As usual you can't take a joke. Why don't you post the whole response? To quote Frank -"Coward".

omg.

Wow.

It is all about the money. What a...I can't say it on a family blog.

Doesn't sound like a joke to me. Sounds like a moment of candor from a cocky lawyer.

Mexico Joe: I'm so sorry you were abused as a child. But two wrongs don't make a right. You clearly need therapy. Surely, you received enough in your settlement to do that. I was abused as a child and raped when I was 19 (real rape, where I feared for my life, not an affair with a teacher), but there are no deep pockets to go to for legal or financial justice. I have had to deal with it alone. Forgiving people who have wronged you is extremely difficult, and it may take you a lifetime, but hanging on to the anger will only destroy you. Just do the best you can. God doesn't expect perfection he knows what you have been through and he understands. A very wise man told me that, his name was John Urell.

Full disclosure - I bought John Manly's Newport Beach home earlier this year, though I never met him in the process. All I know is that several very conservative, very honorable, people I know who know John all swear he is a good person. I find the very thing he does for a living somewhat repugnant, but this situation with Urell has got to be evaluated on merits alone, and not the people involved that we like or dislike (Urell or Manly). It does not appear either side is doing a good enough job of that.

"Frank", huh? Good to know Mickadeit is Manly's buddy. Frank wouldn't want to turn on his source. Neither would Arellano or Greenhut.

Media bums: Who need sources when the sordid truth are all in the actions of Brown and Urell? Last I saw, it wasn't Manly's handwriting telling a sex abuse victim he reported a molester to Child Protective Services yet not really doing it and allowing the perp to remain in county parishes.

Where did you get the docs? Or the screenshot? Santa Claus?

You need Manly.

Thank God there are "media" types like Gustavo willing to risk the wrath of untold thousands of rabid Catholics in order to get the truth out on these shameless priests! Eres muy valiente Gustavo and this Gringo is glad that "Ask a Mexican" humor is not all you know how to write!

Love the evasion on your part, Media bums. As for me: The documents I used for the story were released en masse by the Orange diocese to the press in 2005, at a press conference in downtown Los Angeles (you know, that whole transparency thing). The lawyer who was passing out excerpts to interested parties was Ray Boucher, not Manly. You can also find some of the documents on bishop-accountability.org, a public repository of the Church's documents regarding sex-abuse cases across the country. And there's always something called digging--it's fun!

As for the screen shot: it's public record, amigo, just like the print version of the deposition. It ain't that difficult to find.

great idea! everyone, let's Show our support for John!

Actually, "coward" must be attributed to the unwitting author of Mickadeit's column last week, Mary Matuzak, who rightly stated that Frank was the coward for hiding behind the flimsy veil of Manly and his Media Machine (sounds like the perfect title for a bad B horror flick...).

And Manly, regarding all of your witty repartee of late, keep in mind that pride goeth before the fall.

Wow, Jubal, you can't take a joke.

So, since it looks like we have to draw you a picture, let's look very closely at John Manly:

1) He was the first person who listened to - and believed - his more than 40 clients in Orange County who were sexually abused in the diocese. I don't recall the bishop, John Urell or anyone else telling victims, "I am so sorry that this happened to you. I am going to make sure that your perpetrator never hurts another child." Unless of course, they were busted in a lawsuit.

2) Manly fought long and hard to make sure that the more than 10,000 pages of documents in these cases were made public. Oh yeah - the documents that PROVED the claims in his cases. You remember: the documents that the diocese HID from you?

3) He is the only one who has given victims a sense of dignity... unlike you, Jubal, who chooses to take sad, abused kids - who were shunned, lied to, and vilified in their church - and relishes in pouring salt in their wounds. Shame on you.

4) If it were not for Manly and the work of his team (and the other lawyers in these cases), dozens and dozens of known and admitted child rapists would still be working in the local parishes. The bishop and his henchmen certainly were not going to do anything about it. They didn't care.

Hmmm, and let's look at the record of truth-telling and Christian values:

John Manly has never lied to the press.
The bishop has.

John Manly has never revictimized, minimized or marginalized a survivor.
The bishop has.

John Manly got perps out of the parished by shedding light on their crimes.
The bishop didn't.

John Manly told survivors he was sorry for their abuse and meant it - whether or not he took their cases or there was any benefit to him.
The bishop never did.

John Manly looked at me, Jane CR Doe, Jane SL Doe and the other two active cases in the diocese of Orange and saw that we were women who were strong, smart, and are a source of honor and pride for our families and our children.
The bishop treated us like garbage.

John Manly told us that we could drop our suits at any time without paying a dime. He also told us that there were no promises that our cases would ever end.
The bishop took our money and our families' money for years... And didn't care a lick for us.

And before anyone starts some other argument about money, let's get real here. I filed a lawsuit because the bishop, Maria Schinderle and John Urell were not telling me the truth. Period. There were never any promises of money. I just wanted my documents.

The wonderful women who have active cases now had no promise of money. In fact, Jane CR Doe has been forced to undergo 8 days of depositions. John Urell could barely handle one.

All we wanted was for our perpetrators to go to jail, for the truth to be told, and for other girls to be safe. And we had tried to work with the church. But no, they would not do the right thing.

The diocese made this about money.

Manly doesn't pretend to be a moral authority sitting over more than a million catholics in Orange County.

He doesn't take their money every Sunday and then lie to them and purposely subject their kids to sexual abuse.

Manly is not sitting on hundreds of millions of dollars of residential real estate, does not get chauffered around, nor does he have private meals made for him by five-star chefs - using the money he rakes in from poor, spanish-speaking immigrant families.

He doesn't cover up crimes that should have been handled by law enforcement by having his own lawyers say: she wanted it.

Oh wait, I forgot ... Manly also pays taxes.

Yes, Manly does get paid. But with a staff of more than 20 people working overtime to expose the crap that you have been reading about in the paper, at least he doesn't underpay his staff, cry poor, and then spend a million dollars in public relations.

And I wonder how many millions of dollars the diocese has spent on lawyers over the past 20 years trying to keep all of this quiet. Where is the money better spent?

The hubris here is not Manly's. I believe it resides at Marywood.

If you still want to defend the hierarchy, call my parents and have them explain the profound betrayal they feel because after accepting thousands of my parents' dollars, the diocese thought it was ok for me to be raped.

And if you don't want to do that, at least read the documents.

Don't let the bishop make you another one of his fools.

Yes, it's personal. Rape always is.

Ooof. Right in the solar plexus.

Joelle -- you have no clue. Your story changes with the wind. THe Bishop has not lied but he may not have given the answer you wanted. He has met many times iwth victims and apologized. They have tried to help you and others. John Manly is the scum of the earth and he's using you and others like you to enrich himself. I know people who knew you in high school -- you were a nobody then. Screwing around with your teacher was your claim to fame. Being a so called victims advocate gives you your only chance at relevance -- and you love the attention. Get a grip, real victims just want to heal and get on with their lives.

I'm back! I'm a little raw when it comes to the continued bad handling of the abuse of children by bishops and Cardinals PR firms and attorneys." Not "John Manly" I'm sick from the use of catholic people as pawns, which fear hell. The church using this fear as a gambit for the pr/spin doctors and attorneys the church hires to squash this issue. This is promoting division from catholic and church based on trust and fear.
The church stood for something one day and that meaning is being eroded by a few bad apples. The John Manly’s of the world are taking a stand for the righteousness people who were abused and tossed out with yesterdays trash, me being one of the many.
You don’t know John Manly’s financial situation when this began as I don’t know and can only guess. But I’ll bet he mortgaged all that he owned with his house to keep fighting in the beginning of this fight. I’ll bet he has paid a price none of you here are willing to pay for the truth. The truth is not good in this situation. It involves many people who have power. But the truth could set the Urells free from sin if the church and its attorneys had not slipped Urell away in the dark of the night. Urell would only tell the truth and was getting ready to do just that! Southdown here he comes. You can’t tell me the church is not trying to discredit his soon to come damaging testimony. Donkey shows teachers priests bishops and letting it happen over and over again again. Got to make you wonder what is really going on. I think John is paying his own price for the truth he seeks out of this messy child abuse situation. But he should not be turned out here as a money monster. He’s being paid like the true Executive he has become. The church could have ended this long ago! Honesty from a faith based institution’s not a big step. But it is if the guys running it have a secret and are willing to pay lay Catholics money to keep it! Joking about this is the best therapy I’ve had in a looooooooooooooog time. If anyone has the ability to say John is being paid too much that would be me as he got 40 percent from me! HE EARNED EVERY LAST PENNY YOU DON’T KNOW HOW MUCH YOU HAVE TO DEAL WIITH FROM ABUSE VICTIMS you’re trying to burn the wrong guy at the stake here. Try Brown, Brom, Mahoney, Egan and many more.

Ok, Joelle, I've calmed down. I was harsh and I apologize. But here's what I believe a lot of us think about the situation today. Even if all the things you say were true, it happened a long time ago. None of it occured while Bishop Brown was in office. Most of the cases have been settled. It's time for everyone to move on. The case before the judge right now has little to do with Msgr. Urell. He didn't handle cases except those dealing with priests. Manly stipulated that he would not need any more testimony from Urell. It was only after Urell went to the treatment center that Manly decided he needed more depositions. Second, Manly and others keep refering to things said in the DiMaria and other cases as if this were new information. Ryan DiMaria and all the other cases have been settled. This case and any future case needs to be tried on its own merits. Manly and Snap keep accusing the Bishop of misdeeds that his predecessors did (or didn't do) and that are already well known, that he has apologized profusely for and paid dearly for in both cash and personal grief. When is enough enough? When can you accept his apology? When can you accept our collective apology? The real abusers, Lenihan, Harris, and the others are the ones who did this to the victims AND to the church. Venting your anger at the Diocese rather than the perpertrators looks to us like your in it for the money. It's not like the perpetrators went to the diocese and told them in advance what they were going to do. They lied to their collegues, friends and parishes and caused catastrophic damage all the way around. You aren't the only ones damaged by these evil people who used the good name of the church to hide their sick behavior. The fact that they didn't recognize it or act quickly and decisively enough is a mistake that will haunt them, including Urell, for the rest of their lives. They are suffering because of what happened to the victims and they are harsher on themselves than you are. There isn't a person in the church today who doesn't feel tremendous remorse and disgust over the things that happened. But there comes a time when you have to move on. As a church, we accept that we have made huge mistakes, and we appologize. The diocese has made a radical shift in how it does business. They have added a number of programs to protect children and adolescents. I belive a catholic church and school is absolutely the safest place for a child or adolescent now. The Diocese now gets criticized for being too strict. It appears that the they are damed if they do damed if they don't. Anyway, this is a long winded way of saying, it would be healthier for you and everyone if you could have the generosity of heart to forgive us and stop rehashing the past. What's done is done and can't be undone. The important thing now is how we all go forward and how these things are handled in the future. No one can say there will never be a problem again, unless we become mind readers, but everyone has learned a painful lesson and I believe that the mindset has changed. Those who came forward caused the church to change in ways that go well beyond how abuse cases are handled. I belive they have caused a shift in how the church will function and opened up the leadership to greater participation by the laity. I hope you and your collegues could get to a point where you can accept that you have been heard, loud and clear; accept that we are sorry and finally accept our apology. My fear is, that as long as Manly thinks there is another buck in this for him he will continue to fuel the anger and hurt of the victims for his own financial benefit. And no one will ever heal.

Lord Knows:
I have had to forgive. But remember, forgiveness is the gift I give myself. The gift I give to the church is vigilance.

If you are a victim, I am truly sorry. If you are not, I suggest you speak, in person, to some of us. My anger, like that of Jesus, is righteous. The victims that I speak to and work with every day are young (in their 20s) ... things have not changed.

Before you make statements about how "true victims" should be healing, I invite you to come to a snap meeting and hear our stories. Or you can arrange to hear my story or the stories of Manly's current clients ... in person.

Again, this is nothing about financial benefit. Had Tod Brown ... yes, Tod Brown ... and John Urell, and the past and current administrations of Mater Dei and Santa Margarita HS done the right thing, none of this would be going on right now.

My perp is still teaching. Had Mater Dei done the right thing when I told them about this in 1987, he would be a registered sex offender. And (at least) two other girls - who were my friends - would not have been abused.

I owe it to them, and to the minors that Tom Hodgman encounters every day, to keep fighting.

Here is the rub - I am not rehashing the past. My story and my case are done. The cases now are women in their 20s. Things have not changed.

And Manly did not fuel the anger of the women who came forward. The diocese did when they treated them so horribly. They came to Manly as a last resort. To protect themselves.

No one wants to sue their church. Our parents, our friends, our lives are still enmeshed in the faith. This is truly a last resort.

You should come in and review the files with Jubal. Watch the depos. Meet the victims. Until then, reserve your judgement.

Yes, much of the laity has heard us. But my fight is not with the laity ... in fact, I support the faithful who persevere in their devotion to their spirituality. My battle is with the hierarchy, who uses the laity to fuel continued cover-ups.

You should call Tod Brown's office and ask to meet with his lawyer Pete Callahan. Ask him to tell you about their strategy ... what they know ... how they are spending your money. Ask them why they won't name Mater Dei's perps (there are about 6 that they won't name). Ask them why they won't turn over John Lenihan's files to the courts in Los Angeles.

Ask them why they still have secret settlements with abuse victims. Recent abuse victims.

See what they say.

If you call Manly's office, he'll show you everything. And I'll walk you through it.

jc

p.s. By the way, I was actually a nice, middle-of-the-road kid in high school. I was not the homecoming queen, but I had a lot of great accomplishments (a 4.0, ASB commissioner, roles in plays, and lead in the senior musical being a few of them) and some wonderful friends with whom I am still close. You need to check your sources - feel free to borrow my yearbooks.

That is what makes is all the more tragic: I was the nice, naive, innocent kid. All I wanted to do was go to college. Being terrorized by a teacher was not on my list of goals.

Finally, my husband and son think that I am pretty relevant. And that is all that counts.

This post about "what Manly is all about" is not really about what Manly is all about. I think that this post really is an attempt to shift discussion and blame away from the real issues, i.e., - the Church and the unfortunate Msgr. Urell's inability to complete his deposition, over to a fairly contrived stereotyping of Manly as a money-grubbing lawyer whose substantive message should be dismissed because he "only cares about the dough." It is a device often used in political campaigns to shift attention from a candidate's problems, over to some fault, including personal faults, of the contrarian messenger. It is also similar to the notion of "blaming the victim," especially here, because ultimately Manly represents victims.

What is John Manly all about? Well, I will take an honest stab at it. Manly earned a Doctor of Laws degree from Pepperdine University, and an undergraduate degree from USC, without a lot of outside financial assistance. He is a native Californian, serves as a officer in the Naval Reserve, is a lifelong Catholic, a graduate of local Catholic schools (I believe he himself went to Mater Dei) was a leader as a young man in Young Americans for Freedom, has been involved in the Orange County Republican Party, is happily married and faithful to his family, and he is a father.

He served as a young attorney working on the defense side of liability cases. As he grew in the legal profession, he started to take some plaintiffs cases, in some situations cases no other lawyers would touch because they didn't think they would get paid anything or thought the defendants too powerful or controversial. And by the time the abuse scandal took on national ramifications, Manly was thus already skilled and had worked on some of the earliest cases of child abuse by Catholic priests.

The legal profession is of course highly derided, and often unfairly so, but the fact is knowledge and time are the tools of an attorney's trade. Manly is gifted at what he does, and his integrity and passion as a Catholic, a conservative, and a fighter for justice have served his clients -- the victims -- well in redressing the horrors committed by errant priests -- horrors that some believe would not have been otherwise addressed.

So, I think it most accurate to say that in summing up what John is really about, which is the intent of this post, that John is really not all about money, despite the insinuation of the poster. Even John's comment here was parsed and incomplete. To completely dismiss John by summing he is all about money is an inaccurate picture, just as it would be inaccurate to say that Jubal is all about money because he sells ads on OC Blog. There is more to Jubal, and more to Manly, than money, and it is very unfair to feed a negative stereotype about John when the real issue at hand is when John Urell will be completing his deposition -- the one he walked out on, and which a Judge has ordered him to complete under threat of contempt.

Joelle:

No one is judging the victims of sexual abuse, whether at the hands of clergy or lay people. It is heart-breaking what happened to you and others.

But this trial is about what Jeff Andrade's relationship with Jane Doe. It was wrong. It was against the law. I have a hard time understanding how it could have gone on for two years without the school or her parents having some inkling of what was going on and acting to stop it -- let alone Jeff Andrade acting like an adolescent rather than the thirtysomething adult (at least, chronologically) that was was.

But Msgr. Urell has little if anything to do with this case. And Jon Manly, with the willing aid of the local media, is attempting to make Msgr. Urell the focus of this case. Why is that? No one allied with Manly seems to want to answer that question other than making the hard-to-believe claim that his completed deposition is central to the Andrade case.

I get the distinct impression there is more interest in exacting vengeance by destroying Msgr. Urell as a person and as a priest, than in obtaining just compensation for Jane Doe.

Joelle,

I just read your earlier comment.

If that was a joke, I think it gets the the heart of what Manly is about. Your "Yes, Manly does get paid" is a bit of an understatement, don't you think.

It also points to where the money comes from -- from the laity. You say your fight isn't with the laity, but who do you think is ultimately going to pay for the huge punitive damages your hero is shooting for? It's disingenuous, at best, to make to claim your fight is only with the "hierarchy" when these damages aren't coming out of their pockets, but from faithful Catholics who love their Church instead of hating it because of the actions of a few bad priests. And out of the total number of priests and religious, we are talking about a very small percentage.

You also said this, Joelle:

3) He is the only one who has given victims a sense of dignity... unlike you, Jubal, who chooses to take sad, abused kids - who were shunned, lied to, and vilified in their church - and relishes in pouring salt in their wounds. Shame on you.

And just where have I done that, Joelle? Would you or Manly or someone please delineate exactly how Msgr. Urell's completed deposition is important to the Andrade case? I have yet to hear you or Manly or anyone answer that question. Instead, you change the subject.

I think the answer is you and Manly know it is peripheral to this case. But Manly and his allies keep the focus on Msgr. Urell as part of a trail-by-media campaign in order to ratchet up the pressure on the Diocese and extract the maximum dollars possible from the Diocese.

And in a moment of candor, Manly let it slip.

"Can't take a joke." Give me a break.

Lacy, you have got to be kidding me. Did you actually write that with a straight face?

You honestly think this issue is about Msgr. Urell not finishing his deposition? You do remember what this case is about, don't you? Jeff Andrade? the MD coach he has an 2-year affair with a student in the 1990s? Andrade was a layman, not a priest, and those case cases didn't go to Msgr. Urell -- do you remember that tidbit? And Andrade has admitted to it -- you remember that, as well, don't you?

I grant Manly is a master of media manipulation -- and apparently of non-media, as well. He's litigating against the Diocese on a case involving sex between coach and a student, and somehow he has the media, you and others talking as if Msgr. Urell were the culprit.

And Jim, I did not insinuate anything. I quote your friend precisely. I linked back to the entire comment itself.

To completely dismiss John by summing he is all about money is an inaccurate picture, just as it would be inaccurate to say that Jubal is all about money because he sells ads on OC Blog.

Yeah, Jim -- that would be an inaccurate thing to say about me. For one thing, I don't get blogad revenue anymore. Secondly, even when I was selling blogads myself, it was to partially offset the opportunity-cost running this blog -- and I never stood to make millions by doing so.

Ooof. Right in the solar plexus.

RP, you have got to be kidding. I thought you had a logical mind.

My logical thought processes may have been dulled lately butting heads with the Knights of Columbus debate squad.

Joelle said:

"unlike you, Jubal, who chooses to take sad, abused kids - who were shunned, lied to, and vilified in their church - and relishes in pouring salt in their wounds. Shame on you."

This was an unfair statement.

However Jubal, I note that you consistently refer to the Andrade thing as a "relationship" and an "affair." Sex with an underage minor used to be a felony. Maybe it still is. I expect this kind of lingo from the defense attorney, but not from you.

Jubal,

Save it for the books of supporting the wrong side. I don't know if your head was stuck in the sand somewhere for a few thousand years. But this is 2007 with the internet and a media that is not willing to stand by and let girls get raped and then justify the actions as you are trying to do here. No reasonable excuse can ever be given for abuse like this under Brown and Urell! Why is it that a girl can sit in 8 depo's and Urell can't do one. I’ll tell you! He was going to spill the beans and all of them! He was going to be honest and the church attorneys could not have that! Southdown here I come! Right back were he started from! Out

I haver also pointed out it is was wrong and against the law. Maybe you missed that.

But at least the conversation has turned to the case in question: Jeff Andrade. He was the abuser, and yet I hardly hear a word about him.

and the lord sayith "and no beans shall be spilled.

Andrade was the bad apple that fell from the cart, and the cart is full of unspilled beans. And if said beans are spilled. What is it that you are most afraid of being revealed? Will it be to big a mess to clean up, or a chance to start with a cart that holds less of a secret burden.

Who knows, maybe Urell could end up the Bishop out of all of this. And everyone can live happily ever after.

"I haver also pointed out it is was wrong and against the law. Maybe you missed that."

No, I caught that. But "affair"? Sounds like something that happened between two consenting adults.

the real issue at hand is when John Urell will be completing his deposition -- the one he walked out on, and which a Judge has ordered him to complete under threat of contempt

Not quite. As I've pointed out, Msgr. Urell's deposition can just as easily be taken in Canada as it can be in Orange County. All it will take is the price of an airline ticket. And perhaps a hotel room for a few nights.

From his own website:
Recently, John and his team represented 23 clients in the 2005 $100 million settlement against the Diocese of Orange for the sexual abuse of children.

Even after expenses, 40% of $100 million dollars leaves Mr. Manly with sufficient resources to accomplish a deposition in Canada.

And back to the real issue - what exactly is the relevance of the Msgr.'s deposition beyond a fishing expedition? Answer that one or don't bother answering at all.

Not quite Sean. What you said was that Manly could try to get a the depo completed by moving for sanctions against Urell's employer - the Diocese.

Except for the delays incurred by that motion, plus the plane rides and the hotel stays for everybody involved, I guess it would be just as easy taking the balance of the depo in Canada.

Whether or not the Urell depo is relevant is up to a judge to decide - I'm not a lawyer, or a judge (or psychiatrist, or mindreader).

Sean, I'm sure Manly would, except that Urell isn't accepting any visitors at this fragile point of his recovery, let alone a team of lawyers and stenographers and videographers etc..

I'm sure that anything that intense would only be a setback and not in the best interest of their patient, and would not be allowed by the CEO of Southdown. He is an "inpatient" meaning his doctor's decide who he comes in contact with, not the lawyers. His well being comes first over any pending court case.

I suggest you put Urell on your prayer list that he might make a full recovery and able to participate fully in the future.. maybe when all of this is over.

Msgr. Urell is in my prayers that he makes a full recovery. I miss my pastor. My family could have used his love and support recently, but have had to get by as best we could in trying times without it. Thankfully Msgr. Urell has developed a wonderful parish life full of extraordinary people who have been able in some measure to fill the void left by his absence.

As for not accepting visitors, that's really not an excuse. Here's how it works: Mr. Manly stated he has made a motion to compel Msgr. Urell's deposition, which was granted. Now all he needs to do is go forward with the deposition, after properly renoticing the date pursuant to the court's order of course. If the Diocese does not produce Msgr. Urell for the deposition, then Mr. Manly simply makes a record of non-appearance, certified by the reporter, and proceeds with sanctions.

Of course, if it is doctors' orders that are preventing the deposition at this time, it might be difficult to obtain sanctions.

Bottom line: nobody has said why Msgr. Urell, who was not involved in investigating non-clergy, is even necessary to this case. And no, redperegrine, I'm not asking you. You don't know, so stay out of it.

What we know so far is this:

Mr. Manly stated that he did not need to complete Msgr. Urell's deposition. (at least, I have not seen this denied by Mr. Manly anywhere, as I'm fairly certain he would have done if he never made such a statement);

Several weeks after Msgr. Urell's depo was called off, he went to Southdown;

Only after Msgr. Urell left did his deposition suddenly become the crux of a case in which the attacker admitted guilt;

There is only one good reason for pursuing the deposition of the person in charge of investigating abuse committed by non-clergy, to obtain the necessary evidence for punitive damages. Performing discovery into knowledge and/or acts that qualify for punitive damages is standard. What makes this situation different is the disconnect between Msgr. Urell's duties and the abuse in this case. Msgr. did not investigate the type of claim at issue in the instant litigation.

The abuse that occurred in the Catholic Church is vile. The subsequent cover-up by those in positions of authority is beyond the pale. I am disgusted by the breach of faith committed by people who we should have been able to trust, as is every Catholic with whom I have ever discussed this issue. I want priests who committed these atrocities defrocked and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law - shortage of vocations be damned. Thank God for the trial attorneys brave enough to pull back the curtain on this horrible activity within the Church. That took courage, especially given the number of faithful and loyal Catholics they were certainly going to shock and offend with their initial accusations. A great Evil was exposed within the Church. An Evil that cannot withstand the light of day. With the cloak of secrecy removed, that Evil will wither and die. With continued faith in God, and the Church He founded, both the Church and her people will flourish again.

The Church is also filled with wonderful priests, religious, and laity who dedicate their lives to God, bringing His Gospel to everyone, and helping those in need - physical or spiritual. While the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit it is, unfortunately, administered day-to-day by mere mortals subject to all the shortcomings found in everyone. The abuse that has been perpetrated on the victims has also been indirectly perpetrated on the good and faithful priests, religious, and laity who comprise the Church.

What really bothers me is the broad brush used to paint the Church. Yes, bad acts have been performed. No, not everything that happens in the Church is nefarious. As parishioners at St. Norbert, my wife and I witnessed the steady decline of Msgr. Urell in the weeks before his trip to Southdown. You can rest assured that he is in our prayers, as is every victim of abuse.

It is disturbing to see the venomous joy with which people hurl accusations at the Church. While it may seem that those of us standing up for Msgr. Urell are anti-victim, we are not. We just understand that the Church is not evil, evil was perpetrated by a few within the Church.

What is worse is how Msgr. Urell is being portrayed in the media. This appears in large part to be the fault of Mr. Manly, who began this whole fiasco with the statement that Msgr. Urell's deposition was not necessary (please Mr. Manly, correct me if you did not make such a statement). Given such a statement by Mr. Manly, why shouldn't Msgr. Urell be allowed to seek treatment at Southdown?

Frankly, what upsets me most about this situation is what appears to be nothing more than gamesmanship playing itself out not only in the courtroom, but the media. Unless the statement that Msgr. Urell's deposition does not need to be concluded is repudiated, and the alleged pressing need for this deposition is explained, the castigation of Msgr. Urell, and the Disocese for allowing him to seek treatment, occurring in the press must stop immediately. Absent such explanations, or the cessation of the media circus, criticisms of Mr. Manly and what appear to be his highly questionable (to put it mildly, and politely) tactics will continue to abound.

One last thought on the topic. Those of you who are rising up with torches and pitchforks against Msgr. Urell should hold off judging him until you have walked in his shoes. Dedicate your life to something, then discover your colleagues - and perhaps your friends - are using the thing to which you have dedicated your life for evil. On top of that shock, horror, and pain, now conduct investigations of those colleagues and explore the depths of their sinister acts. If that isn't enough to cause you great mental, emotional, and spiritual pain then you should ask your alien masters to reprogram you with human emotions.

Urell didn't just "investigate." Apparently he also hid the truth from the authorities (you're a lawyer, right? Isn't that some kind of a crime - aiding and abetting, conspiracy, obstruction of justice, something?)and played pass the ped with the bad eggs.

Some people might find his current residence among priestly pedophiles to be nothing but divine (or maybe cosmic)justice.

Not me. I'm just waiting to hear a believable reason for the Canadian junket. You want me to "stay out of it"? Then ask Jubal to stop posting on the subject.

You're free to spew your views, they just add nothing to the conversation. You said yourself Whether or not the Urell depo is relevant is up to a judge to decide - I'm not a lawyer, or a judge (or psychiatrist, or mindreader).

Since you can't add anything to the discussion of just why Mr. Manly is beating the drums for Msgr. Urell's deposition, after stating that he didn't need the deposition, all you do is create noise. But hey, that's what the Constitution guarantees so have at it if you must.

Apparently he also ... another pillar of our legal system is "innocent until proven guilty". I refer you to your first quote.

I'm just waiting to hear a believable reason for the Canadian junket.

You've been given a very good reason for Msgr. Urell's trip to Southdown. Whether you choose to accept it or not is your prerogative. Me? I'm just waiting for a plausible explanation of why Mr. Manly is creating/allowing/exploiting media hype of Msgr.'s visit to Southdown after saying he doesn't need the deposition. I note, again, that nobody is denying Mr. Manly made that statement.

I'm not "spewing" anything. I'm just curious how he got away from fininshing his depo and when he's going to finish; and no, the explanation from Urell's lawyer is not particularly credible to me - but of course I'm not a part of the Diocesan Noise Machine.

I don't know why Manly wanted to depose Urell. But he did. It's Urell's responsibility to show up.

BTW, I used the word "apparently" because I haven't seen the corroborating documents - but they have been seen and reported on by Arellano - who has yet to be sued by the Diocese for libel. So I'm pretty confident in their veracity. If they are true then... aw, forget it.

According to Gustavo Arellano a September deposition of former Bishop McFarland produced a surprise - his policy document from 1994:

"Any person who believes that he or she (or one's child) is or has been a victim of sexual misconduct by any member of the clergy or other employee of the Diocese of Orange should immediately report the allegation to the Diocese. Generally the person to contact is the Chancellor at the Diocesan Office in Marywood Center. The Chancellor will make appropriate arrangements with the party either in person or by telephone to enable the commencement of a factual investigation."

The Chancellor at the time of the Andrade crime was Urell. This seems to make him a relevant witness.

Gustavo is hardly a credible source.(I know, I've asked a Mexican). I have read some of the depositions available to the public such as bishop brown's which was online at the Register. I find that the media hype is vastly different from what is actually in the depositions. It is easy to take a small snippet from a deposition and, out of context, imply something that in reality it doesn't say. As to the diocese "noise" machine -- the diocese isn't booking themselves on every radio and tv show that will have them. I laugh when Manly continues to quote the OC weekly as if it were a real newspaper. He's got the media all riled up but I would not confuse the diocese' silence with acceptance.

Gustavo is a lot more credible than the Diocese. I don't think he's making this stuff up. Why would he risk a defamation suit, especially when all the records come from the Diocese itself.

The latest dope comes from Bishop McFarland himself.

As to what is a "real newspaper" - I find that the Weekly is more credible than the MSM who won't touch anything controversial with a ten-foot pole.

Gustavo makes it up regularly, or forgets those details that don't conform to his thesis