Dear Father Vander Putten and Mr. Jeffrey Bond,
Recently it has come to my attention, via Father's email list "una cum", that Mr. Alan Hicks, of the Academy of St. Gregory, has distributed a word document in which, among others, I am personally mentioned. This is my response to the said comments. I am sending it to you personally, because both of you, I am informed, have mentioned this affair in your email lists, and the information you have disseminated has addressed the testimony I offered to Roman Catholic Faithful. Please, as I have corrected typos and other omissions in previous editions of this rebuttal, consider this the definitive edition, if you republish it.
I consider Mr. Hick's comments to detriment my character the only plausible way to dismiss my testimony. But among these comments he makes, I assume unwittingly, on account of third or fourth hand testimony, false statements regarding myself; among which are the following (appended to this email is his entire quote referring to me), as I object to them:
1) The insinuation that I had not reported what I had seen until January 2002: which in fact, the letter, to which Mr. Hicks refers, authored by me, which he evidently has read, states quite explicitly that I reported this behavior (before the chapel doors and in the hallway) immediately to the superior of the SSJ that very night, and referred to it in my letter to the same, sent within a week of my visit.
2) I have never identified myself as a Franciscan friar, and any implication that I have thus misrepresented myself is false. How reports have thus come to identify me is unknown to me; I was never interviewed.
3) I have never identified myself as a member of an existing canonical institute, and any implication that I have thus misrepresented myself is false.
4) ARCSEC according to its proposed statues, and I myself by all my writings, have never advocated the goal of the organization as colonization of Mars, nor the establishment in any place of a "pure Catholic community under the Kingship of Christ"-- I honestly do not know where Mr. Hicks took this quote, as I do not use the word "pure" except in reference to the 6th and 9th commandments of the Decalogue and such similar matters. Though I do when I speak of food quality. I do however advocate doctrinally correct ideas as the basis for any catholic initiative. And I do believe, if mankind ever were to colonize Mars, that Catholics should have a role similar to that which they had in the colonization of the New World. As a catholic what else ought I think?
5) I never called Mr. Hicks out of a desire "to live at" the School: in fact it was the present superior general of the FSSP who recommended I contact Mr. Hicks, for a position as a Latin instructor, which de officio would live at the school; since he never offered such a position, I never forwarded to him the requested reference: he wanted a cook and thought I would be suitable, based on our phone conversations--I did not accept or apply for this position.
6) My former community, the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, had, apparently at that time, the policy of not allowing members to write letters testifying that any peer was a member of the institute at any time, even if this is in fact the case. Since on account of the fact that my former superiors do not accept the Pontifical interpretation of the Rule of St. Francis in regard to the non-use of money (they favor the use of money; I with the Popes do not), I considered it imprudent to ask any superior of the order for a letter of testimonial; and for that reason I asked a fellow brother, now a priest, who had been an educator with the Franciscan Brothers of Brooklyn many years, and who after entering my former order, was in formation with me for about 3 years. He wrote me to say that the norms of the community prevented him from writing any testimonial, and that only superiors were allowed to do this. This was the reason I could not satisfy Mr. Hicks' desire for a letter of recommendation. I do admit that this policy, being unknown by me during the 4 2/3 years I was with them, came to me as quite a surprise at the time I learned of it. No reason has ever been given me for it. However, two years later, on another occasion, another peer, who is now a priest and superior, did grant my request for a letter of testimonial.
7) I never offered to "work with the boys"; I was told by Father Devilliers that they had or may have a need of a Latin instructor. I never had nor do I have interest to work with youth outside the classroom, since I consider myself has having no special talent; moreover I have no interest with youth apostolates, it personally has never interested me. Nor was I at that time looking for such a position; rather I had mentioned to Fr. Devilliers my desire to live near a traditional Mass center.
8) The living of the Rule of St. Francis outside of the community can scarcely be described as "odd", unless a virtuous life is "odd". But in the times we live, many religious have had to undertake "odd" ways of remaining faithful--I take it that this is not contrary to the will of the Church or Her teachings or disciplines.
9) The implication that I have no canonical status as a consecrated person observing the Rule of St. Francis is false: I have taken private vows according to canon 1191 to observe his Rule: my local ordinary and pastor know this, and have not objected to this status. On this account I do call myself "Brother", but not "Friar". Whenever I encounter any misunderstanding of my status I correct it immediately, as much as I am able. My own ordinary, the Most Rev. Sean Patrick O'Mally, Roman Catholic Bishop of Fall River, Massachusetts, has in writing to me, also stated that I do not need his permission to live such a form of consecrated life.
10) Mr. Hicks said "I did not let him come." Rather, it was I who chose not to apply for a position as cook. But Mr. Hicks, if I remember correctly did invite me to visit, placing a letter of recommendation as a condition even for this; but I never did visit at that time; though I do believe I may have mentioned to Mr. Hicks my desire to visit prior to taking a position, to determine for myself the status of the school, and the duties involved, as well as meet the faculty.
11) Mr. Hicks says of me: "Later he showed up to visit the Servants Minor of St. Francis when they lived in the Academy, wearing his own homespun habit. He was to stay for a week but left after a couple of days when he discovered that the brothers touched money."
Rather, the Servants, who were not yet canonically erected by the local ordinary as an association of the faithful, had invited me: I assume with the permission of those who were hosting them--I was surprised when I arrived to find them in the same building as the Academy, a fact which I was not previously aware of. As a matter of fact, I would testify to all that I do not know how to spin well enough to make any wearable piece of cloth, nor was my habit material spun, except if you consider mechanical mass production textile machinery spinning machinery. I do not know of anyone who thinks my habit is homespun nor have I ever described it in these terms, nor do I know of anyone who has so described it, besides Mr. Hicks; who during my visit, I believe I never even met except for a cordial and formal introduction and handshake--therefore his knowledge of the quality of my habit has a source unknown to me. For poverty sake, I do sew my own habits, and not being very good, I can understand it might offend some peoples sensibility--for this I make no apology. I stayed for nearly a full week, not just a few days, as I had previously arranged with the Servants--I did not leave abruptly. The non-use of money is a precept of the Rule of St. Francis approved of and praised by the Roman Pontiffs. The Servants explained their observance and told me emphatically that they did not consider the manner of observing the Rule promoted by the Roman Pontiffs in their definitive decrees on the unmitigated observance thereof to be the charism of their community: that is the sole reason for my not joining them: it was however not a reason for my leaving their residence, as that was planned before my visit.
12) It is false to say that I was asked to leave my former community before taking vows. On the occasion of my solemn vows, after 3 years of professing simple vows, I petitioned to observe the Rule of St. Francis in the traditional manner of the Observants, according to the Pontifical Decrees of Popes Nicholas III, Clement V, and St. Innocent XI; being denied this, my superior general gave me leave to live this life outside his community. All who know me well know of this. Nor was my departure based upon any other personal issue or criteria. In fact, prior to my dismissal, it was suggested to me by Father Peter Damian, FFI, that if I renounced this petition, that I would be placed in an important position in the community, vis-a-vis the internet apostolate that was to be conducted by the order. According to a letter from Father Alphonsus Maria Sutton, FFI, which he sent me after my departure, the reason for not accepting my petition was that the founders of the community, Father Stephano Maria Manelli, and Father Gabrielli Maria Pellitieri, wanted the freedom to oblige the members to travel freely (by using money in the tradition of the Order of Friars Minor Conventual), a certainly legitimate option, but one to which I was not called, since I consider the observance of the Rule of St. Francis according to the mind of the Apostolic See, in the definitive Papal declarations, the most authentic form of Marian-Franciscan vocation, then and now; since I believe that Our Lady has no other will than that of Christ and the Holy Spirit, and that St. Francis perfectly conformed himself to the same; and that in definitive interpretations of the Rule of saintly founders, the Roman Pontiff exercises his infallible charism, declaring what is true then and now and forever, just as they themselves state in their decrees.
After these many statements on my character, Mr. Hicks writes:
"A Fraternity priest told me that this man was around his parish for a while and although he seemed intelligent and could be well spoken and reasonable on one day, on the next "he could be off the wall."
13) I consider this calumny, and from an anonymous source: the implication is that I am not in the full possession of mental health: why does Mr. Hicks feel compelled to state this? I have never visited a parish under the canonical jurisdiction of the FSSP, as far as I know. I have visited churches where the FSSP conducts mass apostolates, however. If my southern Italian loquacity at times has disedified others, I ask pardon and have no one to blame but myself. I would ask, if Mr. Hicks objects to my testimony; why he resorts to hearsay to besmirch my character, prior to discussing what in fact I claim to have seen?
14) I have never claimed that I am "very good at detecting homosexuals." If one notices that a young man is effeminate and enjoys touching other men or receiving their attention, is it unjust to suppose that there may be some possibility that the person in question may have such tendencies? I suppose to some individuals there is so little pastoral concern for the welfare of others and the community that such things should not even be talked of in confidence with local clergy men; but if you do, and are subsequently described as lacking mental health, what does that indicate about the level headed judgment of the interlocutor? Or of the one attempting to denigrate your character? If I think I have some ability at this "detection" after approx. 100 hours of street ministry with such self-identified individuals, am I exaggerating the matter? If I have given the impression of boasting in this regard, I ask pardon, for it is contrary to humility and my Rule. I have always recommended, as I did to the superior of the SSJ when I visited, that recourse in such cases be had to groups like Courage and the National Association for the Pastoral Care of the Homosexual Person. I have never acted or accorded myself the title expert. If not being an expert makes my remarks, at times, in confidence about these problems inappropriate or ill advised, I ask pardon; but would that those in positions of responsibility over youth have such a concern for their moral welfare as to make interventions by persons like myself, with my little experience, welcomed; as this would redound to the welfare of the youth; for if you shoot every messenger, you will very soon hear no more messages.
15) Mr. Hicks says: "He must be pretty good if in two days in the Academy building, he was able to see homosexuality that we have all failed to see in years." I am sure that if Mr. Hicks had done about 100 hours of street ministry with self-identified homosexuals, he would be more able than I do notice such concerns; but if he has not such experience, why does he denigrate my judgment about a matter of which he knows nothing? As his further statements demonstrate, there are objective reasons why Mr. Hicks' criteria for judging such matters would prevent such detection by himself.
16) It is false to imply that homosexuals exhibit no external manifestations of their proclivities; as if this vice were something entirely spiritual or intellectual. Perhaps this sort of assumption is why Mr. Hicks has never noticed this problem before. I assure everyone, that with a little training, most anyone can detect the warning signs in individuals who have habits of consenting to these proclivities, in most but not all cases.
Now Mr. Hicks turns to the testimony that he, one would think, if impartial, would have quoted before his long diatribe against my character and reputation:
The one charge in his letter that would be troubling, if true, is a claim that one evening when he was crossing the hallway on the third floor between the Society's wing of the building and the Academy's wing where confessions were being held "I notice two students kissing/embracing in front of the chapel doors [sic]. Hearing me approach they resumed normal behavior and went away."
17) Although Mr. Hicks claims to be quoting my letter in a non-selective manner, he has omitted details about this incident. He dismisses it as "some sort of horseplay" and says that the place was unlikely to be the scene of such alleged activity due to its very public location. However, he fails to mention that I cited the incident as occurring after curfew, when no one would be expected to be about, and that I became a witness on account of wishing to attend confession the night before my trip home. This amply explains why these boys where unlikely to expect anyone passing through the area; and why in fact it was not morally speaking, a public place at that hour. It seems unreasonable that Mr. Hicks has spent so much time on my character, and as to the point in issue says only: "My only guess would be that he might have seen some sort of horseplay." I am convinced that he is not seriously considering my testimony.
He then moves to the 2nd major testimony:
The remainder of what he claims to be homosexual behavior consists of boys with their arms around each other's shoulders during a slide show (a slide show where at Mr. Clark and I were present), and a boy running down the hall carrying another boy and shouting, "Girls, girls, girls, get them while they're hot." Clearly, these would not be considered homosexual behaviors except by someone with unbalanced judgment who has homosexuality on the brain.
18) For the sake of defending myself, I will explicitly describe the posture of these two boys in the hallway: the one carried the other in his arms, by placing his arms under the arms of the other, and the buttocks of the one being carried upon the pubic region of the one carrying. Is my judgment thus unbalanced, especially when these two boys had just exited the private quarters of a student? And after seeing 2 students kissing and embracing in an adjacent hallway? Now I understand why Mr. Hicks has not noticed homosexual behavior before. As for the boys in the slide show, they did not have arms about one another; but one did place his arm on another, and affectionately massaged the shoulder/neck of the other. If Mr. Hicks remembers being present, I ask him to explain the normalcy of this behavior; which is identical to homosexual foreplay.
And the third:
19) I never characterized the actual behavior of leaving a computer room as being "homosexual"; the implication that I have is unfounded and defamatory of my judgment. I was told during my visit to the Academy, that the computer room's other door opened onto the office of the superior of the SSJ, to which the sleeping quarters of the same priest where attached. For this reason, which must be known to Mr. Hicks, I considered the behavior worthy of note, especially after reading news stories about the sleeping sickness that prevailed among the SSJ.
20) Mr. Hicks fails to mention that I reported these matters to the superior of the SSJ: he does not say whether this individual reported them to Mr. Hicks, as I counseled him to do in my verbal conversation with him after confession on that very night; between the 2nd and 3rd major events. If I seem presumptuous in counseling a confessor in a school with such noticeable behavior, being only a brother, I ask pardon; but it was my zeal for virtue that led me to it.
For these 20 points I consider Mr. Hicks' comments derogatory, defamatory, calumnious, and libelous--though I by no means know his intentions--he may be entirely, and unwillingly mistaken, or just hasty in composition—and since I live by the charity of my benefactors, receiving no monetary remuneration for my work, such statements would make it very difficult for me to find benefactors to clothe, feed, and house myself for the rest of my life, which is very injurious to my ability to observe my vows and survive. Nevertheless, I desire not to withdraw or alter my testimony; nor will I be thus bullied or coerced into silence. God knows that what I said, in my letter, and in this email, is all true, and I am prepared to swear to the truth of it before any court, ecclesiastical or civil. Is Mr. Hicks thus prepared in regard to his comments about my person?
Finally, I would like to assure Mr. Hicks of my continued prayers and good will: If what I testify to is false, he can surely prove it so, without personal attacks. I am all in favor of the continued material support of the Academy, provided that benefactors have substantial and definitive assurances that the moral welfare of the students is guaranteed by effective measures.
Sincerely in Christ,
Br. Alexis Bugnolo
62 Pilgrim Road
Mansfield, MA 02048
508-339-2217
editor@franciscan-archive.org
Another allegation being spread by Bond attacks the character of the students at St. Gregory's. This allegation is perhaps the most spurious, given the source and the claims made. It originates with a so-called "Franciscan friar", who visited the Society in February 1999 while they were at the Academy. It should be noted that although this man's visit took place in February of 1999, he, like Huntz, wrote the story in January 2002. The "testimony" of this man was first used in an article dated February 7, 2002 in National Review Online written by Rod Dreher. In that article Dreher states that "a Franciscan Friar who overnighted in the Society quarters in 1999, says in a letter he is prepared to testify in court that he witnessed during his stay several instances of homosexual activity among students, including one who later became a postulant of the Society." The NRO article also says that NRO received this letter from Bond and his lawyer. On February 10th I asked Bond if he knew who this "friar" was and he said he did not. In his March 10th email Jeff Bond now makes use of selected allegations from this letter. I now also have a copy of the letter and shall respond to the complete letter rather than Bond's selected presentation.
It is my understanding that the man in question is not a Franciscan friar in any canonical sense of the term nor is he a member of any Catholic community of friars. I don't know what his canonical status is. He is, however, an active member of ARCSEC, the Association of Roman Catholics for Space Exploration and Colonization. One of their chief goals is the colonization of Mars for the purpose of establishing a pure Catholic community under the Kingship of Christ (I am not making this up) and he has publicly written on that goal in a document entitled, "The Significance of The Martian Frontier, A Roman Catholic Perspective," dated July 6, 1997.
This man called me a number of years ago wanting to come to St. Gregory's to live. He had left or been dismissed from his community and was living with his brother. He had no job or occupation at the time, and offered to work with the boys as a volunteer. His situation was odd, given that he was a member of no religious community. He also said I would not be able to get a reference from the community where he had been a previous resident because of some kind of falling out, which had caused him to leave. I don't now remember exactly what he said those problems were. I did not let him come.
Later he showed up to visit the Servants Minor of St. Francis when they lived in the Academy, wearing his own homespun habit. He was to stay for a week but left after a couple of days when he discovered that the brothers touched money. Brother Gabriel, the Superior of the Servants Minor, has since described him as a "loose cannon" and said that he had been asked to leave his community before he had taken vows. A Fraternity priest told me that this man was around his parish for a while and although he seemed intelligent and could be well spoken and reasonable on one day, on the next "he could be off the wall." Father said that he was not surprised that the man made the claims that he made. He said that the man claimed he was very good at detecting homosexuals and that he could see that there were several young men in Father's community with that tendency. In Father's words, "He saw a homosexual under every rock." He must be pretty good if in two days in the Academy building, he was able to see homosexuality that we have all failed to see in years.
In the letter from which both the National Review Online and Bond draw, this "Franciscan Friar" claims that as a result of 100 hours doing street ministry with homosexuals he became "familiarized with the various non-verbal gestures by which those of such proclivities identify themselves to one another." He then says that during his visit to the Academy, "at least two students manifested to me in the refectory such non-verbal gestures, which indicated to me, accompanied with their habitual behavior with adult men in their present, to which I was a witness, that they had problems with their sexual identity in this regard [sic]." Not having an experience with the various non-verbal gestures by which those of such proclivities identify themselves to one another I cannot even speculate about what he thinks he saw. In any case, the charge is clearly insubstantial considered as evidence to convict boys of homosexuality.
The one charge in his letter that would be troubling, if true, is a claim that one evening when he was crossing the hallway on the third floor between the Society's wing of the building and the Academy's wing where confessions were being held "I notice two students kissing/embracing in front of the chapel doors [sic]. Hearing me approach they resumed normal behavior and went away."
Now, the hallway in front of the chapel doorway is one of the most public, widely frequented areas of the school, especially when confessions are being held. It is quite certainly the most unlikely location in the entire building for a clandestine homosexual tryst. What he saw, if anything, I can't say. My only guess would be that he might have seen some sort of horseplay. Moreover, it is very hard to imagine that homosexuality would be tolerated by our students. As one mother told me recently, "homosexuality at St. Gregory's would not be tolerated for five seconds."
The remainder of what he claims to be homosexual behavior consists of boys with their arms around each other's shoulders during a slide show (a slide show where at Mr. Clark and I were present), and a boy running down the hall carrying another boy and shouting, "Girls, girls, girls, get them while they're hot." Clearly, these would not be considered homosexual behaviors except by someone with unbalanced judgment who has homosexuality on the brain.
Finally he says that one evening during his stay he saw a boy leaving the Society computer room at night. He later maintains that some time later, he doesn't remember "if it was months or a year or more," he noticed a picture of this same young man who he had seen exiting the computer room, clothed in a cassock and among the other members of the Society of St. John community. This is all the evidence the National Review Online article needed to allege that this man witnessed "homosexual activity among students, including one who later became a postulant of the Society." How exiting a computer room at night is evidence of "homosexual activity" is beyond me even to speculate.
It is disturbing that Bond would draw upon such an incredible letter to damage the reputation of the Academy, even if I had not already warned him of this man's credibility and had pointed out to Bond the man's lack of credentials.
|
Copyright © 2002 - College of St. Justin Martyr |