By Christine Hanley
Associated Press
Bishop Tod Brown of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange pleaded not guilty today to contempt of court and apologized to the four women who settled their molestation lawsuits against the diocese last week.
Lawyers made opening statements in the contempt case, which was then continued until December.
“I want to extend on behalf of the diocese my sincere and compassionate apology to the women who were violated,” Brown said outside an Orange County courtroom. Moments later, he came face to face with two of the women, who stayed around to listen to the bishop and his lawyer speak to reporters.
“To both of you and the other victims, all I can do is repeat my deepest and compassionate apologies,” Brown said to Sarah Gray and Christina Ruiz. He stood just feet from the women and was surrounded by reporters and television cameras.
The bishop characterized the abuse the women suffered by teachers and choir directors employed by diocese schools and parishes as “reprehensible,” “criminal,” “sinful” and “immoral,” and said it could not be tolerated.
Gray thanked Brown and suggested he might want to pass on some of his compassion to the diocese lawyers who subjected her and the other plaintiffs to grueling depositions.
Brown told her and Ruiz that his door was open and he was willing to meet with them at any time.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs in the recently settled case had sought the contempt hearing, accusing Brown of sending Msgr. John Urell, the chief investigator of sex abuse complaints against the diocese, to Canada for medical treatment before he could finish his deposition.
They expected the judge to dismiss their motion after the two sides agreed to settle the four cases for about $7 million.
Brown’s lawyer, Peter Callahan, insisted on going forward, saying the bishop wanted to clear his name.
Outside court, Brown told reporters that he approved of the decision to send Urell to Canada after a diocese physician had recommended he be treated immediately.
Brown acknowledged there were facilities in the U.S. that treated clergy, but the Southdown Institute in Canada had the best reputation and was able to admit Urell right away.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Beliefnet
Advertisement
posted October 9, 2007 at 9:58 pm
The claim he sent Urell to Canada because he needed immediate treatment there reeks of untruth. Does the Bible have a punishment for liars?
posted October 10, 2007 at 9:50 am
So, why doesn’t he just bring Urell back from Canada? This should not be rocket science. And to what extent does he control Urell’s actions, anyway?
posted October 10, 2007 at 11:57 am
I agree, nnmns. I was wondering why there were no treatment centers here in the 50 states that were capable of helping Urell immediately. Hard to believe Urell needed treatment “before he could finish his deposition.” Same old cover-ups by RRC clergy etc. Should anyone be surprised?
posted October 10, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Why does the Southdown Medical Center in Canada have the better reputation for ill clergy than any here in the U.S.? Shouldn’t all U.S. Clergy be told what this disease is and know if they have it they can at least be treated up in Canada?
posted October 10, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Gee, and usually they all go to Rome for treatment. I guess all the money went to the settlement. Now the real fun begins! What does Urell know that is worth hiding in another country?
When will the RC gang figure out that the rest of the world is on to them and that they simply have to be honest, deal with the problems, and move on. Until they smarten up they will forver be dealing with this, all the conjecture, and the multitude of jokes.
Wait a minute – I know who is behind it now! It has to be the Insane Comics Collective, headed by the Grand Buffoon Leno, and his henchmen of International Provocateurs, Stewart and O’Brian! At last, the power that moves even the Vatican! “Make Benny laugh – ‘laugh, Benny, laugh until it hurts!’”.
posted October 10, 2007 at 11:43 pm
This is a wierd story. I don’t know if it’s badly written or what, but there’s a lot more to this than meets the article.
As to Msgr Urell, he was the investigator for the diocese (according tot he story), not the (alleged) perpetrator. What is the medical treatment he sought in Canada? Sounds like AODA treatment (reading between the lines), which can be obtained anywhere, and Betty Ford or Hazelden are never lacking for beds.
As for his unavailability, if the condition required immediate care and uninterrupted treatment, the suits could just be continued – briefly. If the condition did not require immediate, interruption-free care, he is subject to the directives of his Bishop: the Bishop can just require him to return, however briefly, be deposed, and return for further treatment.
I dunno. There’s too much here to be all there is. I wish this were a better, fuller article.