Open Letter of May 19, 2002

A Fourth Open Letter to Bishop James C. Timlin, Diocese of Scranton

Dear Bishop Timlin,

Last January you relieved Fr. Carlos Urrutigoity and Fr. Eric Ensey of their duties in Shohola, and you relocated them in Scranton for psychiatric evaluation. At that time you promised that your 11-member review board would investigate the accusations of homosexual molestation made against these two priests of the Society of St. John.

It is now May, over four months since you relocated these priests, and you have yet to report the findings of your review board. This same review board previously investigated Fr. Urrutigoity in 1999 when he was accused of homosexually molesting a young seminarian. At that time you and your review board found the evidence to be “inconclusive,” and so you returned Fr. Urrutigoity to his position as chaplain to the boys at St. Gregory’s Academy. What have you and your review board decided to do about Fr. Urrutigoity this time? And what about Fr. Ensey?

Since your review board has neglected to call any witnesses to inform itself concerning the facts, it is obvious that your handpicked board members have no independence or interest in the truth. Your review board will simply echo your voice in this matter. So what is your decision, Bishop Timlin?

As we await your decision, I think it is important to inform all concerned parties that your handling of the Society of St. John scandal closely parallels the way you handled the infamous case of Fr. Caparelli ten years ago.

Fr. Robert Caparelli, a priest of the Diocese of Scranton, was the first priest in the United States diagnosed as being HIV-positive who pleaded guilty to sexually abusing altar boys. He died of AIDS in the Lackawanna Correctional Facility in December 1994.

As with the case of Fr. Urrutigoity, who has been accused repeatedly of making unwanted homosexual advances, accusations of sexual misconduct against Fr. Caparelli went back more than 20 years before he was convicted. The first accusation against Fr. Caparelli was made in an August 14, 1968 letter to your predecessor, Bishop McCormick. That letter was written by a former Hazelton police officer who informed Bishop McCormick that Fr. Caparelli had “demoralized” two altar boys “in a manner that is not natural for any human that has all his proper faculties.” The former police officer was a parishioner at Most Precious Blood Roman Catholic Church in Hazelton where Fr. Caparelli was the assistant pastor.

In his letter, the former police officer requested an audience with Bishop McCormick, but instead he received a letter from you, Bishop Timlin. You were a monsignor at the time, and the Assistant Chancellor of the Diocese of Scranton. In your letter, you assured the former police officer that, “The matter you have treated will be investigated further.” Those familiar with the Society of St. John scandal will not be surprised to see that you were making empty promises as early as 1968 concerning the investigation of sexual abuse by priests.

Fr. Caparelli was then sent to Padua Retreat House in West Chester, Pennsylvania for psychiatric evaluation. The report on Fr. Caparelli concluded that, if he did abuse the two altar boys, he “would be likely to commit these actions again.” Another report on Fr. Caparelli, written by a psychologist from Villanova University, stated: “If there is good evidence that he did engage in this behavior, then his problem is indeed serious . . . this, in turn, means that without therapeutic help, he would be likely to commit these actions again.”

Yet Fr. Caparelli’s record shows that he did not receive any further treatment. He was simply reassigned to a new parish.

In July 1993, when a reporter questioned you about Fr. Caparelli’s reassignment, you said that you remembered it only vaguely. But despite your vague memory, you remembered enough to insist that the Diocese did everything it could at the time. You also claimed that it was almost impossible to get further evidence of Fr. Caparelli’s sexual misconduct. As is clear from your current failure to gather the readily available evidence against Fr. Urrutigoity and Fr. Ensey, you apparently have still not realized that one has to look for evidence by calling in witnesses, making telephone calls, writing letters, etc.

Fr. Caparelli was then made the assistant pastor at the Church of St. Mary in Old Forge, Pennsylvania. Once again he was accused of sexual improprieties. This time a retired Pennsylvania State Trooper, who was a parishioner at St. Mary’s, told the pastor that Fr. Caparelli had been groping young boys. When the pastor confronted Fr. Caparelli, he admitted it. Fr. Caparelli was then transferred again.

In 1974, Fr. Caparelli was appointed director of religious formation at Bishop O’Reilly High School in Kingston. He was subsequently made chaplain at Mercy Center in Dallas, Pennsylvania. In 1981 Fr. Caparelli became the pastor at St. Vincent de Paul in Dingman Township.

In October 1991, Fr. Caparelli abruptly left St. Vincent’s with no explanation. Your auxiliary bishop, Francis DiLorenzo (now Bishop of Honolulu), told the parishioners at St. Vincent’s that Fr. Caparelli could no longer continue his pastoral duties because of “personal and family problems.” Bishop DiLorenzo also told the parishioners that once those problems were resolved, Fr. Caparelli would be taking a vacation before being reassigned to another parish. Was it you, Bishop Timlin, who instructed your auxiliary bishop to lie to the parishioners at St. Vincent’s?

Only a week or so earlier, Bishop DiLorenzo had celebrated Mass at St. Vincent’s and had praised Fr. Caparelli’s work as a pastor. This was considered remarkable by the St. Vincent parishioners at the time because, as one former parishioner has written in a letter to me, Fr. Caparelli “had been accused by a few families of inappropriate behavior with some of the altar boys, however since there was little proof initially it was not dealt with. However, in no time at all the number of complaints were mounting and people who had NEVER written to the bishop before were writing to him on a regular basis and Bishop Timlin chose to do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!” (emphasis in the original).

The truth about Fr. Caparelli finally came out in December 1991 when he was indicted and charged with 26 sex-related counts involving a 13-year-old altar boy from September 1985 through June 1986. Later Fr. Caparelli was also indicted for abusing a second altar boy from March 1987 through January 1989. Fr. Caparelli was charged with statutory rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, indecent assault, indecent exposure, and corruption of a minor. In the civil lawsuits brought by the families of the abused boys, Fr. Caparelli was charged with committing these acts by deception, under the guise of a spiritual advisor. As I am sure you recall, Fr. Urrutigoity has used the pretense of spiritual direction to lure young men into his bed.

After Fr. Caparelli’s first arrest, your director of communications, Maria Orzel, confirmed in a formal statement on December 13, 1991 that Fr. Caparelli was undergoing a complete psychiatric evaluation and “extensive treatment.” The statement also said that Diocesan policy in such a case was to conduct a “prompt, thorough investigation.”

Is it possible, Bishop Timlin, to issue such ridiculous statements with a straight face? What was the point of conducting a “prompt, thorough investigation” of Fr. Caparelli AFTER he had already been indicted?

In January 1992, in response to speculation that Fr. Caparelli may have been previously arrested on similar criminal charges, Maria Orzel stated: “We absolutely emphatically deny it.” But Maria Orzel could not deny that two former police officers had previously accused Fr. Caparelli of sexual misconduct with altar boys, and that you certainly had knowledge of the first accusation, and either knew or should have known about the second.

As Bishop of Scranton, your response to the two civil lawsuits was to file documents proposing that Fr. Caparelli was an “independent contractor” for the Diocese. (Bishop Egan employed this same ruse in Bridgeport, Connecticut, but it never passed the “giggle test” there.) This was the basis for your claim that the Diocese of Scranton had no responsibility for Fr. Caparelli’s criminal and immoral actions. The two civil lawsuits were eventually settled out of court for an undisclosed amount.

I have presented this brief review of the Fr. Caparelli case in order to give readers the necessary background to evaluate your comments in a recent front-page article in the Scranton Times (April 28, 2002). In that article, entitled “Bishop Details Sex Scandals,” you boasted about how little money the Diocese of Scranton has paid to victims of sexual abuse by priests: a mere $500,000 since 1970. You specifically mentioned the case of Fr. Caparelli and said that the Diocese eventually settled the two civil lawsuits for much less than the victims were asking. Is this something of which you should be proud, Bishop Timlin? What good is it to save dollars, but not souls?

You claimed that the victims got much less than they sought because there was a lack of proof that the Diocese knew Fr. Caparelli was a pedophile. As evidence for the supposed lack of proof, you claimed that the pastor at St. Mary’s simply asked for the transfer of Fr. Caparelli without ever telling the Diocese why. Your claim is disingenuous, Bishop Timlin, because you know full well that no diocese would act upon a pastor’s request for the transfer of a parish priest without chancery officials reviewing the matter. Moreover, even if you yourself were not consulted about the transfer, you were morally obliged to intervene because you knew of the accusations against Fr. Caparelli as early as 1968 when, as Assistant Chancellor of the Diocese, you told the former police officer that the matter would be investigated further.

Yes, you may have saved the Diocese a great deal of money, but at what price? I can now understand why one of the attorneys who took your deposition in the Fr. Caparelli case has stated: “Bishop Timlin is the biggest liar I ever deposed.”

Michael Chapman, a reporter from Washington, has quoted you in his recent article, “The Seduction of the Society of St. John,” as having said that if the victims “try to use a lead pipe on us by asking for millions of dollars, we’ll have to fight that because we’re not responsible.” You added: “I’m not responsible for whatever happened, if it happened. I’m not liable.”

One marvels at the parallels between then and now:

You denied responsibility for Fr. Caparelli then, and you deny responsibility for Fr. Urrutigoity, Fr. Ensey, and the Society of St. John now.

You failed to investigate repeated accusations of sexual immorality then, and you have failed to investigate repeated accusations now.

You lied then, and you are lying now.

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