July 27, 2002

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

Dear Bishop Timlin,

For reasons I will set forth in detail below, I charge you with violating the spirit and the letter of the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, the document issued on June 14, 2002 at the conclusion of the U.S. bishops' conference in Dallas, Texas.

My charge pertains to your continued defense of the Society of St. John, a morally corrupt clerical association in the Diocese of Scranton. You have chosen to defend the Society of St. John even though you know that certain priests in this group were sleeping one-on-one in the same bed with young men, and that others in the Society of St. John have attempted to cover this up. It is simply incomprehensible that you, as a Catholic bishop, continue to protect such men.

In the summer of 2001, Mr. Joseph Sciambra, Fr. Paul Carr, Fr. Richard Munkelt, and I separately informed you and your auxiliary bishop, John Dougherty, that Fr. Carlos Urrutigoity was sleeping with boys one-on-one in the same bed in his private chambers. You were also informed that Fr. Urrutigoity, the Superior General of the Society of St. John, was plying boys with alcohol and tobacco. Yet you did nothing to discipline Fr. Urrutigoity. You insisted that you had investigated the matter and that "no sin was committed," but in fact you made no genuine investigation, as my subsequent discoveries soon revealed.

As a result of your failure to undertake an honest investigation, I began to inquire into Fr. Urrutigoity's past. I quickly discovered that Bishop Bernard Fellay of the SSPX had informed you by letter in February 1999 that Fr. Urrutigoity had homosexually molested a young seminarian from Winona, Minnesota. Despite this grave accusation, you allowed Fr. Urrutigoity to continue to work as a chaplain at St. Gregory's Academy, an all-boys school in Elmhurst, Pennsylvania.

Worse yet, although you and Bishop Dougherty had obviously known about this prior accusation when Mr. Sciambra, Fr. Carr, Fr. Munkelt, and I had each spoken with you in the summer of 2001, you still neglected to discipline Fr. Urrutigoity after we informed you of his habit of sleeping with young men. Furthermore, you never acknowledged this prior accusation in your talks with any of us, but instead pretended that Fr. Urrutigoity's "sleeping sickness" was being reported to you for the first time.

Shocked at your continued refusal to take action against Fr. Urrutigoity, I pursued my investigation further. I subsequently discovered and brought to your attention the fact that Fr. Andres Morello, the former Rector of the SSPX seminary in La Reja, Argentina, had also accused then seminarian Carlos Urrutigoity of homosexual molestation. Incredibly, you still did nothing.

Moreover, when I informed you in December 2001 that there were further accusations of sexual abuse against Fr. Urrutigoity, and that Fr. Eric Ensey had been accused of homosexually molesting a minor at St. Gregory's Academy, you again did nothing.

Three strikes against Fr. Urrutigoity (and one against Fr. Ensey), and yet you still took no disciplinary action.

Finally, in late January 2002, under growing pressure from the scandal in Boston and elsewhere, you removed Fr. Urrutigoity and Fr. Ensey from the Society of St. John's property in Shohola, and relocated them to Scranton. Yet these accused priests were allowed to continue to receive young men into their company, and they still do so to this day.

I also informed you in March 2002 about a third homosexual predator in the Society of St. John, Fr. Marshall Roberts, and yet you have made no investigation of him. Instead, you have publicly defended the Society of St. John and allowed them to continue to deceive Catholic donors. Rather than discipline these wayward priests and the other priests who have lied to cover up their misconduct, you have sought to punish those who have worked to expose their wrongdoing and your cover-up.

Most recently, as a result of the bishops' Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, you were compelled to remove nine priests in your diocese who were guilty of sexual abuse. Despite their guilt, you had allowed these men to continue to function as priests. Now, having finally removed these guilty priests, you have refused to release their names.

Your effort to conceal the identities of these nine guilty priests is a violation of the spirit of the Charter, which rejects secrecy in the Preamble: "In the past secrecy has created an atmosphere that has inhibited the healing process and, in some cases, enabled sexually abusive behavior to be repeated." Article 7 of the Charter further states: "Each diocese/eparchy will develop a communications policy that reflects a commitment to transparency and openness." Your decision to hide the names of the guilty priests in your diocese does not reflect the "commitment to transparency and openness" which you and the other bishops pledged.

As a result of your decision to withhold the names of these nine guilty priests, Catholic parents whose children were exposed to these priests will never know to ask their children if these priests harmed them. This concealment may please your diocesan attorneys, Bishop Timlin, but it cannot be pleasing to God. If you had any real concern for the welfare of the young, whose protection is your duty, you would release the names of the guilty priests so that all parents would know if their children were exposed to corruption.

As for Fr. Urrutigoity and Fr. Ensey, you promised a full investigation by your review board, but to date you have failed to announce your board's findings. (This same handpicked review board already let Fr. Urrutigoity slide once after he was accused in February 1999.) Indeed, you refuse to take any action until the District Attorney's criminal investigation of Fr. Urrutigoity and Fr. Ensey is completed. You thereby reduce Catholic morality to American legality, demonstrating that you think it is acceptable for priests to sleep with boys as long as it is acceptable to the civil authorities.

But the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People specifically states that the legal standard for sexual abuse is not the Catholic standard. At the conclusion of the Charter it explains that the definition of "sexual offense," for purposes of removing offending priests, "need not be a complete act of intercourse, nor should the term necessarily be equated with the definitions of sexual abuse or other crimes in civil law." The Charter then cites the following standard: "Sexual abuse (includes) contacts or interactions between a child and an adult when the child is being used as an object of sexual gratification for the adult. A child is abused whether or not this activity involves explicit force, whether or not it involves genital or physical contact, whether or not it is initiated by the child, and whether or not there is discernible harmful outcome." Priests sleeping one-on-one in the same bed with boys—even in the cases where the bodily contact was not explicitly sexual—fits the Charter's definition of sexual abuse, especially when alcohol and tobacco were used to induce compliance. Thus you are in violation not only of the spirit but also of the letter of the bishops' Charter.

Your decision to wait upon the District Attorney's investigation, in hopes that you can exonerate these two priests if they are not indicted, blatantly disregards the Charter's standards for judging whether sexual abuse has occurred. Article 5 of the Charter establishes two possible standards: (1) either sexual abuse is admitted by a priest or deacon; or (2) sexual abuse "is established after an appropriate investigation in accord with canon law." If you claim to have completed such an appropriate investigation, then let us hear your findings. Yet it is obvious that you cannot make such a claim because you have never even called forth witnesses. In fact, your cronies in the chancery refused to hear the petition (libellus) to the Tribunal of the Diocese of Scranton that I filed on February 9, 2002. This petition requested an immediate investigation into the sexual and financial misconduct of the Society of St. John. So much for an appropriate investigation in accord with canon law.

The bishops' Charter has changed nothing in the Diocese of Scranton. The Charter is just so many words to you. From the Fr. Caparelli scandal of the early 1990's to the current scandal of the Society of St. John, you have acted more like a mafia boss than a Catholic bishop. Why do you sympathize with these homosexual predators, and not with their victims? How are we to understand your scandalous protection of the Society of St. John?

As a public figure with episcopal authority over the Catholic faithful in your diocese, you are subject to public scrutiny and cannot hide behind self-serving claims of "privacy." Therefore, as a practicing Catholic in your diocese, I must ask you a question immediately relevant to the current crisis in the Church, the scandal in the Diocese of Scranton, and the welfare of the souls under your authority:

ARE YOU, OR HAVE YOU EVER BEEN, A PRACTICING HOMOSEXUAL?

This question is both appropriate and justified not only because of the events related above, but also because of allegations that have been brought to my attention.

In the course of my investigation of the Society of St. John, I have been contacted by four individuals who claim that you have been an active homosexual.

Three of the four individuals, none of whom knew the others, shared with me the same story. They told me that you had been badly beaten during a homosexual encounter with another man. One of these individuals learned this from the late Fr. Malachi Martin. Another learned it from a well-connected person in the Scranton area who claimed it was a longstanding secret in knowledgeable quarters that you were an active homosexual.

The fourth individual who wrote to me is 75 years old and has known you since your teens. This person informed me that your peers often taunted you because you were a homosexual. This person also told me that one of the priests in your diocese is your current lover.

Are these people telling the truth, Bishop Timlin?

Others have contacted me to suggest that the only explanation for your continued protection of the Society of St. John is that you are being blackmailed as a result of your homosexual activities. I have been loath to believe these claims, but they have become increasingly credible in light of your actions, or rather lack of action, as a bishop.

I await your answer to this question, Bishop Timlin. I request that you answer in a public forum of your own choosing. It is time for you to fulfill your duties as a Catholic bishop or to resign in shame.

Sincerely,