BishopAccountability.org
	Diocesan Attorney Explains Recent Settlement Action and Rationale The Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange November 15, 2007 http://www.rcbo.org/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=376&Itemid=100000001 Because of recent publicity about the Diocese of Orange's settlement of four sexual misconduct cases, Orange County Catholic recently interviewed attorney Peter M. Callahan, litigation counsel for the Diocese of Orange, and asked him about the cases, the settlement, and other matters of concern. What were the lawsuits about? The one lawsuit that was going to trial in October goes back more than 10 years and involved a sexual relationship between a high school junior and a driver's education teacher/assistant coach at Mater Dei High School. When the school first heard rumors about this matter, the school conducted several interviews and everyone, including the young woman involved, denied it completely. A year later, school administrators received additional information that caused them to immediately conduct more interviews, ultimately leading to the discovery of the student/teacher relationship. The vice principal appropriately reported to Child Protective Services the same day, and the teacher/coach was placed on administrative leave, which culminated in his eventual resignation. The police officer who was the primary investigator praised Mater Dei for its complete cooperation in his five-month investigation. Eventually, the District Attorney's Office decided not to prosecute. The teacher/coach did resign and continued to deny any wrongdoing for nearly 10 years. The second case involved a high school student and an adult musician at her parish. As soon as the pastor was made aware that adult male was seen kissing the girl, her parents were immediately notified and completely involved in the handling of the matter, according to their wishes. Unbeknownst to everyone, include the parents, the young woman and the adult male allegedly continued a sexual relationship thereafter, although the accused man continues to deny any wrongdoing. This matter, when brought to the attention of diocesan officials this year, was reported to law enforcement by the Diocesan Assistance Ministry Coordinator and the young woman. The third case involved inappropriate conduct by a male lay teacher with a female high school student in the mid 1990s. The fourth involved a female student and her Mater Dei music teacher during the summer after she graduated and before she left for college. She was not quite 18 years old when the sexual misconduct allegedly began during that summer. None of the four lawsuits involved clergy members, and none of the accused lay men are still employed by the Diocese. Why weren't these cases a part of the 2005 global settlement? Weren't we told that the 2005 settlement included all known cases of sexual impropriety involving the Diocese? When we settled the 90 claims in 2005, we did believe that we were settling every outstanding claim. These four lawsuits were not filed until after the 2005 settlement was announced. Why did you settle these cases? Why not let a jury decide? In the lead case of the four that we recently settled, we attempted to mediate through the efforts of a retired judge on two prior occasions. Each time we were willing to follow the recommendations of the mediator but the other side was not. In this case, as the trial date approached, our trial judge again urged us to attempt mediation. Bishop Brown became personally involved in the matter. He considered the personal emotional impact on parties and the witnesses as well as the financial cost of protracted litigation. There were thousands of exhibits, and over 100 witnesses were scheduled to testify during a trial that would have taken an estimated three months. The Bishop considered all of these issues, including the significant amount of erroneous and adverse press coverage that we had received, and the disruption the trial would have caused the high school, and he decided that the settlement reflected a reasonable conclusion. What was Monsignor Urell's involvement in the lead case and why did his absence become important? Monsignor John Urell really had no legitimate involvement in this case at all, and he became something of what we lawyers call "a red herring," referring to some sort of a smokescreen to cloud the jury from seeing the real issues in the case. For a number of years, Monsignor Urell was involved in processing claims of clergy misconduct in his capacity as Chancellor, and he had very little involvement in claims of wrongdoing involving lay personnel. In fact, in his day-long deposition regarding the Mater Dei driver's ed teacher case, he stated that he had never heard the accused's name before the lawsuit was filed. Monsignor Urell did become very distraught towards the end of the his deposition, and it was clear both to all of the lawyers involved and the retired judge who was sitting as a referee that he really had little practical knowledge about the facts in that case and was emotionally unable to continue. The plaintiff's lawyers thereafter agreed that his deposition would not need to be resumed, but rather, the lawyers would rely on the one day of deposition already conducted and the four days of deposition on the same topic taken in an earlier lawsuit. While that stipulation— which, incidentally, was drafted by plaintiff's counsel—was circulating among the lawyers for signature, the Vicar of Priests and Monsignor Urell's own personal physician informed the Bishop that Monsignor Urell's emotional condition was such that he needed to be hospitalized for immediate evaluation. The Vicar of Priests and Monsignor Urell's physician recommended the Southdown Institute in Toronto, one of the foremost facilities in all of North America that specializes in evaluating and treating clergy—and, most importantly, it had an immediate opening. Bishop Brown agreed to be financially responsible for Monsignor Urell's care at that facility, and it was only when the plaintiff's lawyer learned that Monsignor Urell had gone to Canada for treatment that the priest suddenly became "a critical witness." Bishop Brown stated publicly that while Monsignor Urell had been the Vicar General of the diocese in past decades, he had devoted an enormous amount of time to responding with compassion, sensitivity, and appropriate action to the allegations of clergy abuse that had come forward during his time in that post. Monsignor John Urell is a man of character, and he was attacked in the press in a manner that is difficult for anyone to withstand, especially someone who has served his Church and the people of this diocese with such heart and professionalism during those trying times. Monsignor Urell is being treated at the appropriate facility recommended by his personal physician and by the Vicar of Priests. He is there to receive the help his doctors determine he needs to heal emotionally from the attacks on his character. Bishop Brown is to be respected, not castigated, for standing by his priest and doing what he knew in his heart was the right thing to do under these difficult circumstances. Please explain the "contempt of court" issue that has been reported in the press. The short factual answer is that the plaintiff's lawyer in this case is erroneously claiming that Bishop Brown sent Monsignor Urell to Canada, out of the court's jurisdiction, in order to prevent him from testifying. That is completely false and it is without any factual or legal basis. Is this a criminal proceeding? It's "quasi criminal," meaning that the punishment, should the judge choose to impose one, could include five days in jail or up to a $1,000 fine, or some other consequence. This is up to the judge, who is bound to apply the law to the facts and not be swayed by a factually baseless attack by plaintiff's counsel. Why doesn't the Bishop just order Monsignor Urell to return? The course of Monsignor Urell's treatment is up to his healthcare providers. The bishop is very respectful of the law, but he follows his own conscience in this and everything else, and he's going to do what he believes is right and not what is popular or which may get him off a hot spot. He'll stand by his priests and rely on medical advice, not legal threats, to determine his course of action. Southdown was selected because of its effective unique capabilities in this regard and because there was an immediate opening when Monsignor Urell's personal physician deemed an in-patient evaluation was immediately necessary. The Institute is a renowned hospital that specializes in rendering health care to clergy members. The emotional needs of clergy members are unique because they do not have the support of "typical" family. Also, priests require specialized spiritual support, which Southdown offers. There are very few similar institutions in North America, none in the state of California. Did the Bishop consult with you or any other lawyer prior to approving Monsignor Urell's hospitalization at Southdown? No, he did not, and I would not expect him to have done so. This was an emergency medical issue involving one of his priests. Was there in fact a court order requiring Monsignor Urell to continue with his deposition at the time he was sent to Southdown? No, and none has ever been issued. That's why the plaintiff's contempt petition has no basis. So there's a valid medical explanation for Monsignor Urell's evaluation and treatment at Southdown? Absolutely. I know that his lawyer initially spoke about that very issue with the retired judge that was acting as a discovery referee, Robert Jameson, as well as with my legal team and the lawyers for the plaintiff, and then he spoke to Judge Jameson privately for about 45 minutes. He offered to submit a medical report of Monsignor Urell to either Judge Jameson or Judge Andler, but he was reluctant to make it available to any of the lawyers. Mr. Hennessey was rightfully concerned about protecting Monsignor Urell's rights of privacy. Since then, Mr. Hennessey has filed two medical reports with Judge Andler. How does all of this result in the plaintiff's lawyers asking the judge for a contempt of court complaint against Bishop Brown? They came up with a theory that Monsignor Urell, the person whose testimony they had previously agreed wasn't all that important, was "the key witness" whose testimony was suddenly all-important to their lawsuit. This ploy allowed more "bishop bashing" in the media. But let me be very clear on this: the judge has not ruled on this at all. The plaintiff's lawyers have simply filed a petition claiming the bishop was in contempt of a court order. That's simply not true. Judge Andler has not made any ruling on that claim; she has simply scheduled it for a hearing. Do you believe Bishop Brown is in contempt of court? Absolutely not. The plaintiff's contempt charge is a provably false claim and is technically defective. "Contempt of court" is the willful disobedience of a court order. As we explained to the judge, there never was any court order requiring John Urell to complete his deposition. Why are we still seeing complaints of this type concerning our Catholic schools and against Catholic priests? Is the Church doing something about this "catholic clergy childhood sexual abuse scandal?" I want to stress the point that this is not a "Catholic clergy" problem. The recent settlement cases involved no members of the clergy. Nor is this a Catholic problem; it is a societal problem. All of the reputable statistics verify that the incidence of childhood sexual abuse cuts across all classifications of perpetrators. About three to five percent of all adult males are potential childhood sexual abusers, and that includes clergy and laypeople, of all religions or no religion at all, of all occupations and ages. The Catholic Church is the one organization that has done the most to eliminate childhood sexual abuse within its ranks and educate the general public about this societal problem. I would urge anyone to review the materials available on the website of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (www.usccb.org), as well as the Diocese of Orange website (www.rcbo.org). The diocese has implemented the Safe Environment Program in all of our schools and parishes, a program that has been copied by a number of other dioceses across the country, where I am told they view it as a model program. The rest of the comprehensive program includes age-appropriate video tapes shown at various intervals throughout a student's period of education, and supplemented by mandatory classes and seminars. What about Bishop Brown's Covenant with the Faithful? Didn't he promise "transparency" in dealing with these matters? The newspapers said that the Covenant is unequivocal; it doesn't say "transparency unless it creates legal difficulties." Bishop Brown, like any citizen of the state of California, has the obligations of any employer towards any of his employees, and state and federal laws require that an employer not divulge confidential medical information from an employee's file. We've all signed those "HIPPA" medical release forms when we visit our doctor. One local columnist castigated the Bishop for "trying to seal his transcript," as though he were trying to hide something about his own testimony regarding the facts in this case. All we asked was for a brief sealing of Bishop Brown's testimony regarding his employee's medical condition until we could get the matter before our trial judge, Gail Andler. We did so within a matter of days, but Judge Andler denied our petition for technical reasons. I want to make it very clear that we were not asking the court for any special privileges for either Bishop Brown or Monsignor Urell. Any employer has an obligation to protect the medical information of his or her employees, and any employee has a right to keep that medical information from being revealed publicly. Neither Bishop Brown nor Monsignor Urell requested any special privileges. By the same token, each of them is entitled to the same protections of law available to any other citizen. Why did Bishop Brown try to keep his own deposition confidential? He didn't. He only wanted a few lines of text to be kept confidential because it contained private health information pertaining to Monsignor Urell's condition. I requested that the portion of his deposition that addressed the confidential medical information of an employee (Monsignor Urell) be sealed until such time as our presiding judge Gail Andler could rule on whether such confidential information should be protected. I was concerned that the plaintiff lawyers would immediately contact the media and divulge Monsignor Urell's confidential medical information in order to try to embarrass Monsignor. Urell and the diocese. You said that some newspapers have criticized the bishop for "listening to his lawyers and not listening to his heart." How do you respond? Let me tell you something about this bishop. He asks his lawyers for legal advice on legal issues, and he'd be foolish if he didn't—but he makes his own decisions, taking into account all good advice, and he always follows his own conscience. When he settled all those cases in 2005 he did so because it was the right thing to do. That has been Bishop Brown's consistent motivation in every decision I have witnessed him make.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.