Bear with us, gentle readers--this is a long post...
Though the Weekly anointed Orange Juice as the county's best blog, even the Juicers would admit that the king of the county blogosphere is OC Blog, started and administrated by Jubal, the nom de plume of political consultant and longtime local Republican activist Matt Cunningham. Its politics are unapologetically center-right--it says so on the banner. But we had no idea that OC Blog would also evolve into a mouthpiece for the pedo-priest protectors over at the Catholic Diocese of Orange.
Yet that's what has happened over the past month, shortly after the news came out that Monsignor John Urell had sought psychological treatment in Canada to treat his anxiety after failing to finish a deposition in one of the Church's many sex-abuse civil lawsuits. Cunningham has strayed from his usual daily news roundups, weekly Raymond Chandler quotes, and regular Diane Harkey apologias to slam media coverage of Urell and trash John Manly, the Newport Beach attorney who has spent the past couple of years suing the Orange diocese over sex abuse in its parishes and schools.
The personal is definitely political for Jubal, a parishioner at St. Norbert's in Orange, where Urell serves as pastor. Unfortunately, it has also clouded Cunningham's judgment to the point of parody.
Take, for instance, this long post regarding my Urell cover story and the recent coverage by Orange County Register columnist Frank Mickadeit. Cunningham calls the coverage "gratuitous and self-serving" and complains that that the cases I mentioned in which Urell helped out pedo-priests "have been well-reported on" and "are already known" and thus besides the point since the current case Manly is pursuing is against former Mater Dei boys' basketball coach/statutory rapist Jeff Andrade. He also insists the media isn't paying attention to Andrade since going after Urell "make for 'better' stories" and "opens the door to writing about multiple cases of abuses and their victims, and to attack the Catholic Church without fear of blow-back."
A couple of points:
*Cunningham acts amazed that reporters have concentrated on Urell. Spare us the wide-eyed innocent act, Matt. When the former point man for sex abuse in a Catholic diocese breaks down during a deposition for a trial and leaves for a foreign country to seek treatment, that's news. When his attorney admits the point man is seeking treatment for "an acute anxiety disorder caused by the strain of his prior responsibility for responding to complaints of sexual abuse by others," that's news. Readers and any curious person want to know what could possibly have caused such a dramatic exit, especially given that Urell isn't directly involved in the Andrade trial--thus, the coverage.
*Urell's involvement in the Orange diocese sex-abuse scandal is not "well-reported." Media accounts of Urell's direct involvement previous to 2005 focused on three cases, those of Lori Haigh, Ryan DiMaria (who now works as an attorney in Manly's firm), and Richard Coughlin. In the first two, Urell investigated allegations of abuse; in Coughlin's case, Urell told the media that the Orange diocese never received a letter from his former diocese warning of sexual misconduct. In 2005, after Bishop Brown released thousands of pages of personnel files revealing diocesan complicity in protecting pedo-priests, the Register, Los Angeles Times and Associated Press implicated Urell as part of the cover-up, each citing his involvement with Andrew Christian Andersen and Michael Pecharich. Being that Urell was in charge of investigating sex abuse allegations from 1988 to 2002, a time when he admits the Orange diocese received at least 25 complaints of sexual abuse involving clerygmen, the lack of coverage on Urell's role has been deafening. And point of order, Matt: no previous newspaper to my knowledge has written about Urell's role with Gary Pacheco and Eleuterio Ramos, nor did they mention Urell claims he contacted Child Protective Services after receiving a molestation confession from Pecharich. How is that "well-reported?"
And Urell's involvement in the sex-abuse scandal is definitely not "already known." The whole scope is found only in the personnel files Brown released with great fanfare in 2005, and the subsequent media coverage. The only problem is that those files aren't readily available to the public. In 2005, I asked Brown at a press conference if he would commit to making copies of the documents available to every Catholic parish in Orange County; Brown declined. As a result, the only non-diocesan people with ready access to the documents are the lawyers who represented sex-abuse victims for the 2005 $100 million settlement, reporters present at that press conference, and the secular saints at Bishop Accountability. I've been covering the Orange County Catholic sex-abuse scandal for almost four years, read through those documents dozens of times, and I'm still finding new information about Urell's role.
*At this point, Cunningham will no doubt say that I'm piling on Urell, especially since the case in question involves Andrade. See my first point in regards to coverage of Urell. As for Andrade, Cunningham insists the media isn't focusing as much attention on the statutory rapist as they are on Urell. "[Andrade] was the abuser, and yet I hardly hear a word about him," Cunningham wrote as a comment to his post.
Oh, Matt: you're revealing your ignorance of OC Weekly and favoring of the MSM! On my end alone, in the space of little more than a year, I've written two cover stories on the case (not including the Urell story), named him one of Orange County's Scariest People, and been breaking stories on Andrade and Andrade alone up to last week. That coverage loud enough for you, Matt?
*And, finally, Cunningham's ridiculous insinuation that reporters write about Urell and others as a way to "attack the Catholic Church without fear of blow-back. Church leaders are using that same strategy against Mickadeit and has used it against me, never mind that Mickadeit and I are cradle Catholics--I might no longer attend Mass, but that doesn't mean I've left the faith. And no fear of blow-back, Matt? Last I checked, the Weekly must adhere to libel laws. If we get our facts wrong, we can get in trouble. And even if we get the facts right, that hasn't stopped the Orange diocese from siccing a lawyer on me to send harassing cease-and-desist letters.
I feel for Cunningham. His beloved pastor is loco, and the truth is pouring out about Urell. "I fail to see how destroying Monsignor Urell as a man or a priest will heal anything or anyone, and I plan to stand up and support Monsignor Urell against efforts to destroy him," Cunningham writes. "I am open about my motivation. Perhaps others writing about this case could be about their own." Matt: the only person destroying Urell are the documents and deeds of his past ('member what his lawyer said?). As for my motivation? Telling my fellow Catholics what their church leaders have done to the lives of innocents. Redemption is for God to grant; humans must still face the laws of Caesar, laws that our church leaders have never faced and helped others evade. You can look it up.
October 1, 2007 17:08
Great post Gustavo; Matt posted something alluding to the possible sins of Msgr Urell and I still think the general public has no idea what those possible sins might be. Is Msgr Urell hidingsomething further or does he have orders he must follow that conflict with doling the right thing? I have no idea but it makes you wonder the source of the breakdown.
October 1, 2007 17:43
Speaking from personal experience, the Diocese of Orange supports and continues business and employment practices that are in violation of free speech, press, opinion and multiple civil rights, both in and out of the employee/employer, student/parent relationships.
The Diocese of Orange will continue attempts to destroy the careers and earning potentials for ethical journalists and reporters who report facts as they are documented. The Diocese of Orange will destroy parents, teachers, students and family members if they dare to exercise a guaranteed freedom that all Americans enjoy. The Diocese of Orange influences Judges, attorneys, district attorneys and law enforcement officials and has for years -- all to protect the Diocese from public scandal and damages in a court of law. Think about how many children under the supervision of the Diocese were sexually abuse and how many of the sexual predator employees were actually prosecuted by the OC District Attorney.
Mr. Cumminghan's support of Mon. John Urell and the Diocese of Orange guarantees him life long employment in OC. If Cunningham continues to act as one of the Diocese of Orange media puppets, he stands to gain much in the future.
Sadly, Messrs. Mickadeit and Arellano will at some point suffer the wrath of the abuses of power from within the Diocese of Orange inner circles--this is a guarantee. However, it is obvious that Mickadeit and Arellano possess a true belief in the social justice teachings of not only the Catholic Church, but the core values of living in a decent and safe society, believing that children should be protected without compromises.
I pray for anyone with children attending any of the Catholic schools supervised by the Diocese of Orange who blogs or expresses opinion that do not praise and glorify the Diocese of Orange. I am not afraid to state that the Diocese of Orange supervisory employees and attorneys will destroy anyone who dares to get in their way of promoting a positive public image for the Diocese, this includes any type of exercise of free speech, press, opinion or filing a lawsuit seeking justice in a court of law. Written documentation is available upon request.
Bishop Brown will not STOP the illegal activities of his inner circle. Bishop Brown has refused to publicly issue a policy that would allow lay persons opportunities to report violations of the law committed by supervisory employees and attorneys for the Diocese, and continues to pay expensive attorneys with obvious conflicts of interest to represent the Diocese of Orange. The Diocese of Orange does not train its teachers and supervisory employees to maintain privacy rights of students and parents attending their schools and churches.
The OC District Attorney and OC Sheriff's Department will NOT investigate or prosecute acts of perjury, obstructions of justice or legal conflicts of interest committed in a court of law or deposition. Children and the rights of employees/mandated reporters are at risk on a daily basis and it is no secret that the Diocese attorneys also represent the OC Sheriff's Department, the agency investigating sex abuse crimes committed by Diocesan employees.
And, if one of the Catholic school principal has a son who threatens another Columbine HS shooting tragedy, anyone participating in the investigation or trial of the felony charges will be fired, punished or defamed. Coincidentally, any Judge assigned to hear criminal charges of a Diocesan employee or family member will find a way to dismiss all charges, without probation or sanctions, seal the criminal file of a non-minor, and then gather law enforcement support to ensure that no one dares find out what is in the sealed criminal file. Written documentation is available upon request.
The Diocese of Orange runs Orange County, California, with its multiple relationships with developers, Judges, attorneys and philanthropists. To those fearing economic losses, proceed with caution! For those caring more about the public's right to be informed and the protections of precious children, please value the courage and integrity of reporters informing the public with truths -- NOT self-serving, sugar-coated PR strategies currently in use by Mr. Cunningham.
October 1, 2007 18:54
I doubt very seriously that Mon. Urell reported sex abuse crimes committed by Michael Pecharich. THERE ARE NO CRIMINAL CHARGES filed against Pecharich in 2002 or ever. Maybe the Diocese of Orange General Counsel confused sex abuse and personnel records and Mon. Urell's report to Social Services related to another Michael, Michael Karl Sandoval, a teacher at Santa Margarita Catholic HS from 1992 to 2002. Sandoval was arrested by the OC Sheriff's Dept in May 2002 but there was NO PRESS COVERAGE!
The criminal court records at http://visionweb.occourts.org/Vision_Public/Index.do , show that Michael Karl Sandoval was charged with 10 counts of lewd or lascivious acts with a minor in violation of 288(a)PC on May 15, 2002 and pled guilty in November 2002. The case number is 02CF1275 and the link above shows a chronology of events that makes more sense than if it related to Michael Pecharich, who never faced criminal charges in OC. Since when does a priest report another priest's sex abuse to Social Services? NEVER.
Someone has most likely mixed up personnel notes in some way. Afterall, Michael Karl Sandoval is a registered sex offender and taught at Santa Margarita Catholic HS for 10 years, without a credential. And, for pleading guilty to 10 counts of lascivious acts with a minor, he only received 365 days in jail and 5 years probation-SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD DEAL! And Michael Pecharich, despite the report made by Mon. Urell to Social Services never faced criminal charges in a court of law.
In addition, the notes produced by the Diocese reveal that someone with the initials "MM" was IMPRESSED that Michael sought help. Michael Karl Sandoval's supervisor at Santa Margarita Catholic HS is still employed and has the initials of "MM". Does anyone have the resources to confirm the accuracy of this so called report to Social Services made by Mon. Urell concerning sex abuse committed by Michael Pecharich? Is it MIchael Pecharich, is it Michael Sandoval or maybe another person by the name of Michael?
We definitely cannot count on the OC Sheriff or the OC District Attorney to confirm any accuracy of documents produced by the Diocese of Orange, because they all share the same attorneys and are politically associated. Matt Cunningham's blog evidences this fact.
In the event the Diocese of Orange threatens the OC Weekly with libel, slander or whatever else it dreams up, please note that this is a speculative OPINION, as of the date of the blog. The non-politically connected citizen has no chance to confirm the truths about ongoing child protection issues in the Diocese of Orange. Hopefully someone reading this post can do investigative research.
October 1, 2007 19:29
I would not be shocked if there was a Tom Fuentes connection here someplace.
October 1, 2007 20:26
OCLiberal: The only tie I'm aware of is Fuentes' supervision of a priest who was found with a teenage boy's legs around his face during a midnight graveyard tryst. No mention yet of Fuentes in the thousands of pages of documents released.
October 1, 2007 20:44
For daily vetted coverage of the ongoing CRIMINAL cover up of Brown, Barnes, Brom, Rivera, Teflon Mahony, Walsh, Egan, George, O'Malley, Law, Leveda, Marciel, etc, (too many GUILTY & ENABLING obstructing justice miters and red hats to mention here) at 100% laity expense, in the multi BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, and counting:
www.bishop-accountability.org/abusetracker
The solution? Donate NO laity monies for any cause, or charity, or pence, or fund, or will, or trust, or building fund, or offetory, or mission, or appeal, or school, or hospital, or endowment, or order, etc., until these CROOKS are GONE, canonically censored, and house arrested, or irrevocably EXOMMUNICATED!
There ate 1.1 billion paying laity globally and less than 3,500 guilty miters and red hats.
No Bishop Accountability?
No Laity Monies!
Respectfully submitted,
Russ Bianchi
Lay Member of the Diocese of Monterey, CA
russ@adepthq.com
PS - For a FREE viewing, we also recommend: DELIVER US FROM EVIL, the 2006 US Academy Award Best Documentary nominated film at:
www.youtube.com
October 2, 2007 00:44
When the former point man for sex abuse in a Catholic diocese breaks...
Gustavo, you spill a lot of words, and adhere to the Weekly slash-and-burn style of denigrating those who disagree with you, but perhaps you could finally answer the simple question of what Msgr. Urell has to do with the Andrade case? After all, why did Manly call him for a deposition, and why is he making such a fuss claiming it is critical to winning a case in which the offender has admitted to the offense?
I know you've covered the Andrade, case, Gustavo. But now that Manly's maneuvering on the Andrade case give you a chance to tear another pound or ten of flesh from Msgr. Urell, you forgot all about Andrade and focus your poison pen on the Monsignor. And I think that colors your commentary. One small example -- in your addendum, you claim Monsignor Urell is complaining about the $140 an hour being paid to the therapist. Try reading it again -- he was saying he wanted the best care possible for the money the diocese was spending. That would have been obvious to anyone else.
Obviously, you have your opinion of me in this issue, Gustavo. And I have mine of yours. Spare me your condescension. And spare me the "informing my fellow Catholics" line and false pieties like "I might no longer attend Mass, but that doesn't mean I've left the faith." That's like saying "I think voting is absolutely vital, but I never vote." And grace is for God to give, but we are also called to imitate Christ, and you might remember he died on the Cross for the forgiveness of sins.
October 2, 2007 07:10
Gustavo,
I need your honest opinion. Am I that far off base when talking about this abuse of power shit? It seams I am. I'm feeling done on this shit.
paul
October 2, 2007 07:45
Dear Jubal: As an OC resident, I very seldom read your politically motivated "Red County" blog for one reason, IT IS SELF-SERVING AND POLITICAL! However, you ask why Mon. Urell's deposition is important in the Andrade case. There are plenty of Red County contributing attorneys that would be able to explain it to you, if they dare to think out of the box.
ALL Diocese of Orange employees and attorneys who had full knowledge of any type of sex abuse and conspired to protect the Diocese from public scandal and abandon those crying out for help, are important players in the Andrade case and every other clergy sex abuse lawsuit. Mon. Urell may or may not have played a role in authorizing the Diocese to pay Jeffrey Andrade $100,000 to drop a defamation suit in 2005, AFTER the $100 million settlement. Mon. Urell may or may not have reported Andrade's abuse to Social Services.
However, Mon. Urell's COMPLETED deposition is essential in determining who, what and why a sexual predator in the Diocese of Orange was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to dismiss his lawsuit. As you know, the OC District Attorney NEVER filed criminal charges against Andrade so this makes the civil process more complicated. If Andrade was paid, how many other Diocesan employees were also paid money to disappear and keep quiet? Is this a regular practice within the Diocese of Orange's business and employment politices?
Jubal, in the interests of justice and the future protections of ALL children, not just the children of OC Republicans, Mon. Urell was the point man of ALL clergy abuse reports. Do you still believe that his testimony is not needed in the Andrade case, to present a clear and concise chronology of events to a jury? Why should a jury hear only HALF the story? And, if the Diocese of Orange is hiding the way it handles sex abuse allegations reported against LAY employees, then a jury deserves to hear ALL evidence.
Jubal.. political, religious, government and law enforcement officials have aided the Diocese of Orange and many other religious institutions in shielding sexual predators for decades. POLITICAL influences have obstructed those seeking justice in a court of law AND is the major ENABLER in shielding sexual predators employed by religious institutions from answernig to criminal and civil charges in a court of law.
What is more important? Protecting sexual predators employed by a religious institution OR protecting children? Just because children do not vote, do not contribute to political campaigns and are easily intimidated from reporting sex abuse crimes, does not mean as adults we support the political obstructions of justice that has destroyed lives for decades.
Jubal, have you ever listened to a personal story from a sex abuse victim?
October 2, 2007 09:05
As Orange County's leading conservative commentator, there is nothing Pete Fundy loves more than a Catholic slapfest.
Warmly yours,
Pete Fundy
Senior Editorial Writer
OCLegend.Com
October 2, 2007 09:47
Mr. Jubal.
Maybe there isnt a whole lot of talking about Andrade at this point because he has fessed up. He confessed. He admitted. And, like a grown man, is facing his consequences. There is no need to expose him any further, Its all there.
Now Urell on the other hand has never had a deposition. In any of these cases Urell has never been deposed? How the hell did that happen? For the sake of every other case that should have had his deposition taken. The members of the church need to know what the hell happened, what the hell went wrong, and how the hell can we prevent it from happening ever again.
There is no escaping from the past, we cant just continue to repeat the slogan "Never Again" until we know what the urell happened and why.
Andrade is a given at this point, but we have a dangling participant that need to be factored into this problem and we need to find the root of the problem before we turn this assignment in.. (sorry i am in math class right now)
If Urell had come clean and done the right thing in the firt place or even in the middle or even in his recent deposition, then there would be no need to even bring his name up except as a hero who did the right thing.
He still has one last chance at being a hero, his deposition isnt over. I would be the first in line to give him a hero's welcome if and when he walks out of that deposition room having told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help him God.
October 2, 2007 12:50
As a 54 year old grandfather, former catholic seminarian and abuse survivor myself at the hands of nuns, I frankly do not look forward to any sort of "he says/she says" nonsense. Who cares? What I want is action.
The bishops simply need to resign and go to a monastery for the rest of their lives. They knew what was happening and they permitted it. They blew it. Like any manager anywhere in the world, they now need to step down. Period. This applies to all of them who were consecrated prior to the Globe breaking the news in Boston.
The papers and blogs need to start posting pictures every time a priest or nun or brother or minister or teacher or rabbi is accused. Some of these incidents go back fifty years. A better idea is actually a "then" and "now" photo of the alleged perp. This would be of immeasureable help to all the victims wrestling with trying to piece things together in their minds and get the facts straight. Some of these things happened a half century ago...a picture would jog many memories where a name would not.
All the alleged perps have every right of American citizens. They are innocent until proven guilty. We all need to remember that.
October 2, 2007 14:14
Let's step back a bit and go to this "Covenant of the Faithful" the Orange Diocese put out. If this wasn't the church, but some other organization who hid pedophiles and child abusers from law enforcement, the public would be all over law enforcement to get these people and put them behind bars.
When this document was presented at my church, the clear message was "if you think there's a problem," please bring it to our (church leaders) attention first.
Well, if there is a problem, I think its a coin flip between the hospital to confirm some sort of sexual contact or to the police station to file charges.
October 2, 2007 15:36
More points for Matt:
*How did I denigrate you? And I find that rich coming from someone who insinuated Mickadeit and I are attacking Church rather than pedophiles and their enablers.
*You say, "I know you've covered the Andrade case" and claim I've forgotten about the statutory rapist. But you're the one who was trying to argue on your blog that not much media attention is on Andrade--indeed, that you "hardly hear a word about him." If you know I cover Andrade, why would you type the above statement? As for forgetting about Andrade--did you not see that I wrote about Andrade on our blog last week--indeed, I did that after putting the Urell story to rest? Again, Matt: there's nothing poisonous about my pen, just in Urell's previous actions. I wasn't the one claiming to file Child Protective Services reports on pedophile priests yet not doing such a thing--that's your Monsignor.
*About your addendum point: If you read the cover story, you'd notice that before Urell's memo that I included, he was complaining about the "high rate of charge" of the treatment for the Ramos victim and wanted it to end sooner rather than later (you'll see the full trail once you visit John Manly's offices). In the email I cited, Urell also expresses concern about how long the treatment has been continuing. Urell didn't like all the money the treatment was costing the Orange diocese--it's obvious he cared more about the bottom line than the victim.
*You keep asking anyone who disagrees with you what's so essential about Urell's deposition, why John Manly is so adamant about taking it. I don't know--I'm not Manly's clerk or a lawyer. I already explained why I'm interested in Urell above, and I'm still interested to see if he finishes the deposition. If he doesn't? So be it--I'll still be following the trial.
It's true that Urell says he wasn't in charge of fielding molestation charges against diocesan lay employees. But was this common knowledge before Urell's deposition? If you read Bishop Brown's deposition, you'll remember that Manly refers to a document that Bishop McFarland pulled out during his deposition stating the chancellor (which would've been Urell at the time) was the point man on ALL sex abuse charges in the Orange diocese. This happened after Urell's deposition but before he left for Canada. The document seems to contradict Urell's statement. One thing longtime observers know about the diocesan hierarchy during the sex abuse scandal is their ever-changing stories. Manly knows this--perhaps this is why he still wants to talk to Urell. That's my theory, at least.
*Christ doesn't forgive folks who help out pedophiles. Sorry.
October 2, 2007 16:10
...señor matty is so accustomed to speaking on behalf of power he don't even sabe what he's hablando anymore. or maybe he's on the payroll. who knows?
October 2, 2007 21:07
Gustavo,
Bless you my friend for continuing to focus on this issue. The Bible is very explicit as to the fate of those who harm children.
I don't know how Matt can sleep at night...knowing he is defending those who obfuscated on behalf of child molesters.
As for Red County being the king, after we hit the AP this week, perhaps the Orange Juice is king, at least for this week?
Keep up the good work...
October 3, 2007 08:46
The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) who have had similar problems have adopted a Youth Protection Training (YPT) program which requires anyone involved with a child must be certified in. They also require two adult protection, one being a YPT certified adult.
Two adult protection requires that at least 1 YPT adult per 2 adults with children at all times. In the event you had 3 adults on a trip and a child needed to go home or to the hospital, everyone goes home since you cannot leave any child with just 1 adult.
Does the BSA require finger printing to become a leader, no. Does the Diocese, yes. Who has the larger problem?
What is also interesting is the fact that any adult who has been finger printed has had to do this more than once. I know friends who had been finger printed as many as 3 times within the Orange Diocese. A good question is why?
If the goal of finger printing is to keep this in a central data base for review, then why are adults within the OC Diocese finger printed more than once(and at their cost)?
Are the records shared from Diocese to Diocese, or is there still an environment in which a monster like Coughlin can do harm in an East coast diocese, and a West coast diocese not being aware of such a demon upon arrival?
It isn't the public or media's fault the Catholic church has a black mark. It is the consistent perception from ANY responsible individual or representative from the church, like Mahony, who most certainly appears to be with-holding information. Like it or not, only 1 bad apple will spoil the bushel (over entire US Catholic Church) for others who truly may have put their best foot forward like Bishop Brown.
If the church wants this mess over, then they need to clean house from the top, not from the laity! They need a united front, not fractured fronts (aka Dioceses), and they need to do it quickly before they drive more good Catholics away from the church.
We are a Church (that is key), not churches. Do it as one and get this mess over, or to hell with all of them!
October 3, 2007 09:56
Wasn't it Bill Shakespeare who wrote: "Though justice be thy plea, consider this, that in the course of justice none of us should see Salvation. We do pray for mercy, and that same prayer doth teach us all to render the deeds of mercy." So, according to Christian doctrine, we must forgive even child-abusers and their accomplices, if we expect forgiveness. Forgiveness alone doesn't seem to be what Cunningham is asking for Urell and his ilk. Though he claims to welcome critical coverage of the Catholic pedophilia scandal, he implicitly suggests that priests (or atleast his priest) should be immune from ongoing journalistic scrutiny of their sins, and that it would be better just to shut up and stay supportive of one who flees to foreign climes to escape testifying. Such a code of silence is precisely what allowed the culture of pedophilia to fester in the R. C. Church for so many generations.
October 3, 2007 16:49
cus cunningham is just a mouthpiece. when will you folks stop paying attention to him?
October 4, 2007 11:20
Ah, Dave...
Shakespeare was discussing a Jewish Merchant before a court, qoute is nice, but out of context. But if we take things out of context, we can certainly rationalize them to support our perceptions.
The church is fractured, the Pope or council of Bishops need to make this top priority, to heal the church with the truth and send priests to jail!
As it stands now Catholic priest certainly appear to be playing above the law. Perception makes reality, and you do not forgive those who do not repent for their sins and or OMISSIONS for they are separate from us.
This disconnect from God is their cross to bear, and as far as I can see a cross they apparently have no decision to put down anytime soon. Fools
Shame on the American Bishops. They are not Shepards for God, but insulation barriers to some of the US worst pedophile monsters.
May God have mercy on their souls!
October 6, 2007 22:50
I'm fairly sure Shakespeare didn't intend that sentiment to apply only to members of the Yiddish-Italian mercantile class. And if we only forgave those who were sincerely remorseful, we'd all be lugging around more resentment and baggage than a bellhop at Christmas. Of course, my point wasn't that the spiritual discipline of forgiveness absolves criminals of responsibility for wrongdoing. I agree that offending clerics should be "outed" and prosecuted to the full extent of the law; besides, Urell's flight to a Canadian laughing academy was a slap in the face to the entire American psychiatric establishment and the wondrous pharmacopia it has to offer.
October 7, 2007 23:33
Now Urell on the other hand has never had a deposition. In any of these cases Urell has never been deposed? How the hell did that happen?
Chritopher H: Msgr. Urell has been deposed. When Mnaly agreed that Msgr. Urell didn't need to finish this deposition, he said he could could proceed with the incomplete deoposition and Msgr. Urell's depos from other cases.
The Bible is very explicit as to the fate of those who harm children.
Art, you seem to know exactly one Biblical quote. The Bible is also very explicit that marriage is between a man and a woman, yet you favor "gay marriage." We have Cafeteria Catholics -- perhaps you're a Cafeteria Protestant.
Somehow, I have the feeling you'd have been the first person in the mob to pick up a rock to stone the adulteress -- and when Christ uttered his famous injunction against casting the first stone, you'd have quoted the Torah and thrown the rock directly at Him.
I don't know how Matt can sleep at night...knowing he is defending those who obfuscated on behalf of child molesters.
I sleep just fine, Art, because I -- many, many, many others -- know Msgr. urell is not the cold, conniving monster you, Guistacvo and others make him out to be.
*You keep asking anyone who disagrees with you what's so essential about Urell's deposition, why John Manly is so adamant about taking it. I don't know--I'm not Manly's clerk or a lawyer.
And I doubt you care -- after all, it gives you an excuse the hammer away at Msgr. Urell.
*Christ doesn't forgive folks who help out pedophiles. Sorry.
Aren't we lucky Pope Gustavo I is here to tell us what Christ will and will not forgive. Would you care to share with us any other insights the Son of God has shared with you recently, Your Sanctimoniousness?
October 8, 2007 07:13
Now Urell on the other hand has never had a deposition. In any of these cases Urell has never been deposed? How the hell did that happen?
Chritopher H: Msgr. Urell has been deposed. When Mnaly agreed that Msgr. Urell didn't need to finish this deposition, he said he could could proceed with the incomplete deoposition and Msgr. Urell's depos from other cases.
The Bible is very explicit as to the fate of those who harm children.
Art, you seem to know exactly one Biblical quote. The Bible is also very explicit that marriage is between a man and a woman, yet you favor "gay marriage." We have Cafeteria Catholics -- perhaps you're a Cafeteria Protestant.
Somehow, I have the feeling you'd have been the first person in the mob to pick up a rock to stone the adulteress -- and when Christ uttered his famous injunction against casting the first stone, you'd have quoted the Torah and thrown the rock directly at Him.
I don't know how Matt can sleep at night...knowing he is defending those who obfuscated on behalf of child molesters.
I sleep just fine, Art, because I -- many, many, many others -- know Msgr. urell is not the cold, conniving monster you, Guistacvo and others make him out to be.
*You keep asking anyone who disagrees with you what's so essential about Urell's deposition, why John Manly is so adamant about taking it. I don't know--I'm not Manly's clerk or a lawyer.
And I doubt you care -- after all, it gives you an excuse the hammer away at Msgr. Urell.
*Christ doesn't forgive folks who help out pedophiles. Sorry.
Aren't we lucky Pope Gustavo I is here to tell us what Christ will and will not forgive. Would you care to share with us any other insights the Son of God has shared with you recently, Your Sanctimoniousness?
October 9, 2007 19:39
Sure: My name is Gustavo, not Guistacvo. And Christ doesn't forgive folks who help out pedophiles. Sorry.