February 18, 2002

Dear Friends in the Faith,

Thanks to your help, word about the Society of St. John's sexual and financial misconduct has spread far and wide. Most recently, The Wanderer ran a front-page article exposing the Society of St. John, and Rod Dreher of National Review Online has published a follow-up to his first article on the Scranton scandal. Both The Wanderer article and Rod Dreher's latest article can be found on the College of St. Justin Martyr's website at www.saintjustinmartyr.org/news/notices.html.

The adverse publicity for the Society of St. John, whose life-blood flows from its parasitical relationship to unsuspecting Catholic donors, has forced the Society to begin to make statements to the press. This is all to the good, because it will restrict the Society's ability to wiggle and alter its story later as additional damaging evidence comes forward. Thus, even though the Society's lies, and those of Bishop Timlin, may continue to fool some people, their mendacity will be fully revealed in time when they become trapped in a deceitful web of their own making.

At the very least, the Society's recent efforts to counter negative publicity reveal that their prior stance of "silence" was not the principled one they loudly proclaimed it to be. Up until now, it has always been Fr. Urrutigoity's firm and oft-repeated policy never to respond to criticisms of himself or the Society, but rather suffer in silence in supposed imitation of our Lord.

That was the image, anyway, that Fr. Urrutigoity and the Society wanted to project. This pious image was shown to be a sham when I received a letter dated November 21, 2001 from an attorney in Scranton, written at the behest of Fr. Urrutigoity, threatening me with a lawsuit for libel and slander. It is no surprise by now, of course, that Fr. Urrutigoity merely simulates, but does not truly imitate, our Lord who, as far as I know, never hired a slick attorney to attempt to silence and intimidate those shouting the truth from the rooftops.

At this point it should be evident to all that the Society will feign an imitation of our Lord when it suits its purpose, but the Society will throw its supposed principled stance out the window if publicity and marketing analyses show a distinct downward turn. These men are not ready to die for truth, for they are not willing to suffer even the death of their Madison Avenue image, not to mention the demise of their bank account.

To show how little these men care for truth, let's consider together their first extended response to the charges made against them. Perhaps many of you have already seen the statement that is circulating entitled "The Society of St. John Speaks Out!" I will set forth their statement in quotations below, a sentence or two at a time, and then respond in brackets:

"In response to your inquiries, we seek to reassure our friends and benefactors that the recent allegations made in the public media are unsubstantiated, untrue and seek to portray a picture of the Society of St. John and our beloved Bishop, which is totally false. This is causing great sadness and hurt not only to the Society of Saint John, the Bishop, but more importantly, the Catholic Church."

[The Society's claim, that the allegations against it are "unsubstantiated," is itself a perfect example of an unsubstantiated allegation, especially since the Society has yet to address the specific accusations made against its members. Are we supposed to accept the Society's claim merely because its members, and the Bishop, are sad and hurt? The Society does not seem to grasp the obvious fact that the Society of St. John and the Catholic Church are not one in the same. The Catholic Church will survive without the Society, just as a firmly built house survives the extermination of termites that feed off it.]

"This campaign to discredit the SSI began with a series of e-mails sent by Dr. Jeffrey Bond at the end of September of this past year. This campaign coincided with the refusal of the Bishop to sanction Dr. Bond's attempt to separate the College from the Society and establish it as an independent Catholic college."

[For some time now, the Society has attempted to discredit my accusations by suggesting these accusations were made only after Bishop Timlin's refusal to sanction the College of St. Justin Martyr's separation from the Society of St. John. This is manifestly untrue, as evidenced by the Society's own account given above. After all, Bishop Timlin's letter, denying me permission to establish a Catholic college in his Diocese, was written on October 15, 2001. And yet, as the Society's statement above makes perfectly clear, my e-mail campaign began "at the end of September." How, then, can the Society say that my campaign "coincided" with Bishop Timlin's refusal? As Rod Dreher of National Review Online has pointed out in his follow-up article, there was a gap of almost three weeks between my first e-mail of September 27, 2001, and Bishop Timlin's letter of October 15, 2001. No doubt one of the reasons Bishop Timlin refused to sanction the College's separation is because I had already denounced Fr. Urrutigoity's habit of sleeping with young men, a habit which Bishop Timlin admits to, but insists is not sinful.]

"Bishop Timlin was adamant that the College of St. Justin Martyr remain affiliated with the SSI."

[This claim is false. Bishop Timlin was prepared to support the separation of the College from the Society, if the Society were willing to accept it. As Rod Dreher reports in his follow-up article on the Scranton scandal, Bishop Timlin said "I was trying to be the go-between here and try to make things amicable. I said [the separation is] all right with me as long as it's all right with the Society."]

"This campaign became a vicious attack of rumor, innuendo and threats. The accusations made by Dr. Bond are false. He orchestrated a wide dissemination of these malicious false accusations, and this smear campaign has now reached the national press."

[Whom have I threatened? If the Society means that I have told members of the Society that I will expose them for their complicity in the scandal, then the Society fails to understand the difference between a threat and a promise. Moreover, if my campaign is nothing but "rumor" and "innuendo," then how is it that orthodox Catholic writers in the national press found sufficient substantiation to publish stories exposing the Society of St. John?]

"To date, only one allegation has reached the hands of Bishop Timlin. All else is speculation, web gossip and hearsay. The solitary accusation comes from the parents of a young adult. The young adult, himself, has never made an accusation and in fact, refuses to talk with the Bishop and confirm the allegation. The priests categorically deny any immorality."

[One allegation is not enough for the Society? Now if this allegation truly lacks credibility, as the Society suggests above, then why has Bishop Timlin removed both Fr. Urrutigoity and Fr. Ensey? (The guidelines for the Diocese of Scranton require "credible evidence" before removing a priest from his duties.) The fact is, this is not the only credible allegation against Fr. Urrutigoity. Fr. Urrutigoity was accused of homosexual behavior by a group of priests and seminarians at the seminary in La Reja, and Fr. Urrutigoity was also accused of molestation by a young seminarian from Winona in 1999. The accusations from La Reja and Winona are a matter of record. Furthermore, it shows good sense on the part of any victim not to speak with Bishop Timlin, for Bishop Timlin has shown himself hostile to claims of misconduct against the Society. Bishop Timlin has taken action only when it was necessary to attempt to protect himself from liability.]

"Doctor Bond has applied intense pressure on the alumni of St. Gregory's Academy in order to manipulate them to give damaging accusations."

[This is the biggest lie of all. The information given to me by alumni of St. Gregory's has always been freely offered. I look forward to the day when the Society will have to produce the names of those who supposedly claim to have been pressured and manipulated by me into giving information.]

"In fact, the Bishop has been inundated by testimony from the young men of Saint Gregory's denying any impropriety. Moreover, these young men are letting the Bishop know that their experience of the Society has led them to prayer, meditation and a deeper love of the Church."

[If this is true, then the Society should not be so worried about damaging accusations from any alumni of St. Gregory's. Indeed, the Society should have no concerns whatsoever about what these young men may say under oath.]

"Contrary to recent press articles, there have never been charges against any member of the Society in civil or ecclesiastical court."

[Not true. An ejectment notice was filed in January 2002 with the court in Pike County, Pa., to remove the Society from "Fatima House" in Shohola. This is a matter of record. Moreover, the Society's confidence that no further legal actions will be brought against them is highly premature. As for ecclesiastical court, I filed a libellus (petition) on February 9, 2002 with the Tribunal of the Diocese of Scranton charging Fr. Urrutigoity and Fr. Ensey with molestation.]

"A few bitter and disenchanted critics seek to portray the Society and its mission as extravagant and luxurious."

[Bishop Timlin himself acknowledged to The Wanderer that the Society "spent money like there was no tomorrow." I don't blame Bishop Timlin for being "bitter and disenchanted."]

"In fact, as you can read in the testimonies given by those who know the Society, - some of these are posted on our website - the lifestyle of its members is simple and monastic. The Members of the Society receive no salary, many sleep on the floor. The meals are plain and simple. Moreover, the Society's finances are regularly audited by a CPA and are overlooked by an independent financial advisory board with members from the local business community as well as the auxiliary Bishop and a representative appointed by Bishop Timlin."

[Do those living a "simple and monastic" life spend $136,000 on furniture? Does any "monastic" community in the world have its meals catered by a French gourmet restaurant?]

"The Members of the Society, themselves, are united in continuing to pursue the mission of the Society."

[Even a group of thieves is united in a common cause, but they are still thieves. What exactly is the "mission of the Society" now that their whole development project is dead? If the Society is still planning to build a Catholic village in Shohola, why hasn't the Society said a word about the development project since early last fall? In truth, the Society of St. John is primarily a telemarketing and debt service organization - the debt being its own.]

"The Solemn Liturgy continues to be chanted daily and our faithful remain loyal to us."

[Is it the Society's job to make the faithful loyal to the Society of St. John, or to God? Does the Society think that chanting the Solemn Liturgy daily is a magic potion for producing virtuous men?]

"The nature of these attacks in a situation where there has been no charge, no case, no lawsuit shows a reckless disregard for justice and truth and endangers the good reputation of the Church. Please continue to support us and keep us in your prayers!"

[Despite the Society's continued protestations to the contrary, the Society of St. John is not the Church. The Society should also realize that justice and truth do not wait upon litigation. But, again, the Society is premature in thinking it has escaped the long arm of the law.]

"If you have any questions please feel free to phone us here at the Society. Fr. Dominic Carey 570-685-5168 and Fr. Dominic O'Connor 570-685-5154 will be available to answer your questions."

[By all means, please contact these two priests, and ask them to explain the contradictions and lies that I have exposed above.]

It is appropriate to conclude with a thought about the Society's disappointing attempt to "speak out!" When I read the title of the Society's statement, I wondered for a moment whether the Society had finally decided to come out of the shadows and "speak out" in defense of Fr. Urrutigoity's perverted theory of male bonding. But, alas, it appears the Society, in true gnostic form, has deemed it inappropriate to share with the public the secrets it reserves for the initiated alone, namely, that spiritual direction is greatly enhanced when a priest spends the night in bed alone with a boy who is thereby made to feel so special.

Pax vobiscum,