April 21, 2002

Dear Friends,

This is the second of a series of responses I am making to the accusations made against me by Mr. Alan Hicks, the Headmaster of St. Gregory's Academy. In my first response I addressed Mr. Hicks' denial that he told me that Fr. Carlos Urrutigoity, the Superior General of the Society of St. John (SSJ), had a habit of sleeping with boys. In the present letter I will address Mr. Hicks' accusations against me concerning my report on the police incident at St. Gregory's Academy in March 1998.

In his statement, Mr. Hicks rejects the sworn testimony given in an affidavit by Mr. Jude Huntz, the very man Mr. Hicks himself chose to be the head dorm father at St. Gregory's for the 1997-1998 academic year. It is interesting to note that, although Mr. Hicks attacks the credibility of others who have reported on the scandalous events they have witnessed at St. Gregory's, Mr. Hicks does not directly attack Mr. Huntz's character. Apparently Mr. Hicks recognizes that an attack on Mr. Huntz's character would indict Mr. Hicks himself who, after all, placed Mr. Huntz in a position of authority over the dormitory at St. Gregory's.

Yet Mr. Hicks did attack Mr. Huntz's character in a telephone conversation with me. Mr. Hicks had called me to deny that the police had ever come to St. Gregory's in response to boys being served alcohol by SSJ priests. During that telephone conversation, Mr. Hicks made a searing attack on Mr. Huntz's character, an attack that employed an abundance of foul language. In a word, Mr. Hicks accused Mr. Huntz of fabricating the entire story. When I asked Mr. Hicks what possible motive Mr. Huntz would have for lying in an affidavit, Mr. Hicks simply intensified his personal attack on Mr. Huntz. I did not suggest to Mr. Hicks at the time, but I do now, that he too make out an affidavit, thus rendering himself subject to the same penalties for perjury as Mr. Huntz.

Mr. Hicks supports his denial by stating that he and Mr. Howard Clark, the Assistant Headmaster, have questioned the three boys whom Mr. Huntz says were in a state of extreme intoxication. Mr. Hicks claims that all three boys have denied that they were intoxicated that evening. Yet these boys would not seem to be ideal witnesses, for Mr. Huntz claims they were so drunk that they were even having difficulty walking. Mr. Hicks does add that four other boys, two of whom were assistant dorm fathers that year, have either denied or have no recollection of the incident, but Mr. Hicks—unlike Mr. Huntz—does not provide us with names.

It is strange that Mr. Hicks, in his search for the truth, does not mention the other adult dorm father, Mr. Jerry Zienta, whom Mr. Huntz states in his affidavit was a witness to the incident. Mr. Zienta would presumably be more objective than the boys involved, but Mr. Hicks seems to have little confidence in the adults whom he himself hired: Mr. Huntz, Mr. Zienta, and Mr. Paul Hornak.

In further support of his denial, Mr. Hicks reports that Mr. Clark called Chief Adcock of the Roaring Brook Township that provides police service to Elmhurst Township. Mr. Hicks reports that Chief Adcock had no recollection of the police ever coming to warn anyone about alcohol, nor was there any record of such a visit in the police files. Mr. Hicks then states that Chief Adcock also told Mr. Clark that I had previously called Chief Adcock, and that Chief Adcock had likewise told me there was no record of a police visit. Mr. Hicks then states that I failed to acknowledge this phone call in my March 10, 2002 email where I reported the police incident.

Since Mr. Hicks has accused me of "withholding facts" contrary to my own views, I would like to respond to this accusation here at some length. What I hope Mr. Hicks will discover through my response is that I have actually been withholding facts that are supportive of my own view and quite unsupportive of his.

When Mr. Hicks telephoned me to attack the character of Mr. Huntz, I suggested to Mr. Hicks that he and I should go together to the police station to speak with the Chief of Police. Mr. Hicks refused my offer. I therefore called Chief Adcock on my own. Chief Adcock informed me that there were reports of a number of fire department visits to St. Gregory's, including a recent one in response to a fire that destroyed a few acres of property near the Academy. Chief Adcock told me that a St. Gregory's student who had been smoking in the woods had accidentally set this fire. But Chief Adcock said there was no report of a police visit concerning underage drinking.

I then asked Chief Adcock if every police visit would have been recorded. He replied that a record would be made in most cases, but he acknowledged the possibility that a visit might go unrecorded. He therefore told me he would check with the former Chief of Police, who was the Chief at the time of the incident, to discover if the former Chief had any memory of an unrecorded visit to St. Gregory's Academy in March 1998.

At that point I asked Chief Adcock if any other police department might have answered a call from St. Gregory's. He told me that if the hour were late enough, the Pennsylvania State Police would have answered the call. When I told him the incident occurred around 11:30 PM, Chief Adcock said that the State Police, not the Roaring Brook police, would most likely have answered a call at that hour. I therefore asked Chief Adcock for the telephone number for the State Police, and he gave it to me.

I then contacted the State Police. The State Police informed me that the information I was requesting could only be released if there were a subpoena for it. I knew at that point that this matter would have to be resolved in court. Thus, I did not mention this in my March 10, 2002 email because the evidence with respect to a police report was inconclusive. Mr. Hicks, on the other hand, has prematurely declared that no such report exists. Mr. Hicks got the quick answer he wanted to hear and then apparently pursued the matter no further.

This is just one example of how Mr. Hicks has been less than eager to discover the truth about the misconduct of the SSJ priests at St. Gregory's Academy. Mr. Hicks appears to be interviewing only those who will give him the answers he wants (especially the boys involved), but he readily attacks the character of the adult witnesses who have presented, even in affidavits, reports contrary to what he wants to hear.

In fairness to Mr. Hicks, he does name one adult witness in support of his claim that the police never came on the night in question. Mr. Hicks wrote in his statement: "Fr. Carr has also denied that the police ever came to warn anyone."

Mr. Hicks does not tell us to whom Fr. Carr made this denial. To my knowledge, Fr. Paul Carr, the District Superior of the Fraternity of St. Peter, has made no public statement on this matter, nor has he made out an affidavit. Yet Mr. Hicks purports to speak for Fr. Carr, the chaplain at the time who, according to Mr. Huntz's affidavit, called the police to St. Gregory's. Mr. Hicks' reliance upon Fr. Carr as a witness is quite amazing if one has knowledge of two facts: (1) Mr. Hicks has nothing but contempt for Fr. Carr; and (2) Mr. Hicks has said that Fr. Carr is completely unreliable in matters of veracity.

I say these things because Mr. Hicks, in the presence of both Fr. Munkelt and me, has expressed not only his complete disdain for Fr. Carr, but also his belief that Fr. Carr is mentally unsound. Mr. Hicks told us this at a truck stop off of Route 6, a meeting place chosen by Mr. Hicks himself for a clandestine rendezvous that he requested because he did not want to be seen speaking with us.

In support of his claim that Fr. Carr was mentally unsound, Mr. Hicks informed us that Fr. Carr, while in a rage, had, in front of five witnesses, beaten up a St. Gregory's student for not completing a minor assignment in a timely manner. According to Mr. Hicks, Fr. Carr had beaten Mark Schwerdt to the floor, and then had continued to kick him until others intervened to stop the beating. This attack was especially dangerous, according to Mr. Hicks, because Mr. Schwerdt reportedly received numerous blows to the side of his head where he was particularly vulnerable due to an injury sustained while playing rugby.

Mr. Hicks informed us that when he had learned of this attack, he confronted Fr. Carr who, according to Mr. Hicks, denied the incident had taken place. The next morning, however, Fr. Carr allegedly admitted to the attack. At that point Mr. Hicks told Fr. Carr that he had to leave the school until such time as the matter had been properly resolved. Mr. Hicks claimed that Fr. Carr then left to see Fr. Benedict Groeschel in New York City in order to seek psychological help. But, according to Mr. Hicks, Fr. Carr returned to the Academy after a brief stay with Fr. Groeschel during which time Fr. Carr never told Fr. Groeschel why he was there. Mr. Hicks further claimed that when Fr. Carr returned to St. Gregory's, Fr. Carr again denied that he had ever hit Mark Schwerdt. Given that this beating allegedly took place in front of five witnesses, Mr. Hicks stated that Fr. Carr was not mentally sound because he denied, then admitted, and then finally denied again what five witnesses said had happened.

Mr. Hicks then regaled us with additional stories of Fr. Carr's mentally unbalanced state, which need not be repeated here. Mr. Hicks also suggested that Fr. Carr had acted inappropriately with some of the St. Gregory's boys by giving special gifts to his favorites, and by inviting them into his room at night to watch films Mr. Hicks deemed inappropriate. (I believe he said they were horror films.) Mr. Hicks also claimed that in some cases parents had complained about Fr. Carr's excessive attention to their sons. In sum, Mr. Hicks presented Fr. Carr as irresponsible, incompetent, and mentally unsound.

You can imagine my surprise, then, to see Mr. Hicks trot out Fr. Carr's name as a witness concerning the police incident, especially after Mr. Hicks insisted that Fr. Carr had repeatedly changed his story concerning the beating incident. Thus, I would encourage all concerned parties to wait to hear from Fr. Carr himself rather than rely upon what Mr. Hicks claims Fr. Carr has said about the police visit.

In that same clandestine meeting, Mr. Hicks boldly suggested to Fr. Munkelt and me that we should consider luring Fr. Urrutigoity out to some private spot where we could beat him up. Mr. Hicks informed us that this is the way perverts would have been handled in the good old days. Because Mr. Hicks did not appear to be joking, I said to him: "Alan, you're scaring me, because you seem to be serious." Mr. Hicks did not respond to my comment. Although Mr. Hicks will undoubtedly claim that he was not serious (if he acknowledges our clandestine meeting at all), I think Mr. Hicks meant what he said.

It is certainly ironic, then, for Mr. Hicks to insist that I lack the proper credentials even to investigate Fr. Urrutigoity and the SSJ, while Mr. Hicks himself has entertained and even proposed to others vigilante justice against Fr. Urrutigoity and other perverts.

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