Dear Catholic Friends,

As you know, Bishop Timlin has removed Fr. Carlos Urrutigoity and Fr. Eric Ensey from the Society of St. John's property in Shohola. However, Bishop Timlin at this time has not suspended these priests, but simply relocated them in Scranton. Thus, Fr. Urrutigoity and Fr. Ensey are free to continue to receive young men into their company, as indeed they have done.

Because Bishop Timlin has failed to intervene in a principled way to protect young men from the flattering attentions and sexual purposes of these priests, I have continued to investigate and to expose both the grave misconduct of the Society of St. John and Bishop Timlin's ongoing efforts to cover up the scandal. Moreover, I have continued to alert donors to the deceptive excuses, and even outright lies, given by those in the Society of St. John who are participating in the cover-up. The primary culprits in this regard are Fr. Daniel Fullerton, Fr. Basel Sarweh, Fr. Dominic Carey, and Fr. Dominic O'Connor.

Anyone wishing to express his concerns about this scandal to Bishop Timlin should email him at chllor@epix.net or call him at 570/207-2216. Regular letters should be sent to Bishop Timlin at 300 Wyoming Avenue, Scranton, PA 18503-1279. Those wishing to understand the background of this scandal, as well as follow the updates, should go to the website of the College of St. Justin Martyr at www.saintjustinmartyr.org/news/notices.html.

Before turning once again to Fr. Urrutigoity's scandalous behavior, I must warn the faithful about another founding member of the Society of St. John, Fr. Marshall Roberts.

Fr. Roberts was a seminarian and then a priest of the Society of St. Pius X. He left the Society of St. Pius X and joined the Institute of Christ the King in Florence. In 1993, Fr. Roberts was kicked out of the Institute of Christ the King for cultivating a "particular friendship," an ecclesiastical euphemism with unflattering connotations. In this case, a young first-year seminarian from France had felt harassed by Fr. Roberts to the point where he reported Fr. Roberts' excessive attentions to his superiors. When confronted by Monsignor Gilles Wach, the Superior of the Institute of Christ the King, Fr. Roberts defended the practice of "particular friendships." Monsignor Wach considered the offense sufficiently serious to dismiss Fr. Roberts from the Institute.

Fr. Roberts eventually joined the Society of St. John. Because Bishop Timlin failed to do adequate background checks on the clerics of the Society of St. John, Fr. Roberts' dubious past remained hidden. Whereas Monsignor Wach did not hesitate to dismiss Fr. Roberts for pursuing a "particular friendship," Fr. Urrutigoity allowed Fr. Roberts to establish a special tie with a young member of the Society of St. John. This young man was initially exposed to Fr. Roberts at St. Gregory's Academy where Fr. Roberts first began paying special attention to him. After this young man graduated from St. Gregory's Academy and joined the Society of St. John, Fr. Urrutigoity permitted Fr. Roberts and this young man to sleep in the same room together on an ongoing basis with no one else present. Needless to say, it is highly irregular and improper in the extreme for a priest and a young seminarian to stay together alone in the same room.

Under Fr. Urrutigoity's queer governance of the Society of St. John, Fr. Roberts was able to form a strong attachment with this young man. They were permitted to spend much time alone together apart from the rest of the Society, a practice contrary to all propriety and customs of clerical community life. This included spending hours alone together in Fr. Roberts' room after compline (night prayer), as well as special dinners out by themselves. Furthermore, Fr. Dominic O'Connor, the acting Superior while the Society of St. John was in living in France, not only condoned these activities, but even on one occasion openly defended them as a legitimate exception to the community rule. It is worth noting that Fr. O'Connor, in his new capacity as official spokesman for the Society, is supporting the party line that all allegations of wrongdoing are false.

Fr. Urrutigoity also cultivated a special relationship with the same young man to whom Fr. Roberts became attached. While this young man was a student at St. Gregory's Academy, Fr. Urrutigoity and he were discovered together in the same room drinking and smoking after midnight. Once the Society moved onto its own property in Shohola, it was not unusual for Fr. Urrutigoity to be seen with his arm around this young man, whispering in his ear, teasing him and touching him lightly. The Society would have us believe that this is done in imitation of the relationship between Christ and St. John, just as we have been told by Fr. Fullerton that Fr. Urrutigoity has imitated Christ in allowing boys to sleep in his private chambers.

Fr. Urrutigoity also took this young man alone with him on special trips. On at least two occasions, after returning late at night to the Society's property in Shohola, this young man spent the night in Fr. Urrutigoity's bed.

Even Bishop Timlin has admitted that Fr. Urrutigoity has slept one-on-one with boys and young men in his bed in his private chambers. However, Bishop Timlin does not consider this immoral. And yet, in a recent newspaper article published by The River Reporter about the scandal at the Society, his auxiliary, Bishop Dougherty, is quoted as having called this a "reprehensible practice."

Despite the fact that Bishops Timlin and Dougherty have both admitted this practice, Society priests continue to lie to donors by denying that Fr. Urrutigoity has ever slept in the same bed with boys in his private chambers. In opposition to the lies being told by priests and members of the Society of St. John, I offer the following information from an affidavit that testifies to Fr. Urrutigoity's penchant for intimate relationships with young males, including one-on-one sleeping encounters with full body contact:

1. During the late spring of 2000, a group of young men from St. Gregory's Academy camped out on the top of the mountain on the Society's Shohola property. Fr. Urrutigoity spent the night with them at their campsite. When Fr. Urrutigoity was asked the next day whether it was cold during the night, he said "no" because he had shared a sleeping bag with one of the young men.
2. On a number of occasions in the spring and summer of 2000, Fr. Urrutigoity supplied alcohol to minors on the Shohola property. One intoxicated minor was seen leaving Fr. Urrutigoity's bedroom the morning after Fr. Urrutigoity had provided this minor with large quantities of alcohol. The minor then became extremely ill.
3. In the summer of 2000, several young men were seen leaving Fr. Urrutigoity's bedroom in their underclothes.
4. During the summer of 2000, a young man staying on the Shohola property was asked where he slept the previous night. He responded, "In Fr. Urrutigoity's bed." When asked, "Where did Fr. Urrutigoity sleep, the young man responded that Fr. Urrutigoity slept in the same bed. Fr. Urrutigoity was also seen encouraging young men to share the same bed.
5. In October 2000, a young man reported that he and another young man slept in the same bed with Fr. Urrutigoity, and that Fr. Urrutigoity made lewd comments during the night. (Fr. Urrutigoity, who likes to give pet names to the boys with whom he sleeps, was expressing his preference for those who are soft and gentle while sleeping next to him in bed, rather than those who are rough and hard.)
6. In October 2000, Fr. Urrutigoity was seen cuddling with a young man on a bed.

All of the information above, and much more, was conveyed to Bishop Dougherty in the summer of 2001, yet he and Bishop Timlin did not suspend Fr. Urrutigoity nor even depose him as Superior General of the Society of St. John. The lack of action by the Bishops becomes even more outrageous when one recalls that the Bishops knew that serious accusations of molestation had been made against Fr. Urrutigoity in 1999.

Again, I call upon the Diocese of Scranton to take substantive disciplinary action against the Society of St. John—in particular, Fr. Urrutigoity and Fr. Ensey—and for Bishop Timlin to resign.

Sincerely,