April 30, 2002

Dear Friends,

This is my third response to the accusations made against me by Mr. Alan Hicks, the Headmaster of St. Gregory's Academy. In this third letter I will respond to Mr. Hicks' claim that I have pressured, threatened, and intimidated potential witnesses in my investigation of the Society of St. John. This is a serious but, as I will show, completely unfounded and libelous accusation.

In support of his accusation, Mr. Hicks produces one piece of "evidence," a carefully rearranged selection from an email I sent to Mr. Andrew DeSilva, a graduate of St. Gregory's Academy. Below is the "section," as Mr. Hicks calls it, of my email to Mr. DeSilva that Mr. Hicks quotes in his statement:

-----------------------------------------------------

. . . your name has come up in my research. The things I have been told about you have not been flattering. How would you feel, then, if I broadcast your name in my emails so that people, like yourself, would be able to contact you to confirm that you had indeed done what I have been told you have done?

Be assured that my research will continue. In fact, since you are concerned about these matters, I would be happy to speak with you so that I can hear from you yourself what your role has been in all of this. Otherwise I will assume that what I have heard from others is true. I look forward to hearing from you either by phone or email. And just as I have kept the confidentiality of those whose names you seek, I will likewise protect your name if you are prepared to help expose the truth.

-----------------------------------------------------

Note that Mr. Hicks does not reproduce the email from Mr. DeSilva that led to my response. Nor does Mr. Hicks tell the reader that he has rearranged paragraphs from my original email in an effort to create the appearance of what he calls a "slightly veiled threat" to Mr. DeSilva.

In order to expose Mr. Hicks' rhetorical techniques, which readers of my first two responses have already seen, I will reproduce both Mr. DeSilva's email and my complete response so that readers can better judge the veracity of Mr. Hicks' claims.

Since Mr. DeSilva initiated this email exchange, I will reproduce his email first, and then my response. Mr. DeSilva's email was written in reaction to my letter of December 8, 2001, entitled "The Case Against the Society of St. John," in which I accused Fr. Urrutigoity and Fr. Ensey of having homosexually molested young men.

Below is Mr. DeSilva's email of December 27, 2001 to me:

------------------------------------------------------

Please do some more research before asking people to spread scandalous material around which could ruin a Catholic group. You haven't given real sources for this. If you can't give sources and people whom we can contact your email is nothing more than hearsay. Please contact me and give some real evidence.

------------------------------------------------------

Below is my response of December 28, 2001 to Mr. DeSilva:

------------------------------------------------------

Dear Andrew,

Imagine, if you will for a moment, that you were one of the young men who slept with Fr. Urrutigoity, Fr. Ensey, or one of the other clerics in the Society. Would you be prepared to have your name passed on to people like yourself who demanded to have "sources and people" to contact? Now imagine further that you were one of the young men who was homosexually molested by Fr. Urrutigoity, Fr. Ensey, or one of the other clerics in the Society. Would you be prepared to have your name made available for all and sundry who wished to contact you to hear your story?

These are not merely academic questions for you to consider, especially since your name has come up in my research. The things I have been told about you have not been flattering. How would you feel, then, if I broadcast your name in my emails so that people, like yourself, would be able to contact you to confirm that you had indeed done what I have been told you have done?

Now I have had numerous conversations both with young men who admit to having slept with one of these clerics, but claim no molestation occurred, and with young men who have slept with one of these clerics and claim to have been molested. The numbers in the first category are so great that there can be no doubt that these clerics sleep with young men. Is this part of what you call "hearsay"? Or do you admit that these clerics do indeed sleep with young men? As for the second category, their numbers are more than sufficient, and they come from diverse enough backgrounds, such that there is no question that molestation has occurred. In one case, the young man who was molested gave testimony at a Diocesan inquiry. His testimony is a matter of record. Is that "hearsay"?

While your desire to know the truth, if that is indeed what is motivating you, is commendable, it shows a serious lack of understanding of the position of the victims. I wonder why? These young men will tell their stories at the right time and in the right place. In the meantime, their identities need to be protected from people who would seek to pressure them into silence. I suspect you understand this.

Be assured that my research will continue. In fact, since you are concerned about these matters, I would be happy to speak with you so that I can hear from you yourself what your role has been in all of this. Otherwise I will assume that what I have heard from others is true.

I look forward to hearing from you either by phone or email. And just as I have kept the confidentiality of those whose names you seek, I will likewise protect your name if you are prepared to help expose the truth.

-----------------------------------------------------

Readers interested in the truth should compare my email above to the "section" Mr. Hicks has reproduced in his statement (which I previously quoted). By taking part of the second paragraph of my email, and then placing it together with the fifth and sixth paragraphs—with no indication as to the content of what he has left out—Mr. Hicks is at pains to try to substantiate his claim that I have threatened Mr. DeSilva. Let me quote Mr. Hicks' own words:

"Bond makes a slightly veiled threat to release supposed embarrassing and reputation-damaging accusations about Andrew unless he agrees to cooperate with Bond by giving him the testimony he wants."

Mr. Hicks' self-serving interpretation could not be further from the truth. Any fair reading of my email clearly indicates that my point to Mr. DeSilva is that I will NOT release any information about victims, despite his demand that I do so. In order to get this point across to Mr. DeSilva, I asked him to put himself in the shoes of the victims and consider how he would feel if I released such information about him. As I state very clearly in my email, Mr. DeSilva's email reveals a serious lack of understanding of the position of the victims. Mr. Hicks suffers from the same lack of understanding and sympathy.

The fact is, Mr. DeSilva never wrote back to me nor called me. However, in my many reports on this scandal, I have written nothing about Mr. DeSilva's alleged involvement. If I had been threatening and pressuring Mr. DeSilva, as Mr. Hicks claims, surely I would have exposed what I knew about Mr. DeSilva when he failed to contact me. But note that it is Mr. Hicks who has brought Mr. DeSilva's name into the public arena, not I.

Contrary to Mr. Hicks' libelous accusation, then, I made no threat—veiled or otherwise—to expose Mr. DeSilva. I did ask Mr. DeSilva to come forth for the sake of the truth, the same request I have issued to Mr. Hicks and others. I did this because I have been told, and I do believe, that Mr. DeSilva has his own reasons to be concerned about my investigation. Simply put, I do not think that Mr. DeSilva's demand to know "sources and people" arises from a healthy motivation. Like a number of other St. Gregory's graduates who have initiated contact with me, I think Mr. DeSilva was trying to determine how much I knew. Although Mr. Hicks' use of our email exchange has now muddied the waters, it is evident from my email that I did not consider Mr. DeSilva one of the Society's victims. Indeed, Mr. DeSilva's failure to identify with the victims is precisely what I was trying to bring to his attention. I think Mr. DeSilva understood my point.

It is not accidental that Mr. Hicks has allied himself with Mr. DeSilva, for they have a common desire—though presumably for different reasons—to suppress my investigation of the Society of St. John. Unable to do so, Mr. Hicks has attempted to destroy my credibility by accusing me of pressuring, threatening, and intimidating his former students. In making this accusation, Mr. Hicks has allied himself also with the Society of St. John whose spokesman, Fr. Dominic O'Connor, has made the same accusation against me. To date, Fr. O'Connor has produced no evidence to support his claim. As for Mr. Hicks, his one piece of "evidence" has merely served to implicate him, once again, in manipulation and dissimulation.

As if aware of the inadequacy of the evidence he has brought forth against me, Mr. Hicks concludes his attack on me by stating that he has been given another email "of a similar nature" written by me to one of his former students. Mr. Hicks apparently believes this second piece of evidence is more damaging if left unrevealed. For the sake of truth, I strongly encourage Mr. Hicks to produce this email (in its entirety), and anything else he can bring forward to substantiate his claim that I have pressured, threatened, and intimidated potential witnesses. As with the exchange between Mr. DeSilva and me, a fair reading of my email exchanges with any of the graduates of St. Gregory's will demonstrate that Mr. Hicks has not been honest in his accusations against me.

I would like to conclude with a word about my contacts with graduates of St. Gregory's Academy. Those following the Society of St. John scandal should know that in every case except one, the graduates of St. Gregory's have contacted me first. And in a number of cases, the graduates who have contacted me have pretended to be ignorant of the scandal in an effort to discover how much I knew about their own role. I do not hold this deceit against them, for these young men have been betrayed by those authorities whom they trusted, and that betrayal continues.

In my own dealing with the graduates of St. Gregory's Academy, I have hardly, as Mr. Hicks and Fr. O'Connor suggest, been on a fishing expedition, to say nothing of pressuring, threatening, or intimidating potential witnesses. There has been no need to "fish," for these graduates and others have, without any pressure, approached me. In the one case where I myself initiated contact with a St. Gregory's graduate, I was encouraged to do so by a mutual acquaintance based upon an event he had witnessed.

In sum, Mr. Hicks' claim that I am "causing these young men much anxiety" is a cowardly attempt to use his former students as a shield in order to protect himself against charges of gross negligence. If these young men are anxious, it is because they have been harmed by those whose duty it was to protect them.