Dear Catholic Friends,

On February 15, 2002, Bishop Timlin signed the following letter and then publicized it through the Society of St. John's website:

"To Whom It May Concern:

I respond to Bishop Timlin's letter as follows:

According to Bishop Timlin's own Diocesan policy, set forth in the Scranton Times on February 10, 2002, a priest accused of molestation is relieved of his duties when the "evidence is credible." Bishop Timlin recently relieved of their duties two Society of St. John priests accused of molestation, Fr. Carlos Urrutigoity and Fr. Eric Ensey. It follows, then, that Bishop Timlin deemed the evidence against these two priests to be credible.

Yet we are told above, that the same Bishop Timlin "wholeheartedly" supports the Society of St. John, of which Fr. Urrutigoity and Fr. Ensey are the two most prominent members, being Superior General and Chancellor, respectively. How can Bishop Timlin give his wholehearted support to the Society when there is credible evidence of molestation against its leadership? Moreover, how can the Bishop endorse the Society when other Society priests are lying to donors about the fact—admitted by Bishop Timlin—that Society priests have slept one-on-one with boys?

If, as Bishop Timlin writes, it is "confusing and difficult to arrive at the facts," then how can the Bishop give an unqualified endorsement to the Society? And given the fact that the evidence is credible, and that Bishop Timlin has not even completed his investigation, how can the Bishop call the accusations "erroneous"? So in the same breath, as it were, Bishop Timlin acknowledges that he has not arrived at the facts, and yet speaks as if he knows the facts. If Bishop Timlin knows the facts, then he should render a judgment accordingly. But if Bishop Timlin does not know the facts, then he should not be endorsing the Society "wholeheartedly." One can only conclude, unless one is content with contradiction, that Bishop Timlin has dropped all pretense of objectivity, for he has clearly made up his mind—with or without the facts—prior to the completion of his own investigation.

Note that Bishop Timlin insists that no one should come to any premature "negative judgments" against Fr. Urrutigoity and Fr. Ensey. But the Bishop is clearly encouraging people to form a negative judgment about the College of St. Justin Martyr. And for what reason? Bishop Timlin's malicious implication is that the College of St. Justin Martyr has presented itself as a Catholic college with ecclesiastical approval. This he knows is not true, but Bishop Timlin has once again shown himself completely indifferent to truth in the course of his collusion with the Society of St. John. Thus Bishop Timlin has maligned the College simply because I have reported to the Bishop the sexual and financial misconduct of priests under his authority.

It must be said that the College of St. Justin Martyr does not need Bishop Timlin's approval to exist or to raise funds. For the St. Justin Martyr House of Studies, whose sole purpose is to establish the College of St. Justin Martyr, is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) corporation with legal standing in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, that in no way depends upon the good graces of Bishop Timlin. The Bishop's letter demonstrates his desire to damage the College merely for upholding the Catholic faith and protecting both present and future victims from priests who are sexual predators.

It should also be noted that Bishop Timlin has acknowledged privately that the Society of St. John is in ruins and its Shohola property will have to be sold. How, then, can the Bishop publicly proclaim that the Society is "alive and well"? What is this but a further effort to bamboozle Catholic donors?

I hasten to add that Bishop Timlin gave a similarly resounding endorsement of the Society of St. John on October 26, 2000, after considerable evidence of financial mismanagement had been brought to his attention by the Society's then Board of Advisors. How many more sham investigations and deceitful endorsements of the Society of St. John will emanate from the Bishop's office?

In sum, the Bishop's letter is a contradictory whitewash.