Dear Friends in the Faith,
The undated e-mail letter below, sent out during the last week of January, has been widely circulated by the Society of St. John. My response is posted beneath the Society's e-mail:
Dear Friends,
Over the past few months many false rumors have been circulated, mainly via e-mail, accusing the Society of St. John and some of its members of financial and moral misconduct. These rumors have been extremely slanderous in nature and have been so audacious and arrogant in character as to try to discredit not only the Society of St. John, but even the Bishop of Scranton and his auxiliary.
More recently, allegations of moral misconduct have been levied against two of our priests. These allegations are also false.
Below is an official statement from the Diocese of Scranton, which addresses the situation.
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel welcome to contact us at 570.685.5151.
Please remember us in your prayers during these very difficult times.
Yours in Christ,
Society of St. John
My response:
Why has no one from the Society of St. John, in particular the Superior General, been willing to put his name to this e-mail letter?
Why has the Society of St. John failed to address the specific accusations made against its members?
To characterize my e-mail letters as "rumors" is a total deception. A rumor is talk or opinion widely disseminated with no discernible source. The Society knows well that I am the source, for I have put my name to all my e-mail letters. But for fear of legal repercussions, the Society has not mentioned me by name. They prefer to make private attacks that they believe are shielded from prosecution.
The word "rumor" also suggests unsupported opinion. My letters, however, are based upon the testimony of young men and boys who have slept in the same bed with Fr. Urrutigoity or Fr. Ensey, and in some cases, have been molested by them. This testimony is supported by affidavits that state that these priests plied young men and boys with alcohol to the point of intoxication, and that those same young men and boys slept in the same bed in the private chambers of these priests. Even a casual review of my letters dispels any suggestion that the accusations against the Society are mere "rumors."
As for the accusation that my e-mail letters are "extremely slanderous in nature," I challenge and defy anyone in the Society of St. John to bring a lawsuit against me. In fact, I have already received a letter dated November 21, 2001 from Sal Cognetti, Jr., a Scranton attorney hired by Fr. Urrutigoity, no doubt with Diocesan approval, to threaten me with a lawsuit for libel and slander. That letter, like the Society's e-mail letter above, was all bluster and no substance. The Society of St. John has not, and will not bring a lawsuit for libel or slander precisely because the accusations I have made are true. I would like nothing more than to be sued by the Society, for then the full truth would be revealed once depositions were taken and testimony given under threat of criminal prosecution for perjury.
To imply that any effort to discredit the Society of St. John is "audacious and arrogant" because the Society is somehow in the same league as "the Bishop of Scranton and his auxiliary," is itself the height of audacity and arrogance. Sadly, the Bishop and his auxiliary have, by their efforts to protect the Society, descended to the Society's own depraved level by pitting episcopal authority against the truth.
Finally, it should be noted that the Society has once again wrapped itself in the mantle of Bishop Timlin, who falsely assured the faithful in his statement of October 26, 2000 that he was "morally certain" that the Society was guilty of no wrongdoing. Are we to believe Bishop Timlin's assurances now?
[My response is given in brackets within the statement from the Diocese of Scranton that was attached to the Society of St. John's e-mail letter above.]
STATEMENT FROM THE DIOCESE OF SCRANTON
[January 24, 2002]
The Diocese of Scranton absolutely denies that the Diocese has ever harbored priests who are sexual predators. Bishop Timlin is outraged that any person or persons would ever make such a serious allegation without knowing the facts.
[I absolutely affirm that the Diocese has harbored, and continues to harbor, priests who are sexual predators. I am outraged that Bishop Timlin has failed to protect young men and boys from these sexual predators when he had more than sufficient evidence to take the necessary disciplinary action. See my "Open Letter" to Bishop Timlin.]
The press release given out by an organization which calls itself Roman Catholic Faithful, Inc. contains egregious errors of fact to which no reasonable person should give any credence.
[Prior to this diocesan statement, Bishop Timlin admitted in a telephone call to James Bendell, attorney for Roman Catholic Faithful, that RCF's press release was substantially correct.]
Whenever anyone has come forth with credible evidence of sexual misconduct, the Diocese would immediately investigate the allegations and would act properly in accord with our Diocesan Guidelines. To say the Diocese refused to take action is simply not true. No such instance occurs without an immediate meeting of the Clergy Review Board, an independent group of clergy and lay professionals who review the allegations.
[Bishop Timlin had credible evidence of sexual misconduct for years, but he chose to ignore it. This has been documented in my "Open Letter" to Bishop Timlin. Furthermore, Bishop Timlin failed to follow his own Diocesan Guidelines when, without having done adequate background checks, he allowed these priests to be chaplains at St. Gregory's Academy, an all-boys high school. Finally, Bishop Timlin's own "Clergy Review Board" utterly failed with respect to its judgment in 1999 concerning Fr. Urrutigoity. Could that be because these board members lack sufficient independence from Bishop Timlin's authority? Are we now to believe that this same "Clergy Review Board" is qualified to judge the accusations against Fr. Ensey? Isn't there a conflict of interest here? If these board members are truly independent, Bishop Timlin must, at the very least, publish their names and qualifications so that all may be assured of their objectivity.]
There have been allegations made against two priests of the Society of St. John. These priests deny these allegations. In accord with diocesan policy, however, they have left their posts until the investigation is completed and appropriate action is determined.
[Fr. Urrutigoity and Fr. Ensey are now receiving young men in Scranton instead of on their property in Shohola. These priests have not been subject to any canonical sanction. The fact that they have "left their posts" has done nothing to protect young men and boys from their depredations.]
As wrong as the alleged actions in this case might be, and, if true, they are very wrong, certainly it would also be wrong for the Church to pass judgment on individuals without sufficient evidence. Suffice it to say that the Church's law and diocesan policies have been followed at all times and will continue to be adhered to until this unfortunate situation is resolved. There has never been any effort to cover up anything or to ignore the seriousness of these allegations.
[Does anyone believe this? See my "Open Letter" to Bishop Timlin.]
To say that a priest was being transferred to another religious community to go on corrupting the morals of others is false as false can be and deserves no credence whatsoever. That Bishop Timlin ignored these allegations is also false and malicious. No one who knows Bishop Timlin would ever question his moral courage.
[In my meeting with Bishop Timlin on October 4, 2001, he informed me that Fr. Urrutigoity had requested permission to leave the Society of St. John and join a contemplative order. Bishop Timlin then told me that he had given Fr. Urrutigoity permission to do so. Only after my letter of protest of October 27, 2001 did Bishop Timlin withdraw his permission. I hasten to add that I do know Bishop Timlin, and he is utterly deficient in moral courage.]
Calling for Bishop Timlin's resignation is arrogance run wild. Bishop Timlin will tender his resignation to the Pope when he reaches 75 years old on August 5, 2002, as required by the laws of the Church. His resignation is a matter strictly between the Bishop and the Holy See, and these people have a nerve even suggesting such a thing because they think the Bishop did not do what they want him to do.
[Bishop Timlin's failure to resign is arrogance run wild.]
Scranton Auxiliary Bishop John Dougherty is also outraged to see his name used in support of the statements in this release. He has asked that they cease quoting him incorrectly but to date they have not done so.
[I am outraged at Bishop Dougherty's moral cowardice. He told me in a meeting on September 24, 2001 that Fr. Urrutigoity was "capable of pederasty at any time." Nonetheless, he sat back and did nothing. Now he appears to be denying he made this statement. A witness at the meeting on September 24, 2001 affirms that Bishop Dougherty did make this statement and the other statements attributed to him.]
As far as charges of financial mismanagement which have been made against the Society of St. John are concerned, the Diocese of Scranton has every reason to believe that the Society has exercised scrupulous care and restraint in this area for some time now.
[How could the Diocese of Scranton know this given Bishop Timlin's failure to consult the Society's bookkeeper about the accusations of financial mismanagement? What does the phrase "for some time now" signify? The last week? The last month? The last year? Bishop Timlin has failed to protect not only unsuspecting boys from the Society's predatory practices, but also unsuspecting Catholic donors.]
Finally, Bishop Timlin is not being held hostage by anyone, and certainly not by the Society of St. John because of finances. It is ludicrous for anyone to suggest otherwise.
[Bishop Dougherty is the man who has suggested otherwise.]
Since these matters may be open to litigation, all further inquiries should be referred to our Diocesan Attorney.
[This statement provides cover for Bishop Timlin to remain silent, but does it serve the cause of justice and truth? Does Bishop Timlin think that legal threats will shield him from questions by those whom he is supposed to protect? Bishop Timlin has shown his readiness to wield his authority, but where is his moral authority?]
Sincerely, Dr. Jeffrey M. Bond
|
Copyright © 2002 - College of St. Justin Martyr |