BishopAccountability.org
	OC Bishop Faces Contempt of Court Associated Press, carried in New York Times October 9, 2007 http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Church-Abuse-Mater-Dei.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin SANTA ANA, Calif. (AP) — A judge began criminal contempt-of-court proceedings Tuesday against the Roman Catholic bishop of Orange County in a highly unusual hearing that marks the first time a U.S. bishop could face jail time in the church sex abuse scandal. Bishop Tod D. Brown waived his arraignment for allegedly violating a court order when he sent Msgr. John Urell, a high-ranking church official, out of the country before he could complete his testimony in a lawsuit. He could face a range of punishments from a verbal reprimand to jail time if found in contempt. Plaintiff's lawyers had expected Orange County Superior Court Judge Gail Andler to dismiss their contempt filing because the sexual abuse lawsuit that led to it was one of four sexual abuse lawsuits settled last week by the Diocese of Orange for a total of nearly $7 million. The bishop's attorney, Peter Callahan, said outside court they wanted to go forward to "clear the bishop's name." Andler allowed attorneys from both sides to deliver their opening statements before postponing the rest of the hearing until Dec. 3. She ordered a subpoena on Urell to remain in effect until then. Venus Soltan, a plaintiff's attorney, accused Brown in court of sending Urell away because he had critical evidence about the diocese's handling of sexual abuse that the bishop wanted to suppress. Urell was sent to the Southdown Institute in Ontario, Canada, on Sept. 6, a week after he broke down during his deposition. "When Msgr. Urell was there for half a day, he couldn't take it because he was too upset about having to testify about hiding all these allegations," she said. "This is plain and simply hiding the facts." Callahan said there was no evidence a court order was in effect when Brown sent Urell away. He said that Urell specialized in clergy sexual abuse allegations and knew nothing about the current case, which involved allegations that a lay assistant basketball coach molested a then-16-year-old girl at Mater Dei High School, one of two high schools the diocese oversaw. The plaintiff is now 27. "I was disappointed that the judge didn't rule. We were hoping that the bishop would have the opportunity to exonerate himself by telling the truth but he didn't get the opportunity," he said. Brown said after the hearing that he did not violate a court order and that he was motivated only by his concern for Urell, who needed immediate treatment. The diocese also settled three other cases last week, all involving lay staff and teachers. Two targeted choir directors and the third accused a coach and teacher at Santa Margarita High School. Roman Catholic dioceses in several states were investigated by grand juries and faced the prospect of criminal charges over their failures to protect children. However, the statutes of limitation had run out for most. In other cases, bishops struck deals with prosecutors to avoid a criminal penalty. (This version CORRECTS that bishop did not enter plea but instead waived his arraignment).)
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.