

2. The Diocese 0f Orange has made matters
worse by claiming that "the authorities" investigated and found the allegation to lack credibility, only to have the press reveal that no criminal investigation seems to have occurred at all. Are these misleading statements by diocesan officials merely the result of incompetence, or something more deceptive? -
either way, it doesn't pass the smell test;

3. Our bishop's patently obvious predilection towards homosexual rights during the last 8 years, and his promotion/defense of clergy of like mind during this time offer little comfort to our peace of mind as to what happened;

4. Finally,the fact that the victim in this case came forward some ten years ago (almost five years PRIOR to the public disclosures of the priestly scandals), and that he seems to be beyond reproach in his
character, and motives for coming forward, all lead me to believe that something happened. It's almost as if Brown is just waiting for another victim to come forward.

One thing is certain - - the longer Bishop Brown hides from the issue, the worse it will look for him. I know that if someone falsely accused me of such a vile act, I would confront the situation head-on and forcefully, especially if I know that the press is waiting to barbecue me in print otherwise.

carlos

Thomas A, the accuser's believability can be impeached is several ways. First, none of the other children that were in attendance during the second incident of molestation have ever come forward to corroborate the accuser's story or--indeed--even to place Bishop Brown at the site of the incident. Second, the accuser waited many years AFTER he had "remembered" the events during a therapy session to come forward with his allegations. Without more evidence, there's no way the State could prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Thomas A.,

Only God and Bishop Tod Brown know the truth. Someone else also mentioned that Bishop Tod Brown should step forward and speak up about it. The problem with this suggestion is that Bishop Brown was not able to recall anything and just about forgot everything, when he was questioned in his deposition on recent events. He did seem to remember though, how long he had been together with Father McKiernan. Time will tell if there are more accusers with similar accounts and new evidence.

Bishop Brown did himself no favor by not following his own Covenant to be open and transparent. Also, by trying to seal the records, it tends to make one question if he was hiding something.

God will judge the truth. If Bishop Brown is innocent, God knows. If he is guilty, God knows. There will not be lawyers saying I object, to God on the day He judges our actions. God even has jurisdiction over Canada.

Atlanta Catholic

Nota Bena

One Billion Dollars! And it CONTINUES and CONTINUES! What is the Church is doing to its own flock? Where are the lawyers for the people of St. Norbert's parish? We got shoved down our throats a sick and mentally defective priest. When do we get to ask the questions? It was really funny, the Yellow insert in the parish paper from the lawyer for Urell. Yellow, the color of a coward! So, Norbert's parish is now being run by a outside lawyer! I thought the Catholic Church was of the people, by the people and for the people. I guess it's for the Cult of the Priest's only. The hell with their priestly sacrament! Urell, you can run but you can not hide from the truth! Anxiety, that's his sub-conscience eating away at his soul!

Jimbo

First off, the Covenant was written and posted many years after the accusation of Bishop Brown. How can you really blame him for not holding himself to the same standard if it hadn't been made yet? Come on people!

Perhaps you could argue that given the fact that Bishop Brown knows how hurtful and devastating an accusation can be he should not have promised "transparency" that would only hurt priests mistakenly accused. Fine. But come on folks. Let's be reasonable.

Atlanta Catholic

Jimbo,

Was it reasonable for Bishop Brown to reveal the names of other priests who were accused but not charged with anything?
Their reputations are ruined for life. Why did he not give them the same benefit? I don't think that honorable men have different standards for others. They have consistent standards. Do unto others as you would do unto yourself.

Sorry, Jimbo.... Reasonable or as unreasonable as it seems, Bishop Brown wrote the Covenant and chose the wording. He applied transparency to others and not himself. Some of those charges for the other innocent priests stemmed back as far as Bishop Brown's accuser's letter to Fresno Diocese. The timing of his ill-fated Covenant has nothing to do with being honest. C'mon Jimbo! "Even" Cardinal Mahony, revealed the accusations against himself to the public. It is more than reasonable to hold Bishop Brown to the standard of his own chosen words. Open and Transparent.

Speaking of the Covenant.... Many Catholics and good priests were reasonably furious that Bishop Tod Brown emulated Martin Luther, by hammering his half a million, disastrous P.R. attempt, to the Cathedral door!

Atlanta Catholic

jameswrich1234

I did think that was a very poor choice of "symbolic" acts. I guess he could have emulated some symbolic action associated with the beginning of the Arian or the Novatian heresy, if only history could have detailed any good, memorable ones.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Pope Benedict XVI Homilies & Statements

Codex of Catholic Blogs

Orthodox Blogs

Blogs From People We Wish Were Catholic