Roman Catholic Blog

From The Orange County Register: Brown Accuser Talks About His Past

Here's the story: Brown accuser talks about his past; A man goes public with an allegation of abuse. Church officials decry attack on a 'good and decent' bishop.

Here is Mr. Scott Hicks' letter to the Bishop of Fresno claiming he was abused: Scott Hicks' Letter To Most Reverend John Steinbock, Bishop of Fresno

My thoughts:

I'm extremely skeptical of the merit of so-called "recovered memories". I'm also wondering where the other boys/victims Hicks claimed to have encountered are now. I'm also concerned about Hicks' admission that he detests the Church, which would be a motive for lying.

I'm not familiar with many "recovered memories" detailing abuse that have proven true. Perhaps other people are, but experts seem to disagree about the merit of such memories, if they can be called that.

That being said, Bishop Tod Brown is guilty of pushing others under the bus by revealing unsubstantiated allegations against them (Fr. Dick Delahunty is one example), but hiding those made against him, while promising transparency through his Covenant With The Faithful publicity stunt.

It is good that the accuser is revealing himself. This way the truth has a better chance of coming to light, and Bishop Brown has a better chance of clearing his name if he is innocent, because now people have a better sense of the allegations against him and the man behind them.

A lengthy quote from the Orange County Register article follows the jump...

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...

Outrage Over 'Last Supper' Ad

Sodom and Gomorrah In Modern Times: Folsom Street Fair (Official Site) (Warning: There Are Offensive Images Of Public Activities From The Street Fair Which Are Not Suitable For Children On The Site)

Rush Limbaugh: Anatomy Of A Smear

More details at HotAir.com: Media Matters leads dishonest smear on Rush Limbaugh’s “phony soldiers”

Mark Levin: Media Matters is "A Criminal Enterprise"!

Monsignor John Urell's Trial-By-Media

It's been a long time since I've posted and participated here on Roman Catholic Blog, and it's long past time I resumed doing so.

But I'd like to tell who the writer behind this pseudonym is. My name is Matthew Cunningham. I'm a public affairs consultant in Orange County, California, and a member of St. Norbert Parish. I co-founded Roman Catholic Blog during the last days of Pope John Paul II's life, at the suggestion of Hugh Hewitt. He had suggested Ultramontane and I employ pseudonyms, although I can no longer remember why.

In any case, I don't see the point in concealing my identity.

But I do want to draw readers attention to the slanted media coverage of Monsignor John Urell, who is my pastor. I've been posting critiques of the coverage at an Orange County political blog I operate called Red County/OC Blog, and I invite RCB readers to read them.

No one denies Monsignor Urell's role in the Church's mishandling diocesan clergy abuse cases. But the current case being litigated against the Diocese has nothing to do with that. It does not even involve clergy abuse. It involves a 26-year old Jane Doe suing the Diocese over an two-year sexual relationship she had with a thirtysomething Mater Dei High School coach named Jeff Andrade when she was 15 to 17.

But Jane Doe's attorney's is focusing the attention of an eager-to-comply media on past clergy abuse cases, including those handled by Monsignor Urell. His goal is transparent: turn up the pressure on the Diocese in order to score a large monetary settlement, rather than go to trial.

Rather than recounting the entirety of this episode on RCB, I encourage you to read my posts on Red County/OC Blog and obtain a more balanced view of this controversy.

Bishop Brown's Lawyers Continue Evasion Tactics & An Article On Msgr. Urell In The Toronto Sun

While Bishop Tod Brown has been reported as spending time at Muldoon's "to relax at a meeting of the Celtic Bar Association", his attorneys have been working to salvage his image in the courtroom.

Gustavo Arellano has the details: Statutory Rapist Andrade And Pals Seek To Block Many Things

Meanwhile, back at the ranch: He fled a child sex-abuse case involving the Catholic Church in California. Now he's holed-up in Aurora. What is Msgr. Urell hiding?

And: Bakersfield police have no record of any investigation of Tod Brown.

Any thoughts?

How Liberals Smear Their Opponents In The Media

Whatever your feelings about Bill O'Reilly or Tammy Bruce, the segment posted above this text is informative and the things they say here are, in fact, accurate.

I'm always surprised when people call Bill O'Reilly a conservative. He's not, and he's the first to admit it. O'Reilly favors gun control, civil unions, not only for homosexuals but for anyone who doesn't want to get married, he is against the death penalty, and he supports many positions held by liberal environmentalists.

Tammy Bruce is a a pro-abortion, lesbian, feminist and former president of the Los Angeles chapter of N.O.W. who currently holds some conservative views. Sometimes she says things that make me want to like her, but I can't get past her pro-abortion and pro-homosexuality stance.

Tammy Bruce does reveal valuable information about how well-financed, small groups of liberals use the media to destroy people in this clip:

Any thoughts?

Dismissed Apparition.

Have any of you heard of this?

_________________________________________________________________

LONDON-APPARITION Sep-24-2007 (540 words) xxxi

Vatican dismisses English woman's claims of Marian apparitions.

By Simon Caldwell

Catholic News Service

LONDON (CNS) -- The Vatican has dismissed the claims of a woman in England who says Mary has visited her outside her home for more than 20 years.

Ruling that her claims are "highly questionable," the Vatican also has refused to approve the statutes of the community she founded.

Patricia De Menezes said the apparition has been appearing to her beneath a pine tree at her home in Surbiton, a London suburb, since 1984. She claimed she has received a divine message that the Catholic Church must proclaim aborted babies to be martyrs.

She also founded the Community of Divine Innocence, which has about 3,000 members in 43 countries, many coming from the pro-life movement. Community members "strive for holiness and innocence within God's own family," according to the community's Web site.

Archbishop Angelo Amato, secretary of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, announced the decision in a letter to Archbishop Kevin McDonald of Southwark, the archdiocese in which De Menezes lives. The letter from Archbishop Amato was dated July 16; it was released by the Southwark Archdiocese Sept. 21.

Archbishop Amato said the doctrinal congregation found De Menezes' claims to be exaggerated and hysterical. He said inappropriate words and phrases were attributed to Jesus, problematic demands were made over the status of aborted children, and "unusually violent and threatening language" was used in attacks on church authorities.

"Given the supposed revelations which ground the spirituality of the Community of Divine Innocence are highly questionable, it follows that the community's spirituality is flawed at its root," said Archbishop Amato.

"Because this spirituality thoroughly animates the community's proposed constitution, it cannot be approved," he said.

The archbishop specifically took issue with the message that De Menezes claims to have received about the "martyrdom of all the innocent children deliberately killed before birth."

"A martyr is someone who bears witness to Christ," he said. "If the victims of abortion were to qualify for martyrdom, it would then seem that all victims of any moral evil should be likewise deemed martyrs."

Archbishop McDonald said in a Sept. 21 statement that the ruling meant there is "no ecclesiastical approbation for Catholics to meet as the group known as Divine Innocence."

"I am aware that many devout people, deeply committed to the pro-life movement, have become involved with the Divine Innocence," he said. "I wish to encourage them in their work and prayer, but in view of the observations of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, this must no longer be in the context of the organization or spirituality of the Divine Innocence."

De Menezes, 67, a freelance jewelry designer, declined to comment on the Vatican ruling.

She has said that her supernatural experiences began when she heard the words "I am the bread of life" while cycling near her home. She said she later saw visions of Mary, Jesus and St. Joseph in her garden and was catechized by them.

She claims that Mary continues to appear to her on a daily basis.

Following the Archdiocese of Southwark's examination and rejection of her claims in 2001, De Menezes sought Vatican approval of the community's statutes.

END

Have any of you heard of this?

Fresno Connection?

Imagine my surprise as I read my Fresno Bee this morning to see a story related to the continuing saga of Bishop Brown.

______________________________________

Protesters confront Fresno Diocese officials

Three seek to raise awareness of sex abuse by priests.

By Vanessa Colón / The Fresno Bee

09/25/07 04:09:18

Three protesters who demanded full disclosure of a sexual abuse complaint from the Diocese of Fresno were confronted Monday by diocese school officials who accused them of trespassing.

The exchange occurred as two San Diego men and a Newport Beach woman campaigned on a public sidewalk outside the diocese offices to raise awareness about sexually abused Catholics. The three, who represent the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests, were themselves abused by clergy or parochial schoolteachers.

The three said Bishop John Steinbock failed to appropriately address a complaint of sexual abuse made against Bishop Tod Brown. Brown, who once worked for the Fresno Diocese in Bakersfield, was accused in 1997 of molesting a boy in the 1960s. He is now the bishop of the Diocese of Orange.

"This is where the ball was dropped ... We want complete disclosure. We want all the files released and the allegations made public," said Joelle Casteix of Newport Beach, a regional director of Survivors Network.

The Fresno Diocese said earlier this month it received a letter in 1997 "alleging sexual misconduct" by Brown more than 40 years ago in Bakersfield.

"Bishop Steinbock promptly initiated an investigation into the allegations," diocese spokesman the Rev. Jesse Avila said in a statement dated Sept. 13.

Avila said a diocese board found that there "was absolutely no factual or credible basis whatsoever to believe that the priest named in the allegations committed any misconduct."

The protesters, who had been standing in front of San Joaquin Memorial High School, crossed the street after they were told to get off the public sidewalk. School officials also called police, who then questioned the three. They were not arrested.

At one point, Marcus Rodriguez, Memorial's dean of students, asked the three why they are "crying about it" now.

Rodriguez said he felt provoked when one of the protesters asked how he would feel if one of his children had been sexually abused by a priest. He said he wasn't trying to be sarcastic but was upset by the question.

"If I said something to offend him, I definitely apologize," he said.

But the protesters said they were appalled by his comments.

"That's what you call revictimizing a victim," said Paul Livingston, 42, of San Diego

Bishop Tod Brown Says He And Father Michael McKiernan Were "Together" For Seven Years + More On Urell's Trip To Canada

Bishop Tod Brown's deposition is an eye-opening read. The section below caught my attention. It's about Bishop Brown's former secretary, Father Michael McKiernan. Brown and McKiernan lived together at Brown's renovated home on Darmel Place in Santa Ana.

According to the public records, Tod Brown purchased this property back in August of 1998 for $388,000 – all cash. The additions and the whole remodeling that county records indicate Brown made to the property since the purchase indicate that he could have easily sold this property for at least $1,500,000. That is a profit of $1,112,000.

I believe Brown did sell Darmel Place, though he may not have made as much money on the sale.

The following section of Bishop Tod Brown's deposition is taken from the bottom of page 140 and continues until the top of page 142:

Question: And how about [name redacted]. Which of the two committees was he on?

Bishop Brown: [Name redacted] was on that same committee. I believe that’s correct.

Question: And why did he resign?

Bishop Brown: My recollection is when he came to see me, that he felt being on the committee was a great emotional strain for him, that he was -- it just making everything -- it was making him relive his whole -- make him relive his abuse experience.

Question: Did he ever tell you that one of the reasons he was resigning is because Monsignor McKiernan would show -- or Father Mckiernan would show at the meetings drunk?

Bishop Brown: No, he did not.

Question: Your sworn testimony is that never occurred?

Bishop Brown: He never told me that, and I was not aware of that.

Question: I don’t mean whether or not Monsignor McKiernan was drunk. I mean -- is it Father or Monsignor, Bishop?

Bishop Brown: Father. Father. Father.

Question: Okay. My question, and I apologize because it was confusing. My question -- I want to be very clear about this. Did Mr. [name redacted] ever tell you that he felt that Monsignor -- sorry -- that Father McKiernan was coming to the sexual review meetings in a -- in an intoxicated state?

Bishop Brown: I don’t recall that.

Question: Does that mean it didn’t happen or you just forgot?

Bishop Brown: I don’t -- I don’t think it happened.

Question: Was Father McKiernan living with you at that time?

Bishop Brown: Yes, he was.

Question: Did you ever discuss the sexual abuse cases with him?

Bishop Brown: Yes, we did discuss them sometimes.

Question: And do you recall anything you said?

Bishop Brown: No, I do not.

Question: How long did you live with Father McKiernan?

Bishop Brown: We were together about -- about roughly seven years.

Together? I've had roommates before, and I have one now. I've never described sharing a house or an apartment with a roommate as being "together" with anyone.

Why would Bishop Brown set himself up by saying something like that? What was he thinking?

Bonus: More On Urell's Trip To Canada

More videos after the jump...