I think that even the most objective biographer of Diocese of Orange Bishop Tod D. Brown will agree that the sex-abuse scandal in Orange has been a big part of his tenure here--not just the $100 million settlement that for a couple of years was the largest ever in the history of American Catholicism, not just the "Covenant with the Faithful" that still hangs at every Catholic parish in Orange County, but also that Brown was accused of molesting a boy during the 1960s but never bothered to tell anyone until that fact was brought out in court.
Worthy of a mention in any retelling of the Brown tale, right? But if you go to Wikipedia and look for Brown's page, you'll find worse than none of the above: you'll find even the slightest whiff of scandal erased.
As it stands, there is no mention of Brown and the sex-abuse scandal. A look at the page's history, and you'll find that at one point, someone bothered to include the fact that Brown was accused of molestation. But last month, a Costa Mesa resident (we know, because we checked the IP) went on the page and erased any mention of this, leaving the ludicrous note, "There is no place in an encyclopedia article for hearsay."
Hearsay? Encyclopedia article? Ain't no hearsay involving Brownie claiming he's transparent, then not telling anyone about an abuse allegation lodged against him--it's all documented, baby. Even crazier, how is it that no Wikipedia person has yet to include any other mention of Brown's role in the sex-abuse scandal? Can one of ustedes commentators do this, por favor? No lies--just Brownie's spinning, pedo-apologizing and -protecting ugly truth.
If you like this story, consider signing up for our email newsletters.
SHOW ME HOW
You have successfully signed up for your selected newsletter(s) - please keep an eye on your mailbox, we're movin' in!
In the meanwhile, let's all marvel at the lengths his apologists will take to protect the man--heckuva job, Brownie!