More On Monsignor Urell & The Orange County Register Answers Diocesan "Spin"

In keeping with the fair and balanced policy of providing alternate perspectives on the ongoing Orange County abuse case...

Three from Gustavo Arellano of OC Weekly:

Bad Moves

Here are some quotes from pages three and four:

According to the same priest personnel files, Urell’s involvement with Pecharich is even more damning. In 1993, a woman told Urell that the priest had hugged her son strangely when Pecharich served at St. Bridget of Sweden in Van Nuys during the 1970s, and that other boys complained that Pecharich asked them to sleep in his bed. Urell told the woman her son would have to lodge the allegation in person. No meeting ever occurred, and Urell never asked Pecharich about the allegation.

The Orange diocese was already suspicious of Pecharich, since he had admitted to molesting a teen in 1983. But Urell wouldn’t confront the priest until 1995, when another teenager complained that Pecharich hugged him too long. Nothing came of this meeting.

In a memo dated Aug. 17, 1996, Urell recounted his conversation with someone who claimed that Pecharich had grabbed his penis and slept nude with him when the two went camping in Wrightwood. Urell’s notes quoted the victim as saying, “I’m glad to hear that [Pecharich] said yes—said he was sorry.” Urell told the victim that Pecharich was undergoing therapy and that the Orange diocese had contacted Child Protective Services about Pecharich’s transgression. The victim was “impressed, glad, happy [Pecharich] had admitted” and asked that Pecharich be removed from the priesthood.

Pecharich confessed to Urell that he was “emotionally involved” with this teen and promised to stay away. There is nothing in his personnel files, however, that suggests Urell ever contacted Child Protective services, or that Pecharich went through therapy. The priest was removed from the ministry in 2002, but not before Bishop Brown announced in a press release that “there have been no further instances of misconduct by Father Pecharich, nor any new accusations” since 1983.

There’s one other case worth noting involving Urell. In 2001, Manly deposed him as part of a lawsuit filed by Ryan DiMaria (now an attorney in Manly’s firm) alleging he was molested by Monsignor Michael Harris. Harris—the former principal at Mater Dei and Santa Margarita High Schools—was one of the most popular priests in Orange County history but had to resign in 1994 after he refused to undergo therapy for an attraction to teenage boys.

Urell told Manly that he was put in charge of following up on sex-abuse allegations lodged against Harris at the time of his resignation. But Urell merely asked Harris whom he should interview to second DiMaria’s claims. He also confessed to attending a going-away party held for Harris by the Orange diocese and supporters. The host was Michael Pecharich.

“I guess some of the guys wanted to get together and say: ‘It’s over. You’re leaving,’” Urell said in the 2001 deposition. “I can say now I believe it was inappropriate to go.”

On July 27, Manly asked Urell about his dealings with Harris. Church lawyers wouldn’t allow the monsignor to answer. Manly didn’t mind.

“You know what?” Manly replied to no one in particular. “I’ll just let the record speak for itself. I know what it was, and I know what he called [the dinner] last time. So we’ll just leave it there.”

Three minutes later, Urell cracked.

Bad Moves Addendum (This contains links to actual documents from the case.)

Subpoenas Sought For Urell, Urell's Attorneys

The Orange County Register's "Unspin To The Diocese's Sunday Spin" (which is really worth reading) is linked after the jump...

One from Frank Mikadeit of The Orange County Register: The Unspin To The Diocese's Sunday Spin

There is more than one way to deal with what is happening in the Diocese of Orange, but this is not one of them:

My own thoughts:

Look, nobody has to believe that John Manly is a saint. That's never been my take on things. I'm sure John Manly wouldn't even claim to be a saint.

Some have said John Manly is primarily interested in money. I'm not sure if that's an accurate or fair judgment, especially when coming from people who don't want us to rush to judgment, but, let's pretend, for the sake of argument, that it's true.

So what?

Manly's motives don't alter the facts of the case one iota.

Look, whatever anyone thinks about this current case, or even Msgr. Urell, I don't think it's a stretch to say there is now, and has been for some time, corruption within the Diocese of Orange. The corruption is theological, liturgical, and moral. It has been detailed here on Roman Catholic Blog for some time now.

God loves His people so much that he purifies them, and I believe the Diocese of Orange is experiencing a purification right now.

Here are some examples of God's purifying actions:

The Flood

Sodom & Gomorrah

When the Hebrews came out of Egypt, God let them wander in the desert for forty years. He let older, more corrupt generations die out before allowing His chosen people to enter the Holy Land.

The Babylonian captivity, or Babylonian exile, is the name generally given to the deportation and exile of the Jews of the ancient Kingdom of Judah to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar. The Jews had become corrupt, and God used the Babylonians – who were pagans – to punish His people. The Babylonian Captivity and the subsequent return to Israel were seen as one of the pivotal events in the drama between God and His people, Israel. Just as they had been predestined for, and saved from, slavery in Egypt, the Israelites were predestined to be punished by God through the Babylonians, and then saved once more.

When the Jewish leaders rejected Our Lord, pagan Rome became God's instrument of purification, as prophesied by Our Lord in the Twenty-Third Chapter of St. Matthew's Gospel:

Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger. They do all their deeds to be seen by men; for they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues, and salutations in the market places, and being called rabbi by men. But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called masters, for you have one master, the Christ. He who is greatest among you shall be your servant; whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

"But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in.

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you traverse sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.

"Woe to you, blind guides, who say, `If any one swears by the temple, it is nothing; but if any one swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.'

You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that has made the gold sacred?

And you say, `If any one swears by the altar, it is nothing; but if any one swears by the gift that is on the altar, he is bound by his oath.'

You blind men! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred?

So he who swears by the altar, swears by it and by everything on it; and he who swears by the temple, swears by it and by him who dwells in it; and he who swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God and by him who sits upon it.

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.

You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you cleanse the outside of the cup and of the plate, but inside they are full of extortion and rapacity. You blind Pharisee! first cleanse the inside of the cup and of the plate, that the outside also may be clean.

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but within you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, saying, `If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.'

Thus you witness against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechari'ah the son of Barachi'ah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. Truly, I say to you, all this will come upon this generation.

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! Behold, your house is forsaken and desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, `Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'"

I believe that we too are being purified, and John Manly seems to be one of God's instruments.

Any thoughts?

Comments

[Christopher H.]

Show your support for John Urell
SAVE JOHN URELL

[Patrick]

Thomistic,

The priest mentioned above taught at my Catholic high school in '72. At that time, he was still a deacon. Man, I'm glad I was kicked out of that place :o) It was an awful school. There was also a strange friar there. In later years, I heard that he was "laying hands" on the young male students, and it wasn't a blessing.

[Frank Jump]

Jesus was born and died a Jewish man.

[Thomistic]

Nobody denies that Jesus was Jewish, so I'm not sure why you felt compelled to point that out.

Pax,

Thomistic

[Patrick]

Addendum to the above comment: The Catholic high school, which I mentioned above, was very liberal and progressive. The people running the place were members of the "spirit of Vatican II" crowd. I am unable to remember even one class which had anything to do with the Faith. I do remember self-esteem exercises during the period which was supposed to be devoted to a religion class. The priest mentioned above liked to bring his favorite LPs for us to hear. I bet more than half the kids who attended that school fell away from the Church. The former students, who are members of an organized religion, are probably Mormons or something.

[A Simple Sinner]

Meanwhile, outside of Orange County and Fox News...

[Ignatius]

I take a dim view of all this. Rev Dr Alcuin Reid author was suspended from the Diaconate in the Archdiocese of Melbourne. He was sexually active through his seminary days and propositioned males in his parish Antioch Group. He would groom males and then proposition them after gaining their confidence. He left Australia and did the same after joining Farnborough Abbey. All this can be verified.
What I find astonishing is the great difficulty there is in removing someone from the clerical state in the new Code Of Canon Law. Also whenever something like this or the case you outline is made public accusations of calumny and detraction follow. Those who sexually abuse or don't believe in celbacy while clerics, just ignore their own behaviour. It is others who are forced to make it public.

[Christopher H.]

500 Irish priests 'having regular sex with women'
By Tom Peterkin, Ireland Correspondent

At least 500 women in Ireland are conducting clandestine affairs with Roman Catholic priests, according to the leader of a support group set up to look after those in forbidden relationships.

An indication of the extent of illicit sexual relationships within the church was given after it was disclosed that Fr Maurice "Mossy" Dillane, 73, had fathered a child with his 31-year-old girlfriend.

Bishop Pat Buckley said an extremely conservative estimate was that one in 10 of the 5,000 Catholic priests in Ireland enjoyed regular sex with women and some even referred to their clerical collar as the "bird catcher".

Studies had shown that 80 per cent of priests had broken their vows of celibacy on at least one occasion, he said.

Bishop Buckley runs the Bethany organisation in Larne, Co Antrim, which he set up to provide support to those in love affairs with the clergy.

Described as Ireland's rebel bishop, Bishop Buckley was sidelined by the Catholic church in the mid-1980s when he pursued his own ministry for those who felt alienated by the traditional church.

When the statistics were widened to take in practising homosexuals, Bishop Buckley said up to 40 per cent of the Catholic clergy in Ireland were sexually active.

Counselling sessions organised by Bethany have disclosed that several women were unwittingly having sex with the same priest.

He claimed the church's hierarchy was prepared to turn a blind eye to sexual indiscretion because it was so widespread. "Bishops are caught between Rome and the priests and, of course, some of the bishops are in the same position (i.e. having relationships)," he said.

"From the top down it is hypocritical. We are preaching compulsory celibacy, but very few are living it."

He said he had met 147 women who had joined Bethany in order to share their stories of adultery and priestly promiscuity.

Romances between an understanding man of God and an unloved wife were commonplace, as were priests and their housekeepers secretly living together as man and wife while relationships between priests and nuns were unofficially known as the "third way" by the church.

Bishop Buckley said Fr Dillane and the mother of his child had nothing to be ashamed of and urged them to come out of the safe houses where they have been hiding since news of their relationship swept through Ireland.

The case of Fr Dillane, a sociable and charismatic priest from Co Galway, has been greeted with a tolerance that was absent 14-years ago when Bishop Eamon Casey, the Bishop of Galway, was disclosed as the father of a teenage son by an American divorcee, Annie Murphy. He was forced to apologise when it emerged that he had siphoned £70,000 from the diocese for their upkeep.

Bishop Buckley has been a long-standing campaigner against compulsory celibacy and points to a recent Irish survey suggesting that 90 per cent of the population thought clergy should be allowed to marry. He also believes that enforced celibacy is an unnatural state that could be to blame for the sexual deviancy that led to the child abuse scandal that erupted in Ireland last year.

"Some priests are in the Jack the lad mould and have several relationships in various parishes. I have heard priests refer to their clerical collar as the bird catcher," Bishop Buckley said.

The Roman Catholic Church in Ireland declined to comment on Bishop Buckley's claims.

...and some even referred to their clerical collar as the "bird catcher".

Eeegads!

[A Simple Sinner]

Why have I gotten to the point that I am relieved to find priest who break their vows, are at least breaking them with adult women?

This is a very sad point to have come to!

At least we see signs of hope in a goodly number of places. Some time ago I wrote a little story about some of the good news:

Counting Blessings

We have more than another decade of negative stories coming to light. But I firmly believe we are going to continue to hear some very positive things that we would not have expected to hear at all 10 years ago.

[Maximus]

Thomistic:

Gustavo and I are friends, but there is no way he is going to give Msgr. Urell a fair hearing. For example, did you read his descriptions of the documents in the Addendum?

For example: 6. Urell e-mail complaining that a Ramos victim was "getting the best help he can at $140 per hour." Read the e-mail. Msgr. Urell isn't complaining. Quite the opposite. He's expressing his desire that the victim get the best care possible for the $140 per hour. That should give you a clue to how Gustavo will present facts -- which, as you know, is not equivalent to truth.

Or how about this one:

5. 2001 Urell note to a psychologist complaining that her treatment of a Ramos victim "could be at odds with the Catholic Church moral teachings in the way you might suggest that [the victim] deal with this issue, which, in itself, if experienced outside of the marriage bond, is contrary to our Church teaching."

Shouldn't Msgr. Urell be commended for standing up for Church teaching, even in a politically radioactive environment like that?

Ask yourself, Thomistic: Do you want minor victims of abuse -- whether from clergy, teachers or coaches -- to be compensated and their therapy paid for? Because that is one thing, and I agree it should happen. And it is happening.

Recognizing the facts of abuse and desiring just compensation is far different than supporting the efforts of litigators like John Manly to loot the Church six-ways-to-Sunday. Who do you think ends up footing the bill? Those who are guilty?

[Gustavo Arellano]

Maximus: dunno who you are--you can't be that much of a friend if I don't know your nom de plume! Rudeness aside (and I'm sorry, but I just find it odd when folks who post anonymously use a supposed friendship with me as a catalyst to make their point even stronger--it's happened before), I'll move on to your critique.

The first Urell note (the $140/hour) was the culmination of many other memos in which Urell is increasingly getting frustrated over the length and cost of the treatment for the Ramos victim. My main story tracks this. Viewed in that context, Urell's "concern" sentence comes off as sarcastic, especially when he ends his "concern" with the cost of the treatment.

The second complaint you have of my reporting regards Urell standing up for Church teachings. Doesn't it seem bizarre and terribly short-sighted for Urell to worry about how a sex-abuse victim is finding therapy, especially in light of the decidedly non-Catholic pedophilia tolerance that allowed Ramos to evade the law's reach? That offends me, at least.

[Thomistic]

I agree with Gustavo's point about Msgr. Urell's expressions of concern (or complaints) about the cost of therapy for victims, which is unbelievably calloused if finances were the primary motive for his concern.

However...

In terms of any expressions of concern for the way the therapy was being handled, I would be supportive of challenging therapeutic techniques of dubious merit, especially if they encourage a client to commit objectively sinful acts (which would also violate Church teaching, but that's not why they're objectively sinful, the Church teaches they are objectively sinful because of the nature of the acts themselves, Church teaching doesn't render the acts objectively sinful).

The client's culpability would depend the disposition of his or her conscience, meaning they would need to know the action was objectively sinful, and freely choose to commit the sinful act after sufficient reflection (which merely entails recognition that the considered action is morally evil and is in no way dependent upon the client's personal feelings or desires.

The late Fr. John Hardon, S.J. defines conscience in this way in his Pocket Catholic Dictionary:

Conscience - The judgment of the practical intellect deciding, from general principles of faith and reason, the goodness or badness of a way of acting that a person now faces.

It is an operation of the intellect and not of the feelings or even of the will. An action is right or wrong because of objective principles to which the mind must subscribe, not because a person subjectively feels that way or because his will wants it that way.

Conscience, therefore, is a specific act of the mind applying its knowledge to a concrete moral situation. What the mind decides in a given case depends on principles already in the mind.

These principles are presupposed as known to the mind, either from the light of natural reason reflecting on the data of creation, or from divine faith responding to God's supernatural revelation. Conscience does not produce these principles; it accepts them. Nor does conscience pass judgment on the truths of reason and divine faith; it uses them as the premises from which to conclude whether something should be done (or should have been done) because it is good, or should be omitted (or should have been omitted) because it is bad. Its conclusions also apply to situations where the mind decides that something is permissible or preferable but not obligatory.

Always the role of conscience is to decide subjectively on the ethical propriety of a specific action, here and now, for this person, in these circumstances. But always, too, the decision is a mental conclusion derived from objective norms that conscience does not determine on its own, receiving it as given by the Author of nature and divine grace.

One example I can think of where objecting to a type of therapy would be morally required would be a therapist advocating the use of a so-called "sexual surrogate", which is essentially a euphemism for prostitution. Utilizing a "sexual surrogate" to overcome sexual difficulties would not only violate Church teaching, but would also be a controversial recommendation, as the practice has been highly criticized by respected psychologists.

I would also have problems with encouraging people to use pornography, because it's sinful, and it has been criticized as psychologically damaging, promoting the objectification of human beings, creating unrealistic expectations with respect to sex, creating the need for variety in the types of pornography the viewer must experience (including seeking out more explicit and/or deviant forms of pornography) in order for the viewer to maintain interest, as well as its generally addictive nature.

I would also have problems with encouraging people to commit sexual sin by engaging in sexual activity outside of the context of marital intimacy between one man and one woman, because I am aware that God, the Divine Physician, is also the author of human sexuality, and no human expert can justifiably claim that they can help heal sexual dysfunction by encouraging people to violate the natural law, which has been elucidated for us by the Divine Physician, who knows more about what is good for us and what will ruin us than any human physician or psychologist.

So, if Msgr. Urell's objection was to continuing to spend any amount of money on practices of questionable value from a scientific standpoint and/or which are known by those who believe in Divine Revelation, guided by solid philosophy and sound Theology to be evil and ruinous to those who engage in such practices, then I would actually support such objections.

No Catholic can, in good conscience, turn a blind eye to, or morally support (much less financially support) leading people into sin, even venial sin, much less objectively serious sin. Doing so would be the equivalent of turning a blind eye to, or morally supporting, self-destructive behavior – despite potential repercussions of dire, eternal consequences.

That's not in anyone's best interest.

Pax,

Thomistic

[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]

Nota Bena,

What did you do copy and paste your comment from the other article? Come on now. Don't clog the blog with your pasted copies.

[Avenging Arch Angel]

www.bishop-accountability.org/abusetracker for daily global vetted coverage of the ongoing criminal cover up and enabling by less that 3,500 miters and red hats, at the total expense of 1.1 billion laity, in the multi BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, and counting, with no end in site.

When the likes of Teflon Mahal Mahony, aka 'What Gay Orgy At St. John's Seminary In Camarillo?' of LA, George 'Boys Club' of Chicago, Walsh 'Head Start Before I Call The Cops'of Santa Rosa, Rivera 'Code Blue' of Mexico City, Brom 'Normal Accounting Practices' of San Diego, Steinbock of Fresno, Weigland 'I Am Not A Crook But Carry One' of Sacramento, Bernie Law-less formerly of Boston and now full salaried at one of only 4 Papally designated Roman Basilicas, No Shoes O'Malley of Boston, Barnes of pure as the driven dust of San Bernadino, Egan 'What Gay Lover's Family Suing?" of NYC, Darth Leveda formerly of Portland & SF and now CDF Prelate, Brown of Gay Orange, to name but a few, are canonically censored, removed from office, placed for LIFE under hard labor, bad food, in remote, dark, cold monasteries, or if they refuse, swiftly and irrevocably EXCOMMUNICATED, only then, will justice be served of these multi decade criminal ENABLERS and OBSTRUCTORS.

Until then...

No Bishop Accountability?

No Laity Monies!

[Veritas et Caritas]

Simple sinner: Reid is neither suspended nor has he been accused of predatory behaviour and he was not dismissed from any seminary or Farnborough for sexual misconduct.

[Benedicite]

It is very strange that these 'rumours' about Reid keep surfacing. Is it a case of 'no smoke without fire'? Surely, it cannot all be lies, there must be a basis of truth?
I know Reid a little - but well enough to say that his official face is different from his private face. Similarly the inner workings at Farnborough may not be quite so pleasant and edifying as the official blurb suggests given the number of excellent vocations who 'left' in the last 10 years. But then we are all sinners ........

[Oyez!!]

It always strikes me as odd that Farnborough Abbey - according to the information it supplies to the Benedictine Yearbook - is relatively thriving, yet whenever I visit the stalls are almost empty! There is obviously a 'problem' there, even if its only a difficulty they have with counting ......

[OC Reg]

An unemployed patient at Lestonnac Free Clinic in Orange became its executive director.
http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/life/themorningread/article_2183623.php

[Oyez!!]

I gather that Farnborough is now very much depleted in numbers & only surviving because it has a lot of cash stashed away thanks to the late Empress's generosity. In view of all the rumours re turmoil & Alcuin Reid etc she must be revolving in her tomb!