Unethical conduct for financial gain? Southern California contingency lawyer John C. Manly

Southern California contingency lawyer John Manly, who has pocketed millions of dollars by suing the Catholic Church, has now admitted that his office has obtained clients for abuse lawsuits by making unsolicited phone calls to Catholic Church parishioners.

This startling new revelation in the Catholic Church abuse narrative was exclusively reported by Sue Nowicki at The Modesto Bee newspaper.

According to Nowicki's piece, numerous individuals in the Diocese of Stockton (Calif.) have said that they received unsolicited phone calls to their homes from a woman hired by Manly. These calls, they claim, left them to conclude that Manly was "fishing" for victims in the case of an accused Catholic priest, Fr. Michael E. Kelly.

Manly has admitted that he hired the woman, but only to "investigate" Kelly.

Busted?

The obvious question for Manly is this: For what other reason would a Church-suing contingency lawyer "investigate" a Catholic priest except to garner clients?

Confronted with the charge that he was "fishing for victims," Manly, of course, denied the claim.

"We don't call people and ask if they want to be in lawsuits," Manly said in part to Nowicki. "That's not happening; it's not what we do. What we are doing is investigation. 'Did you ever see anything that was odd with Father Kelly?' That's how we got our first client."

So Manly has pretty much admitted that he found his first client against Fr. Kelly by "investigating" areas where the cleric worked. Wow.

The phone calls revealed

Some recipients of the phone calls from Manly's employee say the calls left them "infuriated and disgusted." Nowicki reports:

"[One recipient said] she was given the 'strong impression' that if she said her son, now 32, was interested in filing a lawsuit, 'they would have jumped all over that. They were going to find something (against Kelly), regardless if there was any cause for action.'"

And another:

"[Another woman] tried to tell [the caller] that she has known Kelly for three decades and described his positive influence on her sons. 'She told me she has found 10 more victims … She was going on and on and tried to convince me that I was stupid and didn't realize this was going on. I finally had to hang up on her.'"

Are these calls legal?

In her article, Nowicki reveals, "According to the state Bar Association, it is unethical for attorneys to make calls soliciting clients for financial gain." Indeed, it will be interesting to see if the California bar says anything about Manly's actions. (In 2006, by the way, Manly was sanctioned by a judge for "unacceptable" conduct.)

Thomas Beatty, a lawyer who has represented Fr. Kelly, questioned the calls' legality:

"I think it's an inducement into making false claims. I don't think that mass telephoning at every church and every school that (Kelly has) served at to drum up business is a proper way to do things."

Yet another recipient of a phone call sums up how many would feel after such an episode:

"As a teacher, I feel vulnerable. If former students from 20 years ago can be gathered over the phone to make statements against former teachers, we're all at risk, including police officers, doctors, nurses, coaches, etc."

About the accused priest

The target of Manly's ire, Fr. Kelly, has repeatedly and vehemently denied any and all accusations that he ever abused anyone. "The allegations are completely and totally false," Kelly has recently said. "They NEVER happened. Never. They are utterly untrue."

In addition, Kelly passed a polygraph test in 2007 that concluded that he was being truthful when he said that had never abused anyone over his 35 years in the priesthood.

Unfortunately for Fr. Kelly, a civil jury earlier this year decided that Fr. Kelly should be held liable for the abuse of a now-adult male who says he was abused by Kelly in the mid-1980s. The accuser invoked the discredited theory of "repressed memory," and Manly corralled a psychologist from Connecticut to take the stand and testify that the bogus psychological theory was actually true. Shockingly, the jury bought into it.

The Diocese was forced to settle this first case for $3.75 million. Now ever since, not surprisingly, new accusations are popping up.

Stay tuned.

Kudos to Sue Nowicki at The Modesto Bee for some great work.

———————-

The network claims that it is covering "a little-known chapter of the Catholic Church sex abuse story." Yet the narrative is hardly "little known." The New York Times, for example, has run a number of articles in the past few years about this topic, while the Los Angeles Times ran a humungous front-page piece about these cases a while back. (We even commented on it at the time.)

One cannot help but conclude that PBS is piling on this narrative as a means to hammer the Catholic Church. To wit, Frontline already aired a lengthy episode on the Catholic abuse narrative not that long ago ("Hand of God," Jan. 2007). If this upcoming episode is anything like the last one, viewers can expect to hear stomach-turning stories of abuse while being shown visuals of Church items and other holy images. (This is a not-so-subtle attempt to connect the thoughts of criminal child abuse with the Catholic Church.)

It is also possible that notorious attorney John Manly, who represented many of the alleged victims, will make an appearance on the upcoming show. Viewers should be warned (if he does indeed appear) that Manly’s relationships with truth and facts are not always reliable, to say the least. 

Indeed, Catholic priests terribly abused minors, and leaders failed to stop the awful harm. That is an undeniable truth. Nothing justifies such a wretched evil.

We must continue to demand justice and compassion for victims of clergy abuse. There is no doubt that the stories that will be heard on the program will be heart-wrenching and angering to hear.

However, media outlets like PBS have surpassed the point where they are merely reporting a story. They are using the scandals as a tool to single out and further tarnish the Church.

When will PBS’ Frontline investigate the massive child abuse and cover-ups happening today – not decades ago – in our nation's public schools? How about the recent cover-ups of abuse by Orthodox rabbis in New York City?

Or is only the Catholic Church a target?

To make matters worse, after the school granted her permission, Berg filmed children with their name tags clearly identifiable. A member of Berg’s crew later admitted that they neither sought nor were given permission to use pictures of the children. When the filmmakers later informed the school that their footage would be used for a film about O’Grady, the school “categorically refused” the request. But what did Berg do? She used the footage anyway.

Especially slanted were interview segments in the film when they dealt with Church and theological issues. The film includes several troubling interview segments with Fr. Thomas Doyle, an alleged Catholic priest. His presentations on issues such as the structure of the Church (a “monarchy”?), the history of the Church, the role of the laity, the training of seminarians, and the Eucharist are simply wrong and are not in alignment with official Church teaching. For example, Fr. Doyle states that the Church’s requirement of celibacy – a big target of the film – “is not justified anywhere in the Gospels or in the life and times and sayings of Christ.” Yet the Bible clearly quotes Jesus praising the gift of celibacy in the Gospel of Matthew (Matt. 19:12), and Paul unequivocally encourages celibacy in his First Letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor 7). That a man espousing to be a Catholic priest could air such a blatant falsehood (in a “documentary,” no less) should be disturbing to any serious Catholic.

Meanwhile, California attorney John Manly airs a number of falsehoods. For example, he claims that the Church teaches, “[I]f you are not in communion with the church you are damned to hell.” A cursory look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 846-848, rebuts this assertion. Meanwhile, the “theologian” of the film, Patrick Wall, doesn’t bother correct Manly. This is no surprise, however, because Wall is actually one of his employees.

PART II: A Fallacious Attack on the Cardinal Mahony

PART III: Even More Factual Errors

"The Pope has direct responsibility for this (the abuse scandals). He was in charge, for the last 25 years. He's the one who's supposed to monitor priests and pull 'em out of ministry. And he did not do a damn thing to protect kids. And that's a shame."

The truth:

1. It is the duty of the local bishop – not the Pope, who is thousands of miles away across the Atlantic Ocean – to "monitor priests." ("The Priest and the Bishop" (vatican.va).)

2. A local bishop can "pull 'em out of ministry," also.

3. The charge that neither Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict VI have done "a damn thing to protect kids" is an awful smear. Even Manly's friends at the notorious SNAP acknowledge that these men have removed abusers. In addition, the numerous measures taken by the Catholic Church over the past several years to protect children could fill a book! The Catholic Church may, in fact, be the safest environment for children today – due in part because of the initiatives of the Church's two most recent popes.

The verdict: John Manly: Not to be trusted.

1. Manly accused Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony of "[giving] the wrong name of [a] victim to the police." The awful ex-priest Michael Baker is alleged to have molested the said victim.

Manly tried to portray the Cardinal as being dishonest and duplicitous in regards to Baker's victim. But what's the truth? If you've read about John Manly on this site before, you already know that things are not always what he says they are.

As Manly briefly mentioned in the interview, the victim had a very common Spanish surname. In addition, the boy had a different father than his sister. "Their mother had given the boy her own maiden name and the daughter a different surname."

Most importantly, according to a 2007 Los Angeles Times article about the search for the victim, the detective searching for the victim  obtained the victim's name from an internal church document. According to the article, the detective did not get the name from the police, as Manly claimed.

It was this confusion that caused the detective to have trouble locating the victim. The detective was looking for the boy under the sister's surname, which was not the boy's surname. From the show:

MANLY: In my client’s case, um, y’know, uh, um, even gave the wrong name of the victim to the police. Now that’s a matter of public record as well. They, y’know, um, so they couldn’t find him. The police didn’t locate my client until 2006.

JOHN/KEN: Mahony gave the wrong name to police?

MANLY: That’s correct.

J/K: What? He made up a name? Or he-?

MANLY: They gave the name – They gave a family name, that, uh, I don’t want to say the name, obviously. But they gave a family name that would be like, uh, y’know – (crosstalk) Hispanic –

J/K: Something common.

MANLY: It would be like telling someone his name is John Smith. And they knew that Smith wasn’t the last name. So, y’know, it’s a – (Manly fades out, like he knows he's stretching it here)

Think about it for a second. If the Cardinal or someone in the Church really set out to deceive people regarding the victim, wouldn't it make a lot more sense to give a totally erroneous name that didn't resemble the victim at all? Of course.

But in John Manly's world, every action by the Church is viewed in the most negative and malicious light.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

2. I guess if you spin as many wild tales as John Manly does, you have a tough time making up your mind sometimes.

Here's the question: Should Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley criminally prosecute Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony? In the course of just a few minutes in a single interview, Manly gave three different responses:

a. The starter:

MANLY: … The overriding issue is -Why is this guy (Mahony) still in this city? And why has he not been prosecuted? How come Steve Cooley hasn’t done anything about this?

b. Less than four minutes later:

JOHN/KEN: So Monsignor Loomis’ testimony – Do you think this should be acted upon legally?

MANLY: That’s not my call. I find it very disturbing. And this is not the first time, as you guys know, we’ve talked about this …

c. Three minutes later:

MANLY: … And the fact that [Cardinal Mahony is] in charge of hundreds of thousands of kids. And you got his record and his testimony. It seems to me that this should be a matter of law enforcement to consider.

Manly is being dishonest here, because he's already well aware of the fact that the Cardinal has not broken any law. As I've posted before, on a July 2007 episode of John & Ken, L.A. District Attorney Steve Cooley asserted that neither the Cardinal nor anyone in the archdiocese has broken any mandatory reporting law. From July 2007:

"We have not had one report from any source, including Mr. Manly, to suggest that any violation of that [mandatory reporting] statute, that California statute that makes that an affirmative duty."

Later in the same program, the following exchange between the host and Cooley took place:

JOHN/KEN: I'm trying to figure out. What is Manly talking about? Manly keeps coming on our show and says you have stuff – basically what he's saying is – you have stuff, you should be prosecuting already. But I'm not sure what the "stuff" is that he thinks you have.

D.A. STEVE COOLEY: I can’t get into Mr. Manly’s head. He’s made outrageous statements in the context of those civil proceedings for which he’s been sanctioned. He’s made outrageous statements about me. He’s made outrageous statements on your program. I’m not going to try to get into his head. However, I do extend to him an invitation to deliver to us in writing any theory he has of criminal liability on behalf of anyone involved with this matter and support it like a good lawyer. If he has any evidence, come forward. The invitation has been extended to him and has been extended to him today by [Deputy D.A.] Bill Hodgman in writing.

Here we are two years later, and Manly is simply repeating the same-old, same-old.

Ugh.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

3. John Manly also offered this nugget:

MANLY: … [T]he fact is over time the Cardinal has proven himself to be a less-than-credible person when it comes to telling the truth about childhood sexual abuse.

If Manly wants to think about someone being "less than credible" in discussing clergy abuse, he should look in the mirror.

Once again, Lopez, like other members of the Times, appear to have been duped by victims' lawyer John Manly. In fact, even if a "paper trail" revealed that Mahony detailed that the archdiocese was "going to wait" on calling police, this would not represent anything new or earth-shattering.

Why not? Because Cardinal Mahony has already admitted (and apologized) publicly several times since 2002 over the fact that neither he nor the archdiocese called police about Father Baker's abuse in 2000. And this sad fact has already been widely reported in the media.

And here's an important fact that Lopez didn't report (and probably doesn't even know either): The archdiocese only became aware of Baker's late-1990's abuse when a lawyer hired by two of Baker's victims sent a letter to the archdiocese in 2000. (The young men and the archdiocese eventually settled out of court for $1.3 million.)

Think about that for a minute.

As Lopez noted, the archdiocesan general counsel advised that the Cardinal not call police regarding Baker. The reason that the counsel arrived at this decision is not known for sure.

But one can easily imagine that a call to police would have publicized the case. Remember – neither the men's lawyer nor the men (who were adults in 2000) called police, either. The website of SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests) openly states, "Abuse victims, like rape victims, need their privacy to recover from their trauma." The counsel may have thought that a call to police would have been viewed as an unseemly tactic to "intimidate the victims" or "interfere in a civil lawsuit." This possible scenario, in addition to the fact that the boys were now adults (which did not make reporting the case mandatory), may have led to the counsel's decision.

The bottom line: Monsignor Loomis' testimony reveals nothing but a possible "behind-the-scenes view" as to how the archdiocese reacted to the revelations that Baker committed such awful crimes.

It is also egregious that Lopez uncritically quotes lawyer John Manly. Lopez is apparently oblivious to the fact that Manly has a well-established track record of airing outrageous statements and falsehoods in the media all the time.

John Manly, the attorney who represents Luis and took the Loomis deposition, said he will ask the court to order the archdiocese to produce the memo Loomis spoke of.

"If Loomis is correct," Manly said, Mahony was "encouraging people not to call police and to intentionally cover it up. You wonder where law enforcement is on this."

Ugh. Again … the fact that Mahony did not call police in 2002 is already very well documented. Why hasn't law enforcement charged Cardinal Mahony? Because the L.A. County District Attorney is convinced that the Cardinal hasn't broken the law. And John Manly knows this.

Check out this important exchange between Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley and a host on KFI radio's "John and Ken Show" from July 17, 2007. They're discussing Cardinal Mahony, the archdiocese, and the scandal.

JOHN/KEN: … [John] Manly keeps coming on our show and says you have stuff – basically what he's saying is – you have stuff, you should be prosecuting already. But I'm not sure what the "stuff" is that he thinks you have.

D.A. STEVE COOLEY: I can’t get into Mr. Manly’s head. He’s made outrageous statements in the context of those civil proceedings for which he’s been sanctioned. He’s made outrageous statements about me. He’s made outrageous statements on your program. I’m not going to try to get into his head. However, I do extend to him an invitation to deliver to us in writing any theory he has of criminal liability on behalf of anyone involved with this matter and support it like a good lawyer. If he has any evidence, come forward. The invitation has been extended to him and has been extended to him today by [Deputy D.A.] Bill Hodgman in writing.

That was over two years ago. And far as I know, Manly, who is never shy of publicity, has not brought forth any evidence in writing.

In addition, on the very same show, in specifically discussing the statute in which priests must report known abuse of minors to authorities, Cooley added,

"We have not had one report from any source, including Mr. Manly, to suggest that any violation of that statute – that California statute – that makes that an affirmative duty."

Mandated reporting for priests began in 1997.

Got it?

The abuse of children that occurred at the hands of priests is truly despicable. And Church officials, by their own admission, terribly mishandled these cases. But this is not an excuse for journalists like Steve Lopez to dishonestly report the scandal.

But, then again, Lopez is not the first reporter to be duped by John Manly.

+_+_+_+_+

Oh, yeah. Lopez also misled his readers with this passage:

In a 2004 "Report to the People of God," Mahony told parishioners he had left five priests in the ministry despite complaints that they were molesters. A Times investigation came up with a different total, though, finding that Mahony had left an additional 11 priests in the ministry after concerns were raised about their inappropriate behavior with children.

Lopez is either ignorant or dishonest with this passage. What Lopez doesn't divulge to his readers is that the "additional 11" priests were allowed to return to ministry only after a thorough investigation by investigators and an oversight board into the allegations.

As I've written before, the media has been completely uninterested in those priests who have vehemently denied decades-old allegations against them.

Here's what the Times buried in an article on February 7, 2004:

[Rev.] Manuel Sanchez of Sacred Heart Church in Pomona said Friday that he did not even know his accuser. "I am completely innocent of the charges," the priest said. He said he learned of "this terrible accusation" six months ago and believed that his accuser was either "looking for money or he sincerely confused me with another person."

Sanchez was also quoted a couple years later on a CBS2 News report, March 26, 2006:

"With God as my witness, I am completely innocent of this claim of totally immoral and repugnant behavior. Being the object of a false accusation is a cause of great sorrow to me and my family."

Rev. Sanchez was one of those "additional 11." Other priests similarly reject their accusations.

Again -and this is very important – no one can deny the awful harm wrecked upon youth at the hands of priests. It happened, and it's truly abominable. But this is not an excuse for reporters like Lopez to deceive readers by publishing totally false and misleading information.

+_+_+_+_+

Finally … While Lopez still enjoys pounding on Cardinal Mahony with a story that's seven years old, he doesn't seem too worked up about far more recent misdeeds at LAUSD.

Lopez has devoted exactly one article to the enormous sex abuse scandals at LAUSD, and that article was almost a year and a half ago.

Why has Lopez never questioned the fact that Carol Truscott is back at her job at LAUSD ($171,000+/yr.) in light of her handling of the Steve Rooney affair? Why was Admiral David Brewer given a complete pass on the scandal in light of the fact that a memo about Rooney's February 2007 arrest was explicitly addressed to him? (For more info on this, go here.)

I guess only if Carol Truscott and David Brewer were "Rev. Carl Truscott" and "Monsignor David Brewer" would Lopez actually give a rip.

For starters, in claiming that priestly celibacy "does not work," Manly asserted that the discipline was a "development from the fourth century" and was "unheard of during Christ's life and during the 400 years after he died." He also falsely claimed that the "invention [was] largely economically motivated."

Yikes. Especially laughable is Manly's claim that celibacy was "unheard of during Christ's life." Manly might want to pick up a Bible (if he even has one) and take a look at Matthew 19:12, where Jesus himself states,

"Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it."

Gee, it sure seems like Jesus heard of celibacy!

A few years later, Paul applied Jesus' wisdom and encouraged celibacy to his readers. This is illustrated, among other places, in 1 Corinthians 7:8,32-35,38:

Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do … I should like you to be free of anxieties. An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord. But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and he is divided. An unmarried woman or a virgin is anxious about the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy in both body and spirit. A married woman, on the other hand, is anxious about the things of the world, how she may please her husband. I am telling you this for your own benefit, not to impose a restraint upon you, but for the sake of propriety and adherence to the Lord without distraction … So then, the one who marries his virgin does well; the one who does not marry her will do better.

The bottom line: Manly is flat-out wrong. Both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible provide evidence for the discipline of celibacy.

Mr. Manly and other interested readers may find these links particularly helpful:

"How To Argue For Priestly Celibacy" by Jason Evert

"What is the History of Priestly Celibacy?" Catholic Answers

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Manly also wildly asserted, "[The clergy abuse crisis] is not a problem with gay priests. That is a myth. It has nothing to do with homosexuality. It is a problem with celibacy and the celibate system."

Well, numbers don't lie. According to the widely accepted 2004 John Jay College study of the clergy abuse crisis (emphasis mine):

• Unlike in the general population, more males than females were allegedly [abused]. In fact, there was a significant difference between genders, with four out of five alleged victims being male. (DFP: It was 81% male; 19% female)
   
• The majority of alleged victims were post-pubescent, with only a small percentage of priests receiving allegations of abusing young children.
• The largest group of alleged victims (50.9%) was between the ages of 11 and 14, 27.3% were 15-17, 16% were 8-10 and nearly 6% were under age 7. Overall, 81% of victims were male and 19% female. Male victims tended to be older than female victims. Over 40% of all victims were males between the ages of 11 and 14.

In other words, the numbers make a very strong case for the fact that the crisis had a lot to do with homosexuality.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

In discussing the scandal, Manly also aired an interesting take on the horrible abuse that occurred by Jesuits several years ago in remote villages in Alaska. He made the wild claim that the Jesuits made Eskimo villages a "dumping ground" for known abusers.

MANLY: And one of the things that's really, that we're finding is in those populations – in immigrant populations, in Native American populations, those are the populations where you find the hierarchy had a policy and practice of dumping priests. In fact, in Alaska, we have almost 150 cases where all but one are Native Alaskan people who were abused by Jesuits. And what the Jesuits were doing was if a priest offended in the lower 48, they simply shipped him up to western Alaska, a village of 500 people, and they went on to abuse there.

HOST: Oh, gosh.

MANLY: But, um, that's what you find.

In all the news articles and items I have been able to find on the cases involving the Jesuits in Alaska, I have not encountered one instance where lawyers have provided even the slightest bit of evidence that such an unseemly practice took place. Manly's assertion has the make of being just another one of his falsehoods.

On November 19, 2005, the Los Angeles Times investigated some of the atrocious abuse that occurred in Alaska at the hands of Jesuits. The article, "Missionary's Dark Legacy" was written by William Lobdell, who is hardly sympathetic to the Church. In fact, he's downright adversarial. Yet look at what he wrote (emphasis mine):

Since [2002], 85 Alaska natives from 13 villages have filed claims against the church for alleged abuse by six priests and two lay missionaries from 1956 to 1988.

The flood of allegations has led to speculation that the Eskimo settlements were a "dumping ground" for abusive priests and lay workers affiliated with the Jesuit order, which supplied priests and bishops to the Fairbanks diocese.

"It's like the French Foreign Legion — you join rather than go to prison," says Richard Sipe, a former Benedictine monk who is an authority on clergy sexual abuse and has served as an expert witness in hundreds of cases, including those in the Eskimo villages. "I was absolutely convinced this happened in Alaska."

Father John D. Whitney, chief of the Jesuits' Oregon Province, which includes Alaska, denied that known deviants were shipped there. To the contrary, Jesuit literature portrayed Alaska as "the world's most difficult mission," a prestigious assignment for the most courageous and faithful priests.

"They weren't in exile," Whitney said. "They were looked on as people who were blazing the trail for faith."

In other words, even Lobdell could not uncover anything that showed that Jesuits "dumped" known abusers up to Alaska. Lobdell could not label it anything worse than "speculation."

Judging from John Manly and Patrick Wall's wobbly history with the truth, this claim is likely just another one of their bogus tales.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

On the show Manly repeated a bogus tale about Fr. Thomas Doyle.

Manly falsely claimed that because Fr. Doyle had publicly criticized the its handling of the abuse crisis, the Church "pulled his faculties," "made some lame excuse to get rid of him," and "denied him his pension."

Rather than repeat myself, you can read the truth about Fr. Doyle in a previous post.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Then there was this nugget:

MANLY: What you have in the priesthood is a massive non-compliance with this. Everybody's either masturbating compulsively, having sexual relationships – either committed or otherwise with adults, men, or women, or they're engaging in relationships with minors … Depending on who you believe, between 5 and 20 percent of priests at some point have actively engaged in sexual relationships with minors.

I'd love for Manly to explain how he knows who is and who is not masturbating. Did he conduct a poll of some kind?

C'mon … Can you see how full of it this guy is yet?

And as far as his "5 and 20 percent" figure of those who have "actively engaged in sexual relationships with minors," the John Jay report also answered this one. It concluded that a little over 4 percent of all priests between 1950 and 2002 had an accusation against them. And from my own research I've done using figures from Los Angeles, about 20 percent of priests were already deceased at the time of their accusation. Though undoubtedly there was awful abuse over the years, the vast majority of cases never saw a criminal trial.

(By the way, what does Manly mean by "actively engaged in sexual relationships"? Is there such a thing as being "inactively engaged"?)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Manly claimed he was no longer a Catholic "because what [the Catholic Church is] doing is evil." 

"I was never going to expose my children to an environment that's not safe. And people can laugh and say what they like. It's not safe."

Again, Manly has never provided a shred of evidence that clergy abuse is still happening today in Southern California. He has provided no evidence that a Church environment is "not safe." The Los Angeles archdiocese, for one, has instituted numerous programs for adults and children about sex abuse awareness. (See my post about that.)

Here's a brutal truth: If John Manly has his daughters enrolled in public school, they are statistically in an environment that is much, much, more dangerous than a Catholic church. Professor Carol Shakeshaft of Hofstra University, the author of a 2002 study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education, has stated, "The physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests." (For any math-challenged readers: That's rate, not raw numbers.)

In other words, if John Manly has his daughters enrolled in public schools, he is placing his daughters at tremendous risk for sexual abuse out of blind bigotry against the Catholic Church!

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Near the end of the interview, Manly almost seemed to be pulling the chain of host Frank. Listen to this:

"I have a case in Orange County where there was a prostitute, a donkey, a priest, and a boy involved. I couldn't make this stuff up."

Manly "couldn't make this stuff up"? He's got to be kidding. He does it all the time!

As I write this, it is nearly two years after this wild claim by Manly. I've yet to come across the "prostitute-donkey-priest-boy" story. And, believe me, Manly would have let the media know about it – if it were true.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

This one is not a falsehood. Just ridiculous. Many stated, "There shouldn't be a criminal statute of limitations at all" for sex abuse.

In other words, any person, with simply a credible-enough story – without any evidence whatsoever, no matter how many decades later – can come forward and do irreparable damage to a person's life and career.

Why? All so Manly can line his pockets and feel better about himself? C'mon …

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Another memorable exchange:

MANLY: I think the figure is – and I wouldn't want to swear to this, but I think I'm right – the figure in 1983 is that over 20% – or close to 20% – of the priests in the Diocese of Orange were active molesters.

HOST: 20 percent.

MANLY: In some dioceses, it's well over that, but those are staggering numbers.

Well, let me just say that I'm glad that Manly didn't "swear to this" one.

MANLY: The reality is that if you are a priest in this system, all of them know that if they come forward and they speak – they speak out and they speak in favor of kids … What's really disconcerting to me is that none of these guys have the courage to speak out. None of them …

HOST: Well if you speak out you have to leave.

MANLY: Well, honestly to me, when you know this is happening, if you stay, it's equivalent to being a train engineer – you love your job – but you just happen to have to transfer prisoners to Auschwitz. You don't really like it, but it's important. You gotta feed your family. What are you gonna do? You can't stay. You gotta leave.

Hear the shocking audio:

By the way, priests have spoken out against the way things were handled. Were they punished? Of course not. (Manly has repeated this lie before.)

As for Manly's Auschwitz comparison … Hello, ADL. Are you listening?

MANLY: … In Europe the Catholic Church is basically dead. I mean, there's a bunch of empty cathedrals. But in terms of – certainly in Italy, there are churches, but it's really more cultural. In the United States it's dying. I'm not saying the Catholic Church is going to cease to exist, but in terms of – y'know – the type of influence it had in the 60's, 70's, and 80's, it's a different church. And, regrettably, what the Catholic hierarchy has concluded is that they're going to let that go, and it's going to be a church where they are – The only place you see the Church growing is immigrant populations, and the place it's growing fastest is Africa.

HOST: Why do you think that is?

MANLY: Umm. I think it's a – uh, y'know, – those are places and people that are in desperate need. They are the poorest of the poor, and they have no voice. And, uh, that is the perfect place for these people to do what they want to do. And also those are cultures that to some extent where women are not as empowered, as they are in the West. And that is a big problem for the church.

HOST: And people are more vulnerable there, too.

MANLY: And they are. Ummm, and there's no civil justice system or criminal justice system within those populations that's going to allow people to come forward.

If this isn't an outrageous example of an out-of-touch, super-wealthy, condescending attorney talking down to poor people, I don't know what is.

In John Manly's world, "poor" = "ignorant" and "unable to think for yourself."

Good … grief.

Manly and a blogger going by the name of "Jubal" (actually an Orange County conservative named Matt Cunningham) were sparring online over the role of a monsignor in a 2007 case in Orange County. Manly wanted to invite Jubal to his office to see the monsignor's files. In the comments section below a post by Jubal, here's what Manly wrote (emphasis mine):

Instead of going to mass on Sunday, why don't you do a Saturday evening service and come in on a Sunday? We'll even turn the air on for you. Speaking of Church, why don't you just give me the money you're going to put in the collection basket this weekend? It would be quicker.

See you at Mass.

Manly out.

Posted by: john manly | September 28, 2007 at 07:00 PM

Lest I be accused of taking Manly's remark "out of context," I have provided a screenshot of his complete comment below.

A Los Angeles radio host once quipped, "Whenever anyone says, 'It's not about the money' — it's about the money."

It appears for Manly it would be "quicker" to "just give me the money you're going to put in the collection basket this weekend." Jubal, surprised by Manly's words, subsequently posted a piece about what Manly wrote ("What John Manly Is All About"). Added Jubal, "You mean 'give it to the victims,' don't you John?"

No one can challenge the awful harm that abusers wrecked upon their victims. But judging from Manly's very own words, it appears the lawyers have reached a point in their crusade that their work is not really about "healing," "help," or "justice" anymore. It's about two things: money and bashing the Church. How can anyone dispute this in light of Manly's revealing comment?

+_+_+_+_+_+

Here's the screenshot for posterity:

By the way: Did you catch Manly's "I'm beginning to feel like your avoiding me"? You'd think a lawyer would have the "your"-vs.-"you're" thing down by now, wouldn't you?

Pierre out.