Roman Catholic Blog

Shocker: Bishop Tod Brown's Lawyer Is Defending Sending Msgr. Urell To Canada

I'm Looking Through You by The Beatles

Here's the entire story from the excellent, California Catholic Daily:

Bishop Tod Brown is “very respectful of the law, but he follows his own conscience… and he’s going to do what he believes is right and not what is popular or which may get him off a hot spot,” explained Diocese of Orange litigation counsel Peter M. Callahan in the November Orange County Catholic, the diocesan newspaper.

Callahan was referring to Brown’s decision to send former diocesan chancellor Msgr. John Urell for treatment in Canada at a time when, according to plaintiffs’ lawyers, Urell could have given important testimony in a sexual abuse case against the diocese.

Last July, Urell was deposed in a civil case involving allegations of sexual abuse by a former Mater Dei High School assistant coach. Disturbed by questions about his handling of sex-abuse complaints as chancellor, Urell walked out of his unfinished deposition, crying. Urell then checked into the Southdown Institute near Toronto, Canada.

As chancellor, Urell took part in processing sexual abuse claims against clergy -- a task to which he responded “with compassion, sensitivity, and appropriate action,” said Callahan. Urell, however, “had no legitimate involvement” in the Mater Dei case at all. In fact, said Callahan, as chancellor, Urell “had very little involvement in claims of wrongdoing involving lay personnel.”

When Urell became “distraught” during his deposition, “it was clear both to all of the lawyers involved and the retired judge who was sitting as a referee that he really had little practical knowledge about the facts in that case and was emotionally unable to continue,” explained Callahan in the newspaper article.

Everyone, including plaintiff’s lawyers, agreed that the July deposition need not continue, said Callahan. They would rely instead on what Urell had said thus far and on four days of deposition had given in an earlier lawsuit, he told the diocesan paper.

Urell’s doctor informed Bishop Brown that the monsignor needed immediate evaluation of his emotional condition, said Callahan. Brown sent Urell to Southdown, which is “one of the foremost facilities in all of North America that specializes in evaluating and treating clergy -- and, most importantly, it had an immediate opening,” Callahan told Orange County Catholic. “It was only when the plaintiff’s lawyer learned that Monsignor Urell had gone to Canada for treatment that the priest suddenly became ‘a critical witness.’”

Callahan denied claims of the plaintiff’s lawyer that Brown sent Urell to Canada to prevent him from testifying. The contempt of court charge subsequently leveled against Brown, said Callahan, is “’quasi criminal,’ meaning that the punishment, should the judge choose to impose one, could include five days in jail or up to a $1,000 fine, or some other consequence.”

As for the lawsuit, and three others involving non-clergy that have been settled for $6.885 million, school and diocesan officials followed all appropriate procedures in reporting them, according to Callahan. Brown decided to settle the cases in consideration of “the personal emotional impact on parties and the witnesses as well as the financial cost of protracted litigation.” He also looked to “the significant amount of erroneous and adverse press coverage that we had received, and the disruption the trial would have caused the high school,” Callahan told the newspaper.

Here's the source: “A critical witness” – Orange diocese’s lawyer defends bishop’s decision to send former chancellor to Canada in midst of sex-abuse depositions

Be sure to check out Gustavo Arellano's informative reportage on the Sex Abuse Scandals in the Diocese of Orange and the way they've been managed by Bishop Tod Brown here: Ex Cathedra Archives [Note: Sometimes Gustavo's reporting includes "colorful" language, but he does frequently report facts before other news sources, and although he's clearly critical of Bishop Tod Brown, his reporting is fair in that he's accurate.]

Any thoughts?

Did Msgr. John Urell Lie During His Deposition?

From Gustavo Arellano: Did John Urell Lie During His Deposition?

Here's a section from the article:

Supporters of Monsignor John Urell, the former chancellor for the Catholic Diocese of Orange who is currently in some Canadian psychological treatment center to treat his anxiety after failing to finish a deposition, argue that their man is being unfairly hounded by lawyers and the press, that his testimony has no bearing on the Jeff Andrade trial for which he's now being subpoenaed. They base their claims on Urell's half-finished July deposition, in which the monsignor testified he was not in charge of receiving allegations of sexual misconduct for diocesan lay people — only clergy.

But Urell's assertions contradict the words of his former boss, retired Bishop Norman McFarland. In an Sept. 8 depo for the Andrade case, McFarland had the following exchange with Newport Beach lawyer John Manly (after 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...

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.