November 1, 2002

Dear Friends,

Yesterday the Scranton Times, in the article below, reported that the District Attorney of Lackawanna County will not prosecute Fr. Urrutigoity and Fr. Ensey of the Society of St. John because the statute of limitations has expired, not because they were cleared of crimes. These priests remain in jeopardy of prosecution in other jurisdictions for their activities with a young man they met at St. Gregory's Academy in Elmhurst, Pennsylvania.

The Scranton Times article failed to mention two important facts that were communicated to me by the Chief Detective of Lackawanna County:

(1) Fr. Urrutigoity and Fr. Ensey, on the advice of their diocesan attorney, refused to allow the police to question them in connection with the charges brought against them by John Doe, the young man who filed a federal lawsuit against them.

(2) The other jurisdictions, to which the District Attorney of Lackawanna County has forwarded accusations against these two priests, are where the "more serious crimes" are alleged to have taken place.

It is suspect, to say the least, for priests who have denied any wrongdoing to refuse to cooperate with law enforcement authorities. Urrutigoity and Ensey did this, of course, to avoid the danger of self-incrimination. In other words, these priests value their own skins more than the truth, a flagrant violation of their office as priests.

While the tactic of refusing to answer police questions does not LEGALLY incriminate, it most certainly provides further evidence of their MORAL transgressions, for it is their clear moral duty to cooperate with a legitimate investigation by public authority. Instead, what we see here is a cynical use of the law that is no different than that of a racketeer.

How often have we heard spokesmen for the Society of St. John express their longing for the day when these priests would have the opportunity to clear themselves with the proper authorities? Yet when Fr. Urrutigoity and Fr. Ensey were given the chance to speak with the police, they refused.

Bishop James Timlin of the Diocese of Scranton, who has direct authority over these priests, is ultimately responsible for this cynical and immoral use of criminal law to safeguard himself and these priests. The Bishop knows full well that there is abundant corroborative evidence of homosexuality and corruption of youth by priests of the Society of St. John.

True to his personal sympathies for these priests, Bishop Timlin has carefully played the game of allowing legal authority to substitute for his moral duty to investigate and discipline these priests. And yet, in the event that he and these priests finally give the slip to legal prosecution, Bishop Timlin will undoubtedly claim a great moral victory.

Although Bishop Timlin claims to have removed Fr. Urrutigoity and Fr. Ensey from the Society of St. John and forbid them to function as priests in public, nevertheless they are actively participating in the life of the Society of St. John and its liturgy on the Society's property in Shohola. Indeed, Urrutigoity and Ensey even appear in a recent picture on the Society of St. John's own web site. Bishop Timlin is fully aware of all of this, which demonstrates the sham nature of his claim to have taken appropriate steps to discipline them.

It remains to be seen what will happen in Monroe and Pike counties, Pennsylvania, and in Santa Paula, California, where the more serious crimes have been alleged. And of course the juries in the civil lawsuits against the Society of St. John will be intrigued by these priests' refusal to explain themselves to proper authorities.

Sincerely,