BishopAccountability.org
	Reader's Comments OC Blog October 17, 2007 http://www.ocblog.net/ocblog/2007/10/red-countyoc-16.html#comment-86712698 What were you thinking Jubal???? Posted by: Mickadeit Reader | October 17, 2007 at 09:57 AM I don't believe it was a malicious leak by Jubal & John Hanna, but I do think their defense of Msgr Urell is very unseemly at best. I'm not a lawyer, so what happens now that these victim names were illegally released? This whole episode keeps getting worse and worse. Stop the insanity. Posted by: Allan Bartlett | October 17, 2007 at 10:56 AM Was the release of the names actually illegal, or just in poor taste? What I've read is that most news outlets don't release victims' names because of their internal policies, not because it's illegal. Posted by: Meddlesome Nobody | October 17, 2007 at 11:02 AM "their defense of Msgr Urell is very unseemly at best" Read the article and the text on the web site. They are not defending him. They are personally supporting him as friends. It is no more than that. The difference may be subtle but it exists. Posted by: Missy | October 17, 2007 at 11:19 AM I'd read their article on their blog, but it's disappeared for obvious reasons. Posted by: Allan Bartlett | October 17, 2007 at 11:26 AM Isn't communications what Jubal does for a living..... If it was so innocent AND legal, why has it been removed? I can understand wanting to support a friend, but you should ask - "At what cost"? Posted by: DP Resident | October 17, 2007 at 12:21 PM Jubal won't let commenters post a mild profanity here, so why would he deliberately put victims names out there? It doesn't jibe with his practices on this blog for the last few years. He wouldn't even allow commenters to bring up Umberg's infidelity during the Supes race. According to Mickadeit, he took the unredacted depo down as soon as the situation was brought to his attention. Jubal's human. He screwed up badly. Who hasn't? Posted by: Common sense | October 17, 2007 at 01:22 PM It's hard to figure this one out. If Jubal took enough interest in the Fr. Urell matter to link to his deposition, did Jubal not read the deposition first? Had he read it, he surely must have seen that there are sensitive matters discussed. Did he read it, or did he simply not care? Posted by: Sarah | October 17, 2007 at 03:36 PM While I rarely agree with Matt Cunningham, i've never thought him to be stupid, until now! How someone would violate molestation victims at the hand of priests, a second time by publicly flogging them by divulging their private identities is just plain cruel. I'm a practicing catholic and love my faith, but my faith teaches me that we make mistakes and if asked, can be forgiven. Fr. Urell and some of the hierarchy have not repented for their crimes and cover-ups of those who committed legal and moral crimes against children. Our church will not heal until the truth is told and our leaders stop hiding behind borders (Canadian), and blogs. Stop victimizing the people again! Jubal, this should have been about faith, and not some political smear tactic against the victims. You might think about a date with a confessor in your very near future. Posted by: just..asking | October 17, 2007 at 05:39 PM I think you're being over the top, just...asking. I've seen you commenting here before, but I think you're allowing your dislike of Jubal to color your judgment. I don't believe for a second this was a smear tactic. I don't think Mickadeit does either, else he'd have written as much. Jubal made a terrible, idiotic mistake and has admitted as much. And he fixed it. Posted by: Common sense | October 17, 2007 at 06:04 PM Dear Just...asking. What do you mean Msgr Urell and Bishop Brown haven't repented for their mistakes??? Do you live in a cave? do you have the volume turned down? There is a video on this very blog of Bishop Brown apologizing and asking forgiveness of the two victims at the recent press conference. For the past 5 years he has been apologizing and asking forgiveness on tv, video, radio, press public events and , private meetings with victims. Msgr Urell may have made some errors in judgement early on but he has spent endless hours reaching out to victims and anyone in pain to help them heal and recover. he is ill now because he so emphathizes with the victims and their suffereing that his health has failed him. The problem is that professional victims and plaintiff's attorneys make a living off the suffering of victims. The worst thing that could happen to him is if the Church and the victims reconcilled and healed. That is why he is constantly picking the scab of pain. He gets a free ride in the press with no questions asked as he deals in half truths and innuendo. When bishop brown and the diocese tell the truth they are immediately dismissed. Matt is simply caught in the middle -- trying to inject some facts into the discussion, he took what he thought was a public document and posted it. I doubt it ever occured to him that the names in the document were not supposed to be public. Even so, was anyone really damaged? In the 22 hours it was on the website, how many people looked at it and of those, how many read it and of those how any can still remember the names that they read in the document? I venture to guess no one that didn't already know who the victims were read the document. Matt was coming from the right place with an honest heart. IT was Manly and crew that took his good intentions and twisted it into something it was and is not. Posted by: Just...thinking | October 17, 2007 at 07:20 PM Just...thinking: your characterization of sex-abuse survivors as "professional victims" is one of the most callous comments I've yet to read in this long, sad scandal. Simply sick. Posted by: Gustavo Arellano | October 17, 2007 at 08:24 PM Gustavo. I think those who make a living off of prolonging the pain of all involved are no more entitled to sympathy than the perpertrators who caused this in the first place. Posted by: Just...thinking | October 17, 2007 at 08:36 PM PS --- did the uncle of the kid read the blog or did you or manly call him tell him about it and rub salt in the wound? Posted by: Just...thinking | October 17, 2007 at 08:37 PM Gustavo, you have some nerve calling anyone callous. Keeping victims forever cast in the role of victim is cruel and callous. Posted by: just...thinking | October 17, 2007 at 08:54 PM Luke 11, 42-46 'But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and herbs of all kinds, and neglect justice and the love of God; it is these you ought to have practised, without neglecting the others. Woe to you Pharisees! For you love to have the seat of honour in the synagogues and to be greeted with respect in the market-places. Woe to you! For you are like unmarked graves, and people walk over them without realizing it.' One of the lawyers answered him, 'Teacher, when you say these things, you insult us too.' And he said, 'Woe also to you lawyers! For you load people with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not lift a finger to ease them. Posted by: just...thinking | October 17, 2007 at 09:11 PM John Manly would have threatened Jesus with legal action for saying that. Posted by: Hey Zeus! | October 17, 2007 at 10:30 PM Just thinking...: first off, howzabout throwing off your cloak of anonymity from which you bravely call sex-abuse survivors "professional victims?" Then, answer this: how exactly are lawyers who sue Catholic dioceses "keeping victims forever cast in the role of victim?" If it wasn't for the secrecy and pedo-shuffling practiced by church officials, lawyers like Manly (or Peter Callahan, for that matter) wouldn't make a career out of this scandal. Don't believe me? There are reams of documents--you can look them up. Better yet, talk to some of these victims--ah, but you won't since that would reveal your identity! Besides, hating the plaintiff's lawyers in clerical sex abuse cases is like hating the prosecutors who went after the Haidl Three. Posted by: Gustavo Arellano | October 17, 2007 at 10:59 PM
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.