December 8, 2002

Dear Friends,

Those familiar with our efforts to expose the Society of St. John as a homosexual cult already know that three of the SSJ's founders, Fr. Carlos Urrutigoity, Fr. Eric Ensey, and Fr. Marshall Roberts, are homosexual predators. (For those unfamiliar with the evidence, see www.SaintJustinMartyr.org/news/notices.html.)

What about the other members of the SSJ, especially the other priests who have lied to donors in an effort to keep the money flowing into the SSJ's profligate hands? Fr. Basel Sarweh, for example, was the SSJ's first "designated liar" when the truth about Fr. Urrutigoity was first revealed. (See below the letter I sent to Fr. Sarweh well over a year ago, to which I never received a response—other than a threatening letter from the SSJ's attorney.)

Why would Fr. Sarweh lie to protect Fr. Urrutigoity? Consider the following excerpt from a letter I received from an overnight visitor to the SSJ:

"I stayed up there overnight for a couple of nights. I was in the house they call St. Joseph's. I slept in one of the nooks upstairs by the staircase, thus though I was in a room by myself, it wasn't really private because anyone leaving any of the other bedrooms had to walk through there to get to the bathroom. About 3 or so in the morning I was awakened when Fr. Sarweh came out of his room, he was not modestly dressed to say the least. I'm fairly sure he didn't know I was staying there but I can't be certain of that. All he was wearing was a little triangle of cloth the covered his manhood. I couldn't help but see because I was lying down. A fat man in a G-string is not exactly the thing I enjoy waking up to. When he saw me he returned to his bedroom and put on a robe. Why did he feel free to be dressed in such an immodest manner and then put on a robe when he noticed I was there? A monk, and most other men for that matter, do NOT wear underwear like that. One of the novices whom I did not know at the time, he did tell me later that he was a novice, came out of his room and went into the bathroom. I figured out later it was Brett Mansur. I can't be sure they were in the bathroom at the same time because I rolled over and went back to sleep. Outside of being grossed out I really didn't think much of it at the time. With Fr. Sarweh's denial of Fr. U's actions and his truly gross immodesty in dress, I'm now wondering if he didn't have a rendezvous planned that was foiled by my unknown presence."

Fr. Sarweh has not only imitated Fr. Urrutigoity's documented habit of exhibitionism, but also his technique of discussing temptations against the 6^th and 9^th Commandments in a manner designed to test for openness to sin. Indeed, one former member of the Society of St. John reports having been asked by Fr. Sarweh how he would deal with the issue of masturbation if approached by a young man seeking spiritual direction. This former SSJ member, who was Fr. Sarweh's clerical inferior, found the question to be not only inappropriate, but even deliberately suggestive, especially since he had only recently met Fr. Sarweh. He was convinced that Fr. Sarweh was "fishing" rather than genuinely seeking advice.

Those with further information on Fr. Basel Sarweh, or other members of the SSJ cult, should contact me directly at the address or telephone number below.

Pax vobiscum,

Dr. Jeffrey M. Bond
President
College of St. Justin Martyr
142 Market Road
Greeley, PA 18425
570-685-5945

jmb3@LTIS.net

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

October 30, 2001

Dear Father Sarweh,

I understand that you have taken it upon yourself to explain away Fr. Urrutigoity's habit of sleeping with young men. I have been told, for example, that you have claimed that Fr. Urrutigoity's untoward actions are the result of "overcrowding" on the Society of St. John's property in Shohola. You have apparently further explained that, due to the Society's desire to show Christian hospitality, the Society has naively allowed visitors to spend the night in Fr. Urrutigoity's sleeping quarters, little thinking that anyone would be so uncharitable as to suppose that there was anything perverse in all this. This whole controversy, you have claimed, is simply due to a misunderstanding which is the consequence of the Society's unbounded charity. And so, like our Lord, as you modestly suppose, the Society is being crucified for its love and for its willingness to sacrifice for others.

Certainly you know that your spin on Fr. Urrutigoity's "sleeping sickness," as it is now euphemistically called, is a shameless distortion of the truth. Really, Father, where is your conscience? The Society's first defense of Fr. Urrutigoity's irregular behavior was that, as an Argentinean, he was not tainted by the Puritanical heritage of Americans, and so he was perfectly comfortable bedding down innocently with other men. Here at least was an acknowledgement that Fr. Urrutigoity did indeed sleep with young men. But now, having played the "cultural card" to no effect, you have undertaken an even more ludicrous defense by claiming that Fr. Urrutigoity has somehow been forced to sleep with young men as the result of "overcrowding" on the Society's Shohola property. Naturally I am wondering why you never provided me with this compelling explanation when I first wrote to you about this matter over a month ago. It grieves me now to learn that you have thus become the Society of St. John's designated liar.

I would suggest, if you cannot tell the truth, that you devise a more artful story. After all, no one who knows Fr. Urrutigoity will ever believe that he has gotten himself into this mess as a result of his supposed naivete. Furthermore, there are numerous parties who have said that they have slept in the same bed with Fr. Urrutigoity when there was no one else in the room. Where were the crowds on those nights? If these individuals truly had nowhere else to spend the night, they certainly were not compelled by overcrowding to sleep in Fr. Urrutigoity's bed rather than on the floor in a different room. Are you really expecting that all the young men who have slept with Fr. Urrutigoity will be willing to perjure themselves? That would require a cover-up of mammoth proportions, something which not even a man with the charm and cunning of Fr. Urrutigoity could orchestrate.

I would further suggest, Father, that you meditate long and hard on the words of St. Alphonsus de Liguori:

Priests who see insults offered to God and remain silent are called by Isaias "mute dogs." But to these mute dogs shall be imputed all the sins that they could have - but have not - prevented . . . Hence, St. Leo adds: "The priest who does not withdraw another from error proves that he is himself involved in it."

If this is true about priests who remain silent when they see insults offered to God, what are we to think about priests who actually lie to cover up these insults?

Sincerely,