BishopAccountability.org
	Documenting Monsignor's Breakdown By Frank Mickadeit The Orange County Register September 20, 2007 http://www.ocregister.com/column/urell-don-know-1848838-manly-abuse I have only read about 250 pages of Monsignor John Urell's testimony from two depositions in Diocese of Orange sex-abuse cases. But that included the entirety of the one he walked out of in late July and never finished. And it provides insight about his breakdown. One of the striking things about the deposition is that while it went on for nearly five hours, Urell was hardly illuminating, answering limited questions on limited topics. Most of the deposition consisted of his lawyers arguing with plaintiff Jane C. R. Doe's lawyers about what he could be compelled to testify about. By my count, Urell's lawyer instructed him not to answer 32 times. One more strike against the Covenant with the Faithful's vow of openness. And what's more, this was done in the presence of a court-appointed referee, a retired judge named Robert Jameson. He was brought in by trial Judge Gail Andler specifically so she wouldn't have to get involved every time lawyers argued about whether a question was within the permitted scope of inquiry. Yet, right off the bat, they were talking about whether to phone her on a particular question. It was 47 minutes before Urell was allowed to answer his first question about sexual abuse problems at Mater Dei. A few items from the deposition that might be particularly weighing on Urell: •Urell confirmed he had received a psychological report stating that a former Mater Dei leader, Monsignor Michael Harris, had been diagnosed as having a sexual attraction to teenagers, had probably had sex with teenagers and should be kept away from children. Urell was reminded that some time after that he participated in a dinner party in Harris's honor. •Although he was Bishop Norman McFarland's right-hand man, he said "I do not know" whether there was any Diocesan policy that "expressly prohibited persons credibly accused of sexual abuse of minors" from working the Diocese. I do not know? •He answered "I don't know" when asked if it was "your expectation … that in every instance where an employee … learned of an allegation of sexual abuse that the police or Child Protective Services would be called?" I don't know? His breakdown occurred shortly after he was closely probed about why he kept his yearly calendars on file up until 2002, but that year decided to throw them away. "Is it because you were concerned that a statute had been passed in 2002 that was going to allow many people to file lawsuits who had been previously barred by the statue of limitations, and you wanted to get rid of the evidence?" Doe's attorney, John Manly, asked him. Urell: "No." Manly: "That never entered your mind?" Urell: "No." Manly: "Where did you throw them away?" Urell: "I don't recall." Manly then started asking him about specific families who alleged abuse and whether he told them they should call the police. "I don't recall," Urell said numerous times. "I just don't remember them anymore. I don't look to remember them. I try to forget them. It is a horrible … chapter in their lives and in mine." Manly could see Urell was becoming emotional and called for a break. Questioning resumed 25 minutes later but Urell couldn't go on. "Until about two months ago I thought this whole kind of thing was over for me," he said. "It's never over for people who have been victimized, I realize that. … I don't know. I don't know what to say." Jameson allowed him to leave for the day and Urell never returned. As expected, Doe's attorneys yesterday filed for sanctions against the Diocese and for a contempt-of-court finding against Bishop Tod Brown for sending Urell to Canada for treatment on Sept. 6. Not clear when those will be heard. Here's a dilemma for Diocesan attorneys: If Urell testifies, he's going to be a nightmare for them. But if Andler rules he doesn't have to because of his anxiety, think about what that will do to the argument that this 26-year-old woman doesn't really have serious psychological damage. She was taken advantage of by a 32-year-old man when she was 15. Urell was one big step removed, merely having to deal with the stress of having church employees accused of such things and having to deal with it. If his head is messed up enough that he has to be shipped to a psychiatric hospital in another country, how screwed up must she be? Contact the writer: Mickadeit writes Mon.-Fri. Contact him at 714-796-4994 or fmickadeit@ocregister.com
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.