April 17, 2002

Response to Mr. Alan Hicks

Dear Friends,

Mr. Alan Hicks, the Headmaster of St. Gregory's Academy, has recently circulated a "personal response" concerning the scandal surrounding the Society of St. John (SSJ). But rather than help to expose the misdeeds of the SSJ—which he knows all too well—Mr. Hicks has attempted to "kill the messenger," namely, me. This is particularly ironic since Mr. Hicks himself was the initial "messenger" of bad news insofar as he informed me on August 19, 2001 that Fr. Carlos Urrutigoity, the Superior of the SSJ, had a habit of sleeping with boys. Since Mr. Hicks has now publicly denied that he said this to me, I must respond to his denial and the many other accusations he has made against me. Given the extended length of Mr. Hicks' statement, I will address his accusations in a series of letters of which this is the first.

Mr. Hicks claims in his statement that on August 19, 2001 he informed me only of "a rumor that college guys visiting in Shohola had slept with Fr. Urrutigoity." But if this were true, if Mr. Hicks had merely conveyed to me a "rumor" about Fr. Urrutigoity, then Mr. Hicks would have had no business seeking me out and spending three to four hours with me accusing Fr. Urrutigoity and the SSJ of serious misconduct based upon a "rumor." Indeed, if Mr. Hicks had been operating on a mere rumor, then he would have been guilty of a serious sin of detraction for having spent hours explaining to me all the misdeeds committed by Fr. Urrutigoity and the SSJ while they were at St. Gregory's Academy.

It is important to realize that I never went to Mr. Hicks to ask him if I should have any concerns about the moral integrity of Fr. Urrutigoity and the SSJ. If I had come to Mr. Hicks with this question, then it might have been proper for him to share with me the "rumor that college guys visiting in Shohola had slept with Fr. Urrutigoity." But Mr. Hicks drove all the way to Shohola to seek me out—though he had never paid me a visit before—to tell me that Fr. Urrutigoity regularly slept with young men. It bears repeating, then, that if Mr. Hicks had known only of a rumor about Fr. Urrutigoity, then he would have been engaged in the wholesale destruction of Fr. Urrutigoity's character based upon what he now claims was only a rumor.

The fact is, Mr. Hicks knew then, as he knows now, that Fr. Urrutigoity's habit of sleeping with boys was no rumor.

* * *

I should add that, not long after our initial meeting, Mr. Hicks asked me if I would be willing to tell people that I had learned about Fr. Urrutigoity's habit from sources other than himself. Mr. Hicks made this request because he was concerned that his superiors in the Fraternity of St. Peter might punish him for having "set the ball rolling" in such a way as ultimately to harm St. Gregory's. I told Mr. Hicks I could honor his request in good conscience because, by the time he had made this request, I had already been apprised of Fr. Urrutigoity's habit from other sources. I mention this here to underscore how Mr. Hicks was aware that he had shared with me much more than a rumor about Fr. Urrutigoity. Early on, then, Mr. Hicks knew the issue was sufficiently serious that it could easily damage his own reputation and position.

But why did Mr. Hicks come to me? As he made it clear that afternoon, Mr. Hicks had heard that a family in California was preparing a lawsuit against Fr. Urrutigoity. Therefore, Mr. Hicks asked me to speak to Fr. Urrutigoity to urge him to stop his practice of sleeping with young men. Since many of these young men were graduates of St. Gregory's, Mr. Hicks was concerned about the possible negative consequences for St. Gregory's inasmuch as the SSJ had continually linked itself to St. Gregory's in the SSJ's fundraising literature. Mr. Hicks came to me because he hoped that, in this regard, I might have some moral authority with Fr. Urrutigoity.

The next question, then, is why did I believe Mr. Hicks? What follows is a summary of what Mr. Hicks told me in our meeting of August 19, 2001:

1. Mr. Hicks told me that Mr. Fred Fraser, a former head dorm father at St. Gregory's Academy, had told Mr. Hicks that he, Mr. Fraser, had slept with Fr. Urrutigoity. When I pressed Mr. Hicks for details, Mr. Hicks explained how, by a process of questioning Mr. Fraser, he had learned that Mr. Fraser and Fr. Urrutigoity had not merely slept together in the same room (as Mr. Hicks now claims in his statement), but had actually shared the same bed.
2. Mr. Hicks told me that a former teacher—I do not recall if he mentioned Mr. Paul Hornak by name—had informed him that Fr. Urrutigoity had shared the same sleeping bag with two St. Gregory's boys on a school-sponsored camping trip. When I asked him for details, he said he was not sure about how the sleeping bag was arranged, but that he considered the teacher's account trustworthy.
3. Mr. Hicks told me that, as a result of the rumored impending lawsuit, he personally asked Mr. Michael Miller and Mr. Mark Schwerdt, both graduates of St. Gregory's Academy, if Fr. Urrutigoity had shared his bed with other young men. Mr. Hicks told me that both Mr. Miller and Mr. Schwerdt informed him that this was a common practice on the SSJ's Shohola property. Thus, far from relying upon mere "rumor," Mr. Hicks had done some research of his own and had found two graduates who had told him the "rumor" was true.
4. Mr. Hicks told me that Brother Gabriel and Brother Isaac, of the Servants Minor of St. Francis, had also witnessed many questionable incidents involving Fr. Urrutigoity and young men. Amongst these incidents were pillow fights in underwear and other inappropriate behaviors for a priest.
5. Mr. Hicks told me about Fr. Urrutigoity supplying St. Gregory's boys with alcohol and tobacco. For this reason, as Mr. Hicks then explained to me, when Fr. Urrutigoity took some of the boys on a "field trip" to New York City, Mr. Hicks had asked Brother Isaac to accompany them because he did not trust Fr. Urrutigoity to be alone with the boys. According to Mr. Hicks' account, Brother Isaac said the first thing Fr. Urrutigoity did was to stop to buy cigarettes for all the boys, and that he later bought expensive wine for them at two different restaurants.
6. Mr. Hicks told me that Mr. Anthony Myers, a former teacher at St. Gregory's who had joined the SSJ, had complained about Fr. Urrutigoity's sleeping with young men on the Shohola property. Mr. Hicks noted that Mr. Myers had objected only because this practice deprived Fr. Urrutigoity of sufficient sleep. Mr. Hicks found this particularly strange since Mr. Myers had previously complained loudly to Mr. Hicks that some of the St. Gregory's boys were sneaking into each other's rooms to share the same bed. Mr. Hicks then noted how, under the influence of Fr. Urrutigoity, Mr. Myers had radically changed in his thinking. Mr. Myers now had no moral objection to boys sharing the same bed with Fr. Urrutigoity. Mr. Hicks added that, because of Mr. Myers' now excessive devotion to Fr. Urrutigoity, Mr. Hicks felt personally betrayed by Mr. Myers' decision to leave St. Gregory's and join the SSJ.
7. Mr. Hicks told me that he thought Fr. Urrutigoity was a pervert inasmuch as no normal adult male would choose to sleep with young men. In this same context, Mr. Hicks told me about Fr. Urrutigoity's theory of male friendship. This theory, which advocates men sleeping together for the sake of psychological bonding, was presented to Mr. Hicks by Mr. Christopher Manuele. Mr. Manuele was a former SSJ member, one who had become disillusioned with Fr. Urrutigoity, and who subsequently had taught at St. Gregory's. Mr. Hicks suggested this theory was operative among Fr. Urrutigoity's followers in the SSJ. In particular, Mr. Hicks mentioned that Fr. Eric Ensey, who was frequently ill, had persuaded some of the St. Gregory's boys to wait upon him hand and foot, to the point that these boys were reduced to carrying him to the bathroom because Fr. Ensey was, supposedly, too weak to walk himself. Mr. Hicks also conveyed an account he had heard about Fr. Marshall Roberts sleeping in his underwear in close proximity to other young men.
8. Mr. Hicks told me that having the SSJ priests as chaplains at St. Gregory's had been a disaster. Mr. Hicks further complained of how Fr. Urrutigoity had strongly encouraged older boys to haze younger boys. Moreover, Mr. Hicks complained to me how the SSJ had regularly used St. Gregory's in its own literature in order to present, for the purposes of fundraising, the appearance of unity between the two institutions. And finally, Mr. Hicks mentioned how completely unreliable the SSJ priests had been as teachers.

* * *

Although I saw no reason to doubt Mr. Hicks' accusations against Fr. Urrutigoity, I did not begin to act publicly upon Mr. Hicks' claims until another former dorm father at St. Gregory's admitted to me that he himself also had slept one-on-one with Fr. Urrutigoity. At this point I knew without doubt that Fr. Urrutigoity did indeed have what Fr. Paul Carr has termed a "sleeping sickness." At that time, however, I had no evidence that Fr. Urrutigoity had ever molested anyone.

In his denial, Mr. Hicks has also ignored how Mr. Howard Clark, the Assistant Headmaster at St. Gregory's, acknowledged on another occasion to Fr. Munkelt and me that his own son had admitted to sleeping with Fr. Urrutigoity. Just as Mr. Hicks had questioned Mr. Miller and Mr. Schwerdt to confirm that Fr. Urrutigoity slept with young men, so too Mr. Clark had posed the same question to his own son (who was also a graduate of St. Gregory's). Mr. Clark shared this information with Fr. Munkelt and me as proof that Fr. Urrutigoity had indeed sought out young men with whom he could share his bed. Although Fr. Munkelt and I were shocked by this information, Mr. Clark said that he was not worried. This was because his son, unlike many other St. Gregory's graduates, was no longer one of Fr. Urrutigoity's "groupies." Strangely, as evidence of Mr. Hicks' search for the truth about Fr. Urrutigoity, Mr. Hicks mentions in his statement that he had questioned many people connected with St. Gregory's, including Mr. Clark's own son. It is difficult to believe that Mr. Clark would freely share this information about his son with Fr. Munkelt and me, yet never mention it to Mr. Hicks himself.

* * *

Let us now consider the most egregious aspect of Mr. Hicks' denial. I refer to his attempt to use my own correspondence against me. He quotes from an email I sent to a concerned St. Gregory's parent. The email is dated October 24, 2001. Therein I wrote that "I want to make it perfectly clear that there is no evidence that students at St. Gregory's Academy ever slept with Father Urrutigoity." I did indeed write this email. I myself forwarded a copy to Mr. Hicks.

I wrote this because, as far as I knew at the time, it was the truth. That is to say, at the time I did not have any evidence that students AT St. Gregory's Academy had ever slept with Fr. Urrutigoity. That is to say, Mr. Hicks had convinced me that GRADUATES, and only graduates, of St. Gregory's Academy had slept with Fr. Urrutigoity.

Let us briefly review what Mr. Hicks had conveyed to me on this matter:

1. Mr. Fred Fraser, who was a dorm father when he slept with Fr. Urrutigoity, was NOT a student at the Academy.
2. Mr. Michael Miller and Mr. Mark Schwerdt had told Mr. Hicks that young men were indeed sleeping with Fr. Urrutigoity at the SSJ property in Shohola. But Mr. Hicks did not report to me that Mr. Miller and Mr. Schwerdt said anything about students AT St. Gregory's sleeping with Fr. Urrutigoity.
3. At that time, then, the only incident known to me involving St. Gregory's students (as opposed to graduates) was a camping trip wherein Fr. Urrutigoity shared a sleeping bag with two boys. Note that this did not happen AT the Academy itself under normal dormitory conditions. Rather, Mr. Hicks presented this as an isolated incident, one wherein Fr. Urrutigoity took advantage of the boys' removal from presumed supervision AT the Academy. At that time I had no reason to believe that the dormitory situation at St. Gregory's was not properly supervised.

Thus, contrary to Mr. Hicks' efforts to suggest otherwise, my email of October 24, 2001 did not in any way contradict what I had learned from Mr. Hicks on August 19, 2001. Again, I myself forwarded this email to Mr. Hicks. This action on my part demonstrates clearly my desire to shield St. Gregory's from any harm deriving from the misconduct of Fr. Urrutigoity and the SSJ. As I have written elsewhere, Mr. Hicks had convinced me that he and St. Gregory's had themselves been victimized by the SSJ.

So how has Mr. Hicks repaid me for my efforts to try to protect him and his school? Consider the paragraph below from his statement:

Note the words (in capitals) that Mr. Hicks puts into my mouth here. As I have already made clear above, I never said that Mr. Hicks gave me proof of Fr. Urrutigoity SLEEPING WITH ACADEMY STUDENTS. Rather, I said that Mr. Hicks had informed me that Fr. Urrutigoity had a habit of sleeping with boys. By putting the above-capitalized words into my mouth, Mr. Hicks has tried to make it appear as if I had lied in reporting what he himself had said to me on August 19, 2001. This rhetorical deception thus allows Mr. Hicks to deny that he had ever said that Fr. Urrutigoity had a habit of sleeping with boys. And yet this is nonetheless what Mr. Hicks told me, and later, in the presence of Mr. Clark and myself, repeated to Fr. Munkelt.

* * *

A final question needs to be answered in this first of what will be a series of responses to Mr. Hicks' statement: Why did I initially try to protect Mr. Hicks and St. Gregory's Academy?

I hope the answer is already clear. Based in part upon my own experience with Fr. Urrutigoity and the SSJ, I believed that Mr. Hicks and St. Gregory's Academy had been victimized. I did not want to see St. Gregory's destroyed by the SSJ's immorality. An honest review of my letters, one paying due attention to chronology, demonstrates the truth of my position.

I now know, however, that inasmuch as he neglected to supervise adequately the SSJ, Mr. Hicks himself was a serious part of the problem. Had I known of the insufficient discipline, order, and supervision in the dormitory at St. Gregory's, I would have warned rather than reassured those St. Gregory's parents who wrote to me in concern for their sons. In my subsequent responses to Mr. Hicks' accusations against me, I will present further evidence of Mr. Hicks' negligence. For the time being, I want simply to state that Mr. Hicks' other accusations are as rhetorically insincere as those I have addressed above.

In truth, Mr. Hicks' own statement itself is the best explanation of why I must now address his past negligence. His manipulation of the facts speaks for itself.

I can now appreciate why certain graduates of St. Gregory's, whom I know were sleeping and drinking with Fr. Urrutigoity, have themselves employed rhetorical deceit in their public defense of the SSJ. Just as their former headmaster knows, these young men also know the truth about Fr. Urrutigoity's habit of sleeping with boys. Yet they too have thrown in their lot on the side of cover-up and denial for the sake of "saving" St. Gregory's. Indeed, I am now informed that these young men have literally taken a vow of silence concerning Fr. Urrutigoity's habit of sleeping with boys. This vow they have taken apparently in the hope of hiding the truth from the public at large.

A question thus presents itself to the superiors of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter: How can we hope to preserve St. Gregory's Academy (a hope I myself share) if the administration of St. Gregory's is itself implicated in the cover-up and manipulation of the truth?

Sincerely,

Dr. Jeffrey M. Bond
President
College of St. Justin Martyr
142 Market Road
Greeley, PA 18425
570/685-5945
jmb3@ltis.net
www.saintjustinmartyr.org