Gaude, Maria Virgo, cunctas hæreses sola interemisti.
(Tractus Missæ Salve Sancta Parens)
Sunday, September 7th 2008
This message may be downloaded within PDF format from our website http://www.virgo-maria.org/.
A gay priest, ordained in the SSPX, protected by Bishop Williamson and denounced by Bishop Fellay
What does this protection mean? Why did it last so long? (10 years)
Do we have to consider from now on the hypothesis of a gay network having infiltrated the SSPX?
Would Bishop Williamson prefer being gay more than thinking the « sedevacantist » way?
EXHAUSTIVE TRANSLATION OF FRENCH STUDY (COMPLETE DOCUMENT)
The peculiar facts concerning Bishop Williamson keep building up. More and more actions and connections are coming to light about the one time Cambridge graduate bishop, revealing his real face, instead of that of the man who unconditionally opposes the affiliation and the Conciliar Church that he pretends to be.
His acts show Bishop Williamson to be a decoy, plotting with Fr. Schmidberger, playing the part of expelling from the SPPX each priest suspected of sedevacantist sympathies, and to attract the real opponents into the arms of the Rome of the « antichrists », meanwhile counteracting them.
Exactly this way he has got the supervision of the Le Sel de la terre magazine of the dominicans of Avrillé.
Earlier, we revealed the Anglican-Fabien Society, globalist environment of his mentor, Malcolm Muggeridge.
Then, his unusual episcopal coat of arms, with its obviously rosi+crucian symbolism.
Now, a priest who was well acquainted with Bishop Williamson, has revealed to us on top of that the protection that the latter has given to Fr. Urrutigoity, presently entangled in several legal procedures, accused of homosexual assaults on various victims in catholic colleges or seminaries.
Book of Mrs Engel – Fr. Carlos Urrutigoity at the elevation
Mrs Randy Engel tells us more in her book « The Rite of Sodomy », published in 2006 in the US. In a total of 1318 pages and 4523 notes, the American investigation journalist Randy Engel documents the background of pederast networks at the heart of the catholic Church since more than 100 years.
This monumental work of investigation examines the network of Cambridge and its ties with the British secret services, particularly MI5.
Also, she exposes the question of the homosexuality of Montini-Paul VI and the countless accusations against him, to start with those brought forward by Fr. de Nantes in 1969 and in 1993.
In her book Randy Engel dedicates several pages to the Urrutigoity affair and the part of Bishop Williamson, implying Bishop de Galaretta.
You will find this text in appendix.
These pages describe with very crude details that make distressing reading, the horrible reality of the acts committed by Fr. Urritigoity.
HISTORY OF THE URRUTIGOITY AFFAIR : A GAY PREDATOR AND MODERNIST PROTECTED BY BISHOP WILLIAMSON
From Mendoza in Argentine, Carlos Urrutigoity went to study in the seminary of La Reja (Argentine – SSPX).
His homosexual tendencies and his attacks on chastity were detected in 1987 by the then superior of the seminary of La Reja, Fr. Morello, who set up a file against him and asked for his removal.
Fr. de Galaretta, at that time superior of the District of South America of the SSPX, and « other influential priests » of the SSPX, immediately stepped in to protect the pederast seminarist.
According to a hand written note of Fr. Morello, Bishop de Galaretta intervened to protect Urrutigoity after having been asked to by the Calderon family.
Later, Bishop Williamson justified this behaviour of Bishop de Galaretta when speaking to dr. Bond (the superior of the Saint Justin Martyr college, who made the affair public). He said that a sedevacantist danger was imminent, which made Fr. Morello appeal to the District of South America.
This action of Fr. Morello was followed by a fast transfer of Fr. Urrutigoity to the priory of the SSPX of Cordoba (Argentine), allowing him to get a recommendation and to have him self « whitewashed ». Then, in 1989, Bishop Williamson welcomed him to the seminary of Winona in the US.
During this peripateia, Fr. Morello was temporarily removed, in the first semester of 1989, to Santiago de Chili, whilst Fr. Schmidberger was superior of the SSPX and decided about mutations.
Bishop Williamson made Fr. Urrutigoity write a letter of self justification as soon as he arrived in Winona in 1989, and Bishop Williamson-‘Cunctator’ with the Rose handed it personally over to Archbishop Lefebvre, asking and receiving his authorisation for the admission of Urrutigoity to Winona. The archbishop, so obviously « used » by Bishop Williamson, demanded of Bishop Williamson to watch the suspected seminarist « with an eagle’s eye ».
At the eve of the ordination of Fr. Urrutigoity in 1989, Fr. Morello personally went to Winona to denounce Fr. Urrutigoity, whom Bishop Williamson defended because of the « humility » of Urrutigoity. He even called Fr. Morello a « liar ». Fr. Morello then was accused of « sedevacantism », and in the days following his impromptu visit to Bishop Williamson, he was expelled from the SSPX.
In the autumn of 1993, Fr. Urrutigoity became professor of dogma, latin and sacred music at the seminary of Winona. This promotion of Fr. Urrutigoity was followed by important attempts in the seminary of Winona to improve the Gregorian chant of the seminarists. On top of that, Fr. Urrutogoity distinguished himself by insisting on « experiments » in the liturgy, showing himself in favour of the reformded rite of 1965; these positions should be seen in relation with the letter of Fr. La Rocque (SSPX) in January 2007, when he favoured adaptations of the traditional rite of the Mass.
From the end of 1993 until 1997, the fermentation developed amongst the seminarists so heavily, that in mid 1997 questions of liturgy and sacred chant became subjects of profound discord between the seminarists. The doctrine of Fr. Urrutigoity favouring a return to a idealised and romanticised « medieval model » form which would have to be distracted that what he considered as « excesses » of the catholic Counter Reformation that resulted form the Council of Trent. This new doctrine of liturgy and sacred chant attracted around this person, from then considered a guru, a small network of seminarists, that he planned to organise as a secret association amongst the seminarist. It would reject what he considered as tridentine « deviations », that are however nothing but the glories of the Church.
Finally, after the agitation of Fr. Urrutigoity had been going on, and his project to found a new community had been rejected by Bishop Fellay, he was expelled from Winona in 1997. Bishop Williamson qualified Fr. Urrutigoity as a « young, talented but proud Argentine priest ».
At the heart of the conciliar Church, under the aegis of ‘Bishop’ Timlin, he then founded the SSJ (Society Saint John) showing a traditional spirit in liturgy and Gregorian chant, and that soon found itself compromised by sexual scandals.
At last, the moral misery piling up, Fr. Urrutigoity was questioned and dragged before the tribunal by a courageous layman, Dr. Bond, superior of the Saint Justin Martyr college, (affiliated to the SSJ), who, trying to alarm « Bishop » Timlin in vain, and resisting all menaces, campaigned to bring the truth to the fore and withdrew his college from the trusteeship of the SSJ in October 2001.
All these facts, although they have been reported by Dr. Bond in 2001 to « cardinal » Castrillon Hoyos, head of the roman dicastery of the Congregation of the Clergy, have been covered by great silence and the SSJ has been protected by the authorities of the conciliar Church.
Despite this procedure and the irruption in public of all these sexual scandals caused by Fr. Urrutigoity, the pretended conciliar ’bishop’ Timlin went on covering Urrutigoity.
In February 1999, Bishop Fellay wrote a letter denouncing Fr. Urrutigoity.
Bishop Williamson went on to keep silent in public about this affair, only Bishop Fellay having reacted by an official writing to the conciliar authorities.
There came no end to the complaints and denunciations against the SSJ, Fr. Urrutigoity and against Fr. Marschall Roberts (a defector of the Institute of Christ the King received by the SSJ). One victim claimed 1 million dollars of damage with interest in 2002.
From then on there is a web site that contains all pieces of this dossier against Fr. Urrutigoity and the SSJ (cf. Annex 2).
Father Urugoity found refuge near the conciliar « bishop » of Ciudad del Este in Paraguay, « Bishop » Rogelio Livieres Plano. Once more he found him self protected by a letter of this pretended conciliar ‘bishop’ who wrote on the 8th of September 2006 a piece of mail in order to support the SSJ.
THE MORAL SCANDALS OF FR. URRUTIGOITY AND HIS LITURGICAL MODERNISM
From 1987 onward, Fr. Urrutigoity drew the attention of the superior of the seminary of La Reja, because of manifest pride, keeping « particular friendships », setting up a group of disciples, and because of homosexual tendencies and moral scandals.
At La Reja, he committed acts of touching the genitals of the seminarists at night, in their rooms, during their sleep, or in the toilets, he bathed almost naked in front of the seminarists, made shocking proposals to them, complained during confessions to evoke temptations of impurity and moral matters.
Fr. Carlos Urrutigoity
A former disciple of Fr. Urrutigoity at Winona, the ex-seminarist Matthew Selinger, accused Fr. Urrutigoity in 1999 of having invited him to introduce a suppository in front of him, of having bathed naked in his presence, or even to have crept at night into his room to touch him while he slept.
Randy Engel underlines quite rightly that the use that Urrutigoity made of suppositories reminds one of the techniques of the Anglican theosophical « priest » and pederast Charles Webster Leadbeater, narrowly linked to the circles of the British secret societies and to the Rosi+Crucian lodges. In these British occultist circles he practiced techniques of sexual magic. We already mentioned this in our file dedicated to the entourage of Malcolm Muggeridge, the mentor of Bishop Williamson.
In 1998 official accusations commenced in the US against the sexual extortions of Fr. Urrutigoity. During the same year the SSJ, headed by the Argentine father, decided to integrate a priest expelled from the Institute of Christ the King because of moral problems.
In March 1998 the police had to intervene, at the demand of Fr. Paul Carr (Saint-Peter Fraternity), because priests of the SSJ had distributed alcohol to minors.
From August 2001 Dr. Bond, director of the Saint Justin Martyr college, made attempts to denounce the SSJ and Fr. Urrutigoity in front of the conciliar authorities.
On October 14, 2001, Dr. Bond cut the ties that linked the college he headed and the SSD, from which it depended, in order to protect the adolescents.
On November 19, 2001, Dr. denounced Fr. Urrutigoity by means of letters to the apostolic nuncio in the United States and to ‘cardinal’ Castrillon Hoyos.
On November 21 Fr. Urrutigoity menaced Dr. Bond.
This attempt with Castrillon Hoyos seems to have had no result. We already explained that « cardinal » Castrillon Hoyos intervened at the American ‘bishop’ Conference in order to dissuade him form sanctioning the paedophile conciliar ‘priests’, and this in the name of « compassion ».
Castrillon Hoyos seems to play a part in protecting conciliar clercymen involved in moral affairs.
On January 12, 2002, the diocese of Scranton receives an accusation of a victim of moral disbehaviour of Fr. Urrutigoity.
On February 6, 2002, Fr. Marshall Roberts is charged with a moral affair.
On March 20, 2002, a former student accuses the SSJ, the Saint-Peter Fraternity and the diocese of Scranton. He claims one million dollars in damage and interest.
Some important facts revealed by Mrs. Randy Engel, Doctor Bond and father Morello
Cutting and pasting the various testimonies reveal the following facts to us :
Fr. Eric Ensey
Our questions about Mgr Williamson and about the hypothesis of a gay network having infiltrated at the heart of the FSSPX
A certain family Calderon implied, according to Fr. Morello, in the protection of the homosexual Urrutigoity
This Calderon family that, according of the hand written note of Fr. Morello, had intervened from the start of this affair in 1987 with Fr. de Galaretta at La Reja to get his protection for the homosexual Fr. Urrutigoity, could that not be the family of Fr. Alvaro Calderon, at this moment professor at the seminary of La Reja, under the direction of Mgr Williamson ?
We remind you of the fact that this Fr. Alvaro Calderon has become well known for his sophisms published in Le Sel de la terre, magazine of the dominicans of Avrillé and controled by Mgr Williamson, favoring the pretended sacramental validity of the new rite of episcopal consecration (Pontificalis Romani, 1968). This fallacious argumentation (a perversion of the Coptic rite) has been totally refuted by the International Committee Rore Sanctifica (CIRS).
Fr. Alvaro Calderon also propagates a fallacious doctrine of ecclesiology on the questions of papal infallibility and of the ordinary universal magisterium.
At last, Fr. Alvaro Calderon is one of the 5 members of the secret Theological Commission formed by Mgr Fellay in order to prepare the next doctrinal « discussions » with Rome.
The question that we ask here about the ties of the Calderon family accused from the start of this affaire by Fr. Morello turns out to be an important question.
We will continue our research and our investigations on Fr. Calderon and his relation with all this. When new findings show up, we will surely keep our readers informed.
Our questions about the action of Mgr Williamson
Why has Fr. Morello’s plea to start a canonical investigation on Fr. Urrutigoity and « several other priests » has never been satisfied ?
Who has blocked it ?
Fr. Schmidberger, who was the superior from 1982 until 1994 ?
Why has Fr. Morello been put for 6 months in an isolated priory, while the transfer of Fr. Urrutigoity to Winona was executed?
Who has ordered this transfer of 6 months ?
Fr. Schmidberger, who headed the FSSPX at that time ?
Mgr Williamson-‘Cunctator’ with the Rose and his episcopal coat of arms with a symbolism much like that of the Rose+Croix
Why did Mgr Williamson, who was head of Winona, never start this investigation ?
Why has he openly violated the rules of canonic law when he revealed to Fr. Urrutigoity the accusations that had been brought forward secretly and according to the rules by Fr. Morello to his superior, Mgr Williamson ?
Why, in stead of starting the canonical investigation that he was forced to, has Mgr Williamson done the contrary, making the accused write a self-justification?
Why did he show such keenness to immediately present Mgr Lefebvre with this self-justification of Fr. Urrutogoity ?
Had it not been more his duty as a bishop (protector of the herd of souls) to alert Mgr Lefebvre about the accusations and to demand a canonival investigation?
Apart from the self-justification of Fr. Urrutigoity, has Mgr. Lefebvre been aware of the file written by Fr. Morello ?
Why has Mgr Williamson appointed as successor to Fr. Urrutigoity at the seminary of Winona Fr. Ensey, who after that has shown himself a sexual criminal of the same kind?
Why this new « mistake » in seminary staff management by Mgr Williamson ?
Why has Mgr Williamson denied in front of Dr. Bond to have had the slightest knowledge of whatever sexual crime of Fr. Urrutigoity, seeming totally unaware of this affair, while according to the denounciations of Fr. Morello, he tried his utmost to not start any canonical investigation, while it was him who asked Fr. Urrutigoity to write his defense, to have it immediately approved by Mgr Lefebvre, in this way blocking by the authority of Mgr Lefebvre, any dispute of Fr. Urrutigoity, and so compromising the authority of the Foundator of the FSSPX in this filthy affair?
For - of course -, if it appeared that the decision to integrate Urrutigoity in Winona had been taken by Mgr Lefebvre, no one would have thought to question this situation.
Why has Mgr Williamson, although he knew all charges against Fr. Urrutigoity, decided to promote the Argentine to the post of professor at Winona ?
Why is the one who was right, Fr. Morello, expelled from the FSSPX, and not the guilty one, the gay predator Urrutigoity ?
Why was the one who denounced the crime expelled, and not the criminal?
Why has the criminal been promoted by Mgr Williamson ?
Why did Mgr Williamson allow Fr. Urrutigoity to teach the liturgical reformism, while as a caholic bishop he had to watch the integrity of the doctrine and the liturgy?
Why does Mgr Williamson protect the ones having proved to be modernists, while at the same time he presents himself as a guarantee of the orthodoxy of the liturgical doctrine ?
Why do the faithful hear Mgr Williamson preaching ostentatiously or giving shattering conferences on the number of centimeters of woman’s dresses or on their duty to not visit the university, while at the same time he gives his vigilant and determined protection to a habitual offender as gay predator at the heart of his seminarists ?
What does this double play mean, this double talk ?
From where originates such hypocrisy? Such concealment from the head of a seminary, meticulous and organised, who as witnessed by former seminarists of Winona was very keen on knowing everything that could possibly happen in his seminary at Winona (cf witnesses of the message VM of September 17, 2007) ?
Would for Mgr Williamson the sedevacantist opinion be worse than the physical violation of his seminarists ?
How can one tolerate a a eulogy of Mgr Williamson that presents him as a wise bishop and protector of the herd, while he has done the opposite in all this history?
Here is this intolerable eulogy that a web site linked to the FSSPX has published (see the translation in the foot note):
« Alors qu’il était un laboureur des âmes en tant que jardinier de la moisson, il a su faire face à la nécessité d’éradiquer ceux qui aurait gâté le sol. Telle était la situation en 1997 lorsqu’il expulsa M. Fr. Carlos Urrutigoity ainsi que deux seminarists du Seminary St. Thomas Aquin. Ces derniers trouvèrent refuge par la suite dans le diocèse troublé de Scranton, recueilli sans discernement par Mgr Timlin qui a voulu ignorer les avertissements de Ngrs Williamson et Fellay. A présent le successeur de Timlin à Scranton est en train de cueillir les fruits amers des procès pour abus sexuels commis par des prêtres de la Société St Jean que le rebelle Urrutigoity a constituée alors qu’il ne pouvait pas soutenir l’examen soigneux et vigilant de Mgr Williamson. Grâce à Dieu l’évêque fut un bon jardinier et constitua l’un des signes que la FSSPX gardait soigneusement, non seulement le Dépot Sacré de la Foi, mais aussi les vertus de chasteté et de modestie.”
Such a deformation of the truth, opposing the facts, is absolutely scandalous and really awful if not truly diabolical.
We have already published on the 17th of September 2007 some revelations made by a priest who reads Virgo-Maria and who knew Mgr Williamson. He clearly accuses Mgr Williamson in this Urrutigoity affair, assuring that Mgr Williamson knew everything that happened, in the tiniest details, at the heart of the seminary of Winona :
«The case of Fr. Carlos Urrutigoity (protege of Williamson, and long time professor at Winona) really deserves another article of its own, and fills up one more missing piece in the history of Williamson, secret agent of the ennemy.
To put it shortly, this very intelligent and charismatic young man was about to be expelled from La Reja because of moral questions, when Williamsom organised his transfer to Winona. After his orrdination, Urrutigoity stayed there as a seminary professor, and formed a band of loyal youngsters.
Urrutigoity is heavily suspected (…). He comes from the (…) city of Mendoza, Argentine, (...)
The caracteristics that distinguished the "spiritual guidance" that Urrutigoity gave his disciples at Winona (…) :
(a)He hated the Holy Sacrament. He encouraged his pupils to avoid the Blessing with the Holy Sacrament, and to keep seated when they were forced to assist at it.
(b) (…) Urrutigoity despised statues, and he organised a campaign to have them replaced by icons at the seminary and in the chapels of the FSSPX.
(c) "His priests" were formed to preside some sort of "Seder Meal" at the eve of their first Mass.
(After having left Winona, Urrutigoity revealed himself to be a flamboyant homosexual and wirepuller of a homosexual sect, the Society of Saint John. This part of his life is well documented on the Internet. See http://www.saintjustinmartyr.org/news/notices.html )
Already at Winona, Urrutigoity engaged his pupils in nude bathing during walks.
Now I beg you to keep well in mind that all this has happenned under the direction of Mgr Williamson, a man who with the greatest care meticulously kept register OF ALL that happened at his seminary. » Signed by a priest, reader of Virgo-Maria.org
These new facts about the behaviour of Mgr Williamson in this Urrutigoity affair come to complete the affair of his episcopal coat of arms with the Rose+Croix symbolism, and also the informations gathered on the surroundings of Malcolm Muggeridge, the Mentor of Mgr Williamson. We reproduce here the scheme that sums all up:
Summary of the actions of Mgr Williamson that have blocked the struggle of the FSSPX
Our questions about the action of Bishop de Galaretta
Bishop de Galaretta
Why has Bishop de Galaretta protected Fr. Urrutigoity ?
In his testimony Fr. Morello has added by hand :
(Handwritten) « de Galarreta did not expel him because of the problems this could cause, especially with the Calderon family ».
And then : who is this Calderon family?
What are the problems that this familly could have caused to Bishop de Galaretta ?
Why did Bishop de Galarretta lend himself to all these manœuvers that have ended with protecting a gay predator?
If the credulity of Bishop de Galaretta could have had him surprised by this affair, the fact stays that he never – contrary to the virtue of justice - seems to have repaired any of the most horrible consequences that some seminarists and priests suffered due to his blindness.
Our questions on the hypothesis of the existence of a gay network infiltrated at the heart of the FSSPX
For ten years now this thoroughly bewildering career of Fr. Urrutigoity would not have been prosperous without a line of a certain number of protections and circumstances that protected him and assured him a total impunity.
Upon entering a first seminary, the gay predator gives himself to his violent acts in total impunity, without anyone showing up to denounce him and to put him outside.
When the head of the seminary finally learns about him, he denounces him and finds his own superior refusing to start a canonic investigation.
Even worse, the gay predator is being transfered for a short period in a priory where he gets recommandations to be allowed into a second seminary, while the head of the seminary who denounced him is silenced for six months in a small priory far away.
During his transitory stay in the isolated priory, while he collates the recommendations, the gay predator continues his practics, all the time without any disturbance.
Hardly having arrived at the second seminary, the same predator is asked by the head of this seminary to write a document for his own defence. As soon as he has written it, the head of this seminary immediately hands it personally to the founding father of the congregation, and comes back with an authorisation to allow him to the second seminary, given by the foundator in person.
When the head of the first seminary denounces him again, some weeks before his ordination, the head of the second seminary immediately tells him, counteracting the canon laws, the counts of the accusation. In spite of the insistence of the head of the first seminary, who personnally goes to meet the head of the second seminary, the latter defends the criminal publicly, and accuses the head of the first seminary of lies.
The seminary superior who accused the criminal is expelled from the institution hardly some days after his visit meant to accuse him. And, some days later, the accused is granted his ordination.
Four years later, the accused is promoted as professor in the same seminary. He now can in all impunity, during three years, develops modernist theories on the liturgical reformism, and create around him a small group of adherents to his theories. He continues to commit his sex crimes at the heart of the seminary, without the least disturbance.
Such a line of circumstances favoring a gay predator makes one think of a human coordination that could explain the extraordinary protection that he could profit from during 10 years.
All worked so well for the accused that we find ourselves led, at this moment, seeing the coherence and the constancy of the facts, to sound out the hypothesis of the existence of a group of people who, at the heart of the FSSPX, sought to protect this gay predator.
This protection has been passing through the decisions of the head of the District of South America, of the head of the seminary of Winona, and the superior general of the FSSPX in 1987 and 1989, which means Fathers de Galaretta, Williamson (who became bishops in 1988) and Schmidberger.
So, does one have to conclude that there exists an organised gay network, having infiltrated at the heart of the FSSPX ?
It is still too early to draw that conclusion, but nevertheless we maintain that the sum of accumulated facts in this horrible and filthy affair of Fr. Urrutigoity clearly poses the problem.
We will most certainly inform our readers about any complementory informations and the follow up of our analyses on this serious matter.
This brings into discussion the management of Mgr de Galaretta, then by Mgr Williamson of the South and North American branches of the FSSPX, with the vague departures of the nine priests in 1983 to start with (Fr. Cekada amongst others) then that of Fr. Morello in 1989, then that of Fr. Neuville in 1997, with their letters of motivation.
A protection for Fr. Urrutigoity carried out at the heart of the FSSPX and at the heart of the conciliair Church
The work of Randy Engel shows how deeply a vast gay network has infiltrated for more than a century at the heart of the catholic church, and after that in the conciliair church.
The protection Fr. Urrutigoity had, marks itself by an impunity at the heart of the FSSPX during 10 years, followed by an impunity that continues at the heart of the conciliair church that has integrated him.
The apostate Fr. Castrillon Hoyos, prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy at the time the facts happened
Alarmed about this file in 2001, Castrillón Hoyos stayed put, and so protected the offenders.
We already have shown the part that the apostate Fr. Castrillon Hoyos has played to dissuade the conciliair pseudo bishop and their bishop conferences from acting against the pedophile priests.
Tomaso Stenic, office manager of the Congregation for the Clergy, who made a statement of homosexual belief on television.
The current affairs of the last months have also made public an enormous gay scandal in the surroundings of the apostate Fr. Ratzinger, at the top of the Vatican, at the head of one of the departments of the same Congregation of the Clergy, that has been directed by the apostate Castrillón Hoyos, and that is in charge of these moral affairs.
It is about the priest Stenico. We have devoted a VM message to the subject.
The doctrinal lesson that the teaching of Saint Paul gives us on these scandals
Saint Paul explains that such scandals amongst the priests come as a punishment from God for them having abandoned the Divine Truth
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. His eternal power also and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.
For, professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.
And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts, one towards another: men with men, working that which is filthy and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.
Foolish, dissolute: without affection, without fidelity, without mercy.
Let us continue the right struggle
Editor of Virgo-Maria
concerning Fr. Andrés Morello,
the first one to denounce the seminarist Urritogoity.
Fr. Morello has been director of the seminary of the FSSPX at La Reja (Argentine) from 1981 to 1988.
He then was transfered temporarily, from February to July 1989 to the priory of Santiago de Chili before being expelled on the 16th of July 1989.
He then was ordained catholic bishop, outside the FSSPX, on the 30th of November 2006, in Tonala, Jalisco, Mexico, by Mgr Robert L. Neville, former priest of the US District of the Fraternity, having left Winona in December 1997, himself having been conserated bishop on the 28th of April 2005 in Highland, Michigan by Mgr Robert F. McKenna, O.P., who was consecrated bishop on the 22th of August 1986 in Raveau, France, by Mgr. Michel Guerard des Lauriers, O.P.
Note concerning the jobs of the former Anglican, Fr. Williamson-‘Cunctator’, now Mgr. Williamson-‘Cunctator’ with the Rose.
Fr. Williamson became head of the seminary of the FSSPX in the USA in 1982. He was consecrated bishop by Mgr Lefebvre on June 30, 1988. He stayed head of the seminary of the FSSPX at Winona, USA, until 2003.
Mgr Williamson is a former Anglican, has a Cambridge degree, and has had as mentor the former Fabien (did he really repent?) Malcolm Muggeridge.
Note concerning the functions of apostate Fr. Castrillon Hoyos.
The apostate Fr. Castrillón Hoyos is from Colombia.
From 1983 until 1987 he was Secretary General of the Latin American Bishop Conference (CELAM). From 1987 to 1991 he served as president.
On December 16, 1992, he is appointed at the Archbishop's Seat of Bucaramanga.
In June 1996, after his appointment at the Congregation for the Clergy, he is notably responsable for the commemoration celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the ordination of pope John-Paul II. He gets in charge of the Congregation of the Clergy in 1998. He is created cardinal with the title of the diaconia of Ss. Nominis Mariae ad forum Traiani by John-Paul II at the consistory of February, 1998.
Having reached the age limit, he is maintained in his duties by Benedict XVI in 2005.
He reseigns his office at the Congregation of the Clergy on October 31, 2006, while staying at the head of the commission Ecclesia Dei.
(source for the French original : Wikipedia)
Originaux anglais de la Traduction d’un extrait du livre de Randy Engel
« The Rite of Sodomy – Homosexuality and the Roman Catholic Church » (Le rite de sodomie - L’homosexualité et l’Église catholique romaine) - Randy Engel – New Engel Publishing, 2006
“The Rite of Sodomy – Homosexuality and the Roman Catholic Church” - Randy Engel – New Engel Publishing, 2006
"Guru-tigoity" Exposed as a Homosexual Predator
In February 11, 1999, Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X sent a formal communication to Bishop Timlin in-forming him that Father Carlos Urrutigoity had been accused of molesting a seminarian under his spiritual care at the SSPX's St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona, Minn.
Bishop Fellay also indicated that in 1987, prior to Urrutigoity's accept-ance by the Winona seminary, Fr. Andres Morello, Rector of Our Lady Co-Redemptrix Seminary in La Reja, Argentina had accused the priest of homosexual practices.
According to Fr. Morello, he had intended to expel Urrutigoity from the La Reja seminary because of his significant pride, his habit of forming "par-ticular friendships," his formation of a faction of seminarians acting under his influence and grave denunciations regarding moral matters.176
Among the accusations brought against Urrutigoity by seminarians and laymen living at the La Reja seminary were his uninvited nocturnal Visits into the rooms of young men while they were asleep, the fondling and massage of a seminarian's genitals and buttocks under the guise of a medicai exam, and the touching of the private parts of a seminarian in a restroom
accompanied by the remark, that the priest adored his "little round butt." Urrutigoity was also accused of excessive probing during confession and spiritual counseling sessions of the sexual temptations of pénitents; and immodest dress (swimming in his underwear) at a summer camp that he organized for young men from the seminary.177
Unfortunately, the planned dismissal of Urrutigoity by Fr. Morello never took place as the seminarian had the support of Bishop Alfonso de Galar-reta, the SSPX District Superior and other influential priests.
Instead of being expelled, Urrutigoity was sent to the Priory of Cordoba (Argentina) where he received the necessary recommendations that en-abled him to transfer to the SSPX seminary in Winona. By this time Fr. Morello had been posted to Santiago, Chile, so he was temporarily out of the picture.178
However, in July 1989, when Fr. Morello heard of Urrutigoity's imminent ordination in Winona, he sent a confidential dossier on the candidate to Rector Richard Williamson at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary. Fearing this effort would not be sufficient to stop the ordination, Father Morello traveled to the seminary in the company of an associate. Upon their arrivai, they were confronted by Williamson with a déniai or "manifestation of conscience," by Urrutigoity who proclaimed his innocence of the charges against him. Williamson defended Urrutigoity's "humility" and accused Morello and his companion of lying.
A few days later, on July 16,1989, Morello who had been involved in an internal dispute with the SSPX on matters unrelated to the Urrutigoity affair, was expelled from the Society.179
Williamson later claimed that Morello was not believed because he was reported to be connected to a sedevacantist group in opposition to Bishop de Galarreta. Nevertheless, Williamson was ordered by his superior, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who had reviewed the Morello dossier to watch Urrutigoity "like a hawk," a virtualïy impossible task given the secretive life of a homosexual predator like Urrutigoity.180
Fr. Urrutigoity had successfully manipulated one traditionalist group against another for his own ends.
Not only was he ordaîned, but he was also assigned to teach at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary were he was known as "Guru-tigoity."181
Little wonder that in his warning letter to Bishop Timlin in February 1999, Bishop Fellay described Urrutigoity as "dangerous" and noted:
The reason why he got into trouble with the Superiore of the Society of St. Pius X is mainly because we felt he had a stränge, abnormal influence on the seminarians and priests, whom he seemed to attach to his brilliant, charismatic personality. When he asked me to recognize the society he intended to found, among the reasons of my refusai, I explicitly mentioned this stränge personal, guru-like attachment between the disciples and their leader.182
Urrutigoity Faces Second Accusation
It was not until two years after Fr. Urrutigoity had been dismissed from St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona for "subversive activities," namely, the secret planning of the Society of St. John, and had settled into the Diocèse of Scranton with temporary quarters at St. Gregory's Academy, that a Winona seminarian came forward to accuse the priest of sexual molestation.
The object of Urrutigoity's attempts at séduction and forced sexual attention was a young man named Matthew Selinger who once idolized the priest. The two men had formed a particular friendship at the seminary and Urrutigoity served as the seminarian's spiritual director for two years before making his move.
Selinger had some stränge taies to tell about Fr. Urrutigoity.
He said that on one occasion he was constipated and went to Fr. Urrutigoity to get some Metamucil. The priest offered him a rectal suppository instead. Never having used one before, the seminarian thought it was an oral médication and put it in his mouth. The priest instructed him in its correct use and insisted that the young man insert it in his présence as an act of "humility." Selinger reluctantly resisted the order and went into the bathroom to insert the suppository all the while rebuking himself for not being spiritually mature enough to follow Urrutigoity's orders and crucify his "manly pride."183
On another occasion, Urrutigoity invited Selinger and his friend to swim with him in the nude.
One night, the young seminarian awoke from his sleep to find the priest kneeling by his side massaging his genitals hard enough to produce an érection. Selinger said his first instinct was to punch the priest's lights out, but because Fr. Urrutigoity was an Alter Christus, another Christ, he turned over and pretended to go back to sleep while Urrutigoity quietly slipped away into the darkness.184
The novel use of rectal suppositories as part of Urrutigoity's grooming répertoire is reminiscent of the grooming techniques employed by the early 20th Century theosophist/pederast Charles Webster Leadbeater.
Leadbeater promoted enemas, genital manipulation, and onanism as a means of promoting physical, psychic and spiritual (occult) vigor among his youthful disciples. "This spirituali2ing of paederasty absolves him from the guilt which makes him hate society. ... His is no longer a common human weakness, for he has feit the cleansing fire of divinity," related Gregory Tillet, Leadbeater's biographer.185
By the time that Selinger informed his superiore at Winona that Urrutigoity had sexually molested him, the SSJ founder was safely ensconced as a chaplain at St. Gregory's Academy selecting his next victim from a large pool of young men, who like Selinger before he was molested, literally wor-shipped the ground that Urrutigoity walked on.186
In June 1999, a meeting took place in Winona between Matthew Selinger and SSPX Rector Wiliiamson, and the pastoral team that the Diocesan Review Board had assigned to investigate the accusations against Urrutigoity. The pastoral team consisted of Auxiliary Bishop John Dougherty, a diocesan priest, and a lawyer from the Diocèse of Scrantòn.
However, even after reading the Board's report on Selinger's testimony and with the knowledge that this was the second crédible accusation of homosexual séduction and molestation against Urrutigoity, Bishop Timlin decided that the évidence against the SSJ founder was "inconclusive." He took no further action on the matter.187 A classic cover-up was underway led by the Ordinary of the Diocèse of Scrantòn with the coopération of Timlin's silent partner Fr. Devillers, Superior of the FSSP.
Were it not for the courage and détermination of Dr. Jeffrey M. Bond, President of the College of St. Justin Martyr and the moral and legal support given to Dr. Bond by Washington State attorney James M. Bendell, the cover-up may well have succeeded.
176 See http://www.saintjustinmartyr.org/news/CarlosUrrutigoityinLaReja.htm. Fr. Morello was rector of the SSPX seminary in La Reja from 1981-1988. He is currently the rector of a group called "Campania de Jesus y de Maria" located in the Andes.
181 Terrie Morgan-Sesecker, "Accuser to get reports in priests," March 24, 2004, Times Leader.
183 Deposition of Matthew Selinger in Civil Action No. 02-0444 in Pittsburgh, PA on October 24,2003.
185 See Tiltett, The Eider Brother.
186 Selinger eventually left the seminary, married and settled in California to raise a family. When it became known that he would likely be subpoenaed to testify against Fr. Urrutigoity in the Case of John Doe, Fr. Eric Ensey who helped found the SSJ and who replaced Urrutigoity as spiritual advisor for a time at St. Thomas in Winona, paid a visit to Selinger and attempted to persuade him to leave the country to prevent him from being called as a witness against Urrutigoity. He told the former seminarian that Urrutigoity had "a medicai protocol" about the penis. He said that if the priest-founder went down he would take him (Ensey) and the whole order down with him. When thèse arguments failed to move Selinger, Ensey said that Urrutigoity's lawyer had connections to the Mafia—a suggestion that implied that harm might come to Selinger or his family if he testified against the priest. Selinger said he had no intention of leaving his wife and children to escape a subpoena and showed Ensey the door.
187 Jeffrey Bond Fourth Open Letter of May 19, 2002 to Bishop Timlin, Diocèse of Scranton at http://www.saintjustÌnmartyr.org/news/BishopTimlinOpenLetter4.html.
Fin des Originaux anglais de la Traduction d’un extrait du livre de Randy Engel
Documents of Urrutigoity’case in
from this website
TOUT le dossier de l’affaire Urrutigoiti dans le diocèse
de Scranton, (lettres, correspondance, jugements, témoignages, articles...) se
trouve sur cette page web et dans ses 9 renvois.
Latest new content...
I. The Case Against SSJ
II. Newspaper Articles
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
III. Letters to Bishop Timlin
and Bishop Joseph F. Martino
IV. Lawsuits Against the SSJ
VI. Rev. Munkelt's Statement
VII. Financial Misconduct
VIII. St. Gregory's Academy
IX. Church Tribunal Petitions
On October 14, 2001, the College of St. Justin Martyr formally dissociated itself from the Society of St. John (SSJ), a clerical association in the Diocese of Scranton, Pennsylvania. Since that time, the College has striven to expose the moral corruption of the SSJ. Although the primary purpose of the College is to establish itself as a great books liberal arts College with an orthodox Catholic character, the College strongly believes it has a moral obligation to prevent the SSJ from doing further harm to young souls and from continuing to deceive Catholic donors.
The College’s moral battle against the SSJ has brought it into direct conflict with Bishop James C. Timlin, who inexplicably persists in supporting and protecting the SSJ despite the overwhelming evidence of sexual and financial misconduct by SSJ members. In retaliation for the College’s efforts to inform the Diocese of the SSJ’s grave misconduct, Bishop Timlin has sought to obstruct and harm the legitimate business and goals of the College. In response to Bishop Timlin’s gratuitous attack, the College has filed lawsuits against the Diocese and the SSJ. Readers are invited to inform themselves of the case against the SSJ by accessing the documents and articles posted herein.
La bataille morale du Collège a débouché sur un conflit direct avec l’évêque James C. Timlin, qui, inexplicablement s’obstine à prendre la défense de la SSJ et à la protéger en dépit des preuves accablantes de l’inconduite sexuelle et financière de ses membres. En représailles des efforts du Collège pour chercher à informer le Diocèse de la grave inconduite de la SSJ, l’évêque Timlin a tenté de bloquer et de porter préjudice à l’administration et aux buts légitimes du Collège. En réponse à cette attaque gratuite de l’évêque Timlin, le Collège a engagé des poursuites judiciaires contre le Diocèse et la SSJ. Les lecteurs sont invités à s’informer par eux-mêmes de l’affaire judiciaire engagée contre la SSJ en se référant aux documents et articles qui ont été mis en ligne ici.
Lettre ouverte du Dr. Jeffrey M. Bond, President du College of St. Justin Martyr, et témoignage de l’abbé Andrés Morello au sujet de l’affaire Urrutigoity
September 2, 2002
In a letter dated December 8, 2001, I revealed that Fr. Carlos Urrutigoity, the founder and former superior general of the Society of St. John, had been dismissed for homosexual behavior when he was a seminarian at the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) seminary in La Reja, Argentina. In that same letter, I noted that Urrutigoity, after he had been dismissed from the seminary in La Reja, was admitted as a seminarian into the SSPX seminary in Winona, Minnesota, where he was eventually ordained and made a professor. Finally, I further mentioned that Fr. Urrutigoity was subsequently expelled from the seminary in Winona as a result of his subversive activities.
My letter left many readers with the same question: How could it be that the SSPX dismissed Carlos Urrutigoity for homosexual behavior from one of its seminaries, but subsequently accepted him into another SSPX seminary, and then ultimately ordained him a priest and even made him a professor there?
I put this same question to Bishop Richard Williamson of the SSPX whom I contacted shortly after I learned that Fr. Urrutigoity had been accused of homosexual behavior as far back as his seminary days in La Reja. Bishop Williamson explained to me that Carlos Urrutigoity had indeed been dismissed from the SSPX seminary in La Reja for homosexual behavior, but that he was received into the SSPX seminary in Winona because the key SSPX authorities in North and South American did not believe the charges against him.
According to Bishop Williamson (and others within the SSPX with whom I spoke), the charges against then seminarian Urrutigoity were not believed because of a deep division that was then taking place within the SSPX district in South America. Fr. Andres Morello, the rector of the SSPX seminary in La Reja, was the head of the sedevacantist group. The District Superior, then Fr. Alfonso de Galarreta, led the opposing group. The division was apparently so intense that the two factions avoided each other. As a result, the SSPX authorities—other than Fr. Morello—were willing to believe that the charges of homosexual behavior made against seminarian Urrutigoity were trumped up. Urrutigoity himself claimed that he was being persecuted and slandered because of his stance against Fr. Morello's group.
Bishop Williamson further explained that when seminarian Urrutigoity arrived in Winona, he was questioned and given the opportunity to write a defense, or "manifestation of conscience," in response to the accusations against him. Bishop Williamson then presented Archbishop Lefebvre himself with Urrutigoity's written defense. According to Bishop Williamson, Archbishop Lefebvre, after reading Urrutigoity's defense, told Bishop Williamson to admit Urrutigoity to the seminary, but to "watch him like a hawk."
Bishop Williamson then told me that he never saw any evidence of Urrutigoity's homosexuality while Urrutigoity was a seminarian, priest, or professor at Winona. Bishop Williamson said that Fr. Urrutigoity was eventually expelled from the seminary in Winona not for homosexuality, but for subversive activities, namely, the secret planning of the Society of St. John in concert with others. Bishop Williamson hastened to add, however, that after Fr. Urrutigoity had been expelled from Winona, a young seminarian, who had left Winona with him, subsequently accused Fr. Urrutigoity of homosexually molesting him. This young seminarian, with whom Fr. Urrutigoity had had a very close particular friendship at Winona, had been under Fr. Urrutigoity's spiritual direction for two years before Fr. Urrutigoity molested him.
Bishop Williamson also told me that he had accompanied this young seminarian when he gave testimony against Fr. Urrutigoity at a Diocese of Scranton inquiry in July 1999. The inquiry was held at the request of Bishop James Timlin of Scranton who sent his auxiliary bishop, John Dougherty, along with another diocesan priest and an attorney, to hear this young seminarian's testimony. Bishop Bernard Fellay of the SSPX had set this whole process in motion when he formally accused Fr. Urrutigoity in a letter to Bishop Timlin dated February 11, 1999. Bishop Fellay had sent this letter to Bishop Timlin because Bishop Timlin had welcomed Fr. Urrutigoity and his followers into the Diocese of Scranton after Fr. Urrutigoity's expulsion from Winona. At the time of Bishop Fellay's formal communication to Bishop Timlin, Fr. Urrutigoity was working as a chaplain at St. Gregory's Academy, an all-boys high school in Elmhurst, Pennsylvania, owned and operated by the Fraternity of St. Peter. Despite Bishop Fellay's letter and the testimony of the molested seminarian, Bishop Timlin allowed Fr. Urrutigoity to continue in his position as chaplain to adolescent boys.
In order to learn more about the charges against seminarian Urrutigoity, I next contacted Fr. Andres Morello, the former rector of the SSPX seminary in La Reja. Fr. Morello is currently the rector of a group called "Campania de Jesus y de Maria" located in the Andes. I wrote to Fr. Morello to ask him about the accusations against Carlos Urrutigoity while he was a seminarian at La Reja. Below is a literal translation of Fr. Morello's response :
I was the rector of the seminary of La Reja from 1981 until 1988, having been previously the vice-rector; therefore I was able to witness the behavior of now Father Urrutigoity all throughout his stay in that seminary
I was transferred to the priory of Santiago in Chile in 1989, and I remained there from February until July of the same year. I was expelled because of a denunciation or better said a confidential request I made for a canonical investigation of some priests members of the Society of St. Pius X, and also because of the support I gave to some seminarians who left the seminary of La Reja.
When I was rector at the seminary of La Reja, I had the intention of expelling the then seminarian Carlos Urrutigoity for a number of reasons, mainly:
- a significant pride
- maintaining particular friendships
- forming a faction of seminarians under his influence
- grave denunciations regarding moral matters (probably the very ones you already know about)
Against my intention of expelling him, as the product of a delicate situation of intrigues which at the time affected the seminary, and undoubtedly with the support of certain priests and the then superior of the district (bishop de Galarreta), instead of being expelled he was sent to the priory of Cordoba (Argentina). The good recommendations obtained there, as well as the support which I just mentioned, motivated his transfer to the seminary of Winona (USA). Meanwhile I had already been posted at Santiago, Chile.
His imminent ordination to the major orders obliged me in conscience to write a confidential report to the rector of Winona's seminary, bishop Williamson, in order to stop the ordination. A canonical report of such characteristics demanded reciprocal confidentiality, and in particular to keep it secret from the person in question. Bishop Williamson made it known to the then seminarian Urrutigoity so that he could defend himself from our accusations.
On July 1989 we traveled to Winona, and bishop Williamson read to us the defense of Father Urrutigoity, defended his "humility" and accused us of lying. A few days later, on July 16, 1989, I was expelled from the Society.
You know better than I the rest of the story.
According to Fr. Morello's account above, he not only sought to expel Urrutigoity from La Reja for the four reasons stated, but he even traveled all the way to Winona from Chile to argue against Urrutigoity's ordination to the priesthood. The "grave denunciations in moral matters," which Fr. Morello mentions as the fourth reason for expelling Urrutigoity, were set down in writing as part of a dossier given to Archbishop Lefebvre when Fr. Morello requested a canonical investigation of certain SSPX priests (as Fr. Morello explains in his letter above). The accusations of homosexual behavior made against seminarian Urrutigoity appear in this dossier as part of a report entitled "Documento No. 2." This report was signed by a group of priests and seminarians from the seminary of La Reja. Below is a literal translation from the three pages of "Documento No. 2" which focus solely on Urrutigoity:
Page 4, three last paragraphs.
The third case is the one of seminarian Carlos Urrutigoity. Here the subject becomes profoundly disagreeable because of the turpitude of the issues involved, and therefore it is for us very difficult to speak about them. This is why we will only present to you the most serious items.
During his stay in the seminary of La Reja, this seminarian was denounced by a young layman who lives in the seminary, for the following reasons which became most serious as the time passed. Frequently the seminarian brought up in conversation the subject of chastity. He asked him if he had temptations and what did he do in such cases. Also he asked him whether he was a virgin, or if he performed dishonest acts alone or with women.
In a particular conversation he asked him if he went to the movies, and if the films excited him provoking temptations. The lad answered yes, and Urrutigoity asked if this prompted him to search for women, to which the young man replied again yes. Then the seminarian asked if he would consider making the dishonest act with a man. The lad said no.
The same witness denounced as well the seminarian for entering his room without knocking previously. One night at about 3:00 AM he woke up and found him inside the room uncovering him. The excuse that Urrutigoity gave next day was that he had entered the room in order to cover him. Before this situation the lad went to Father Canale, a priest whom he trusted. He laughed and said to him: "The only thing I can tell you is to lock the door." Father Canale was therefore fully aware of the situation and he never talked about it with the superior of the house.
The witness says also that on one occasion the seminarian entered into his room and, finding him in bed, told him that he had a fever. The lad replied that he was feeling well, but Urrutigoity insisted that he had a fever and that in order to confirm it he was going to fondle his genitals to see if they were inflamed, and he did it.
One day Carlos Urrutigoity gave him underwear, insisted that he should get naked and try it on before him to see if it fit. He proposed that he take measurements every week of his physical development, naked and with his back towards the wall, which the young man refused to do.
He gave him a shot and insisted on massaging his buttocks, which he did.
We finish here the testimony of the young man, and we wish to make it clear that these are not all the incidents, just those which we consider more relevant.
A seminarian declares that being in the restroom he touched him in his private parts, and that often he told him things about the private parts, among others that "he adored his buttocks" (the seminarian had not yet received the soutane). He said: "I adore your little round butt" (and made a gesture with his hands).
Another seminarian tells us that he asked him about the sexual life of his past and about his present temptations.
Two traditional young laymen declare that during a summer camp organized by Carlos Urrutigoity - with the inexplicable authorization of Bishop de Galarreta, who knew about the situation, and while the seminarian was in the priory of Cordoba under observation because of his disciplinary problems - he went to the river with a group of young men. There he removed his clothes before the others and remained in underwear. One of the youngsters offered immediately a swimming suit which Urrutigoity rejected, and in such attire he bathed in the river.
(Handwritten) De Galarreta did not expel him because of the problems this could cause, especially with the Calderon family.
We ask your forgiveness, Father, for writing about these unpleasant issues but we consider it necessary since nobody has heard our complaints. What worries us right now is that (a) the superiors know about this situation. Not only was the seminarian not expelled, but the solution to his moral and disciplinary problems is simply to send him to another seminary. (b) Carlos Urrutigoity is about to receive major orders in Winona, USA. (c) a serious investigation was never started.
Page 6, first paragraph.
We are worried and scandalized by all this. We have tried by all means to inchoate an investigation to no avail. Bishop de Galarreta made it impossible to take measures against him, and despite the fact that he now acknowledges his mistake, he still does nothing to repair it.
Those who are familiar with Fr. Urrutigoity's more subtle modus operandi will readily recognize in the testimony above the incipient techniques of a sexual predator who was not yet able to manipulate others by means of the full authority of the priesthood. Indeed, the above account confirms reports of Fr. Urrutigoity's frequent initiation of discussions on "chastity" in order to test the willingness of his objects of seduction. And given what is already known about Fr. Urrutigoity's fondness for suppositories, it is not surprising to read about seminarian Urrutigoity's efforts to manipulate "medical problems" for his own perverse purposes. We also see in the account above a slightly more modest version of Fr. Urrutigoity's willingness to parade naked in front of potential victims. Moreover, we see here further testimony of Fr. Urrutigoity's penchant for late night visits to those who are asleep and thereby vulnerable to his advances. Although Document No. 2 does not accuse seminarian Urrutigoity of sleeping in the same bed with other seminarians, there is ample testimony that Fr. Urrutigoity slept one-on-one with seminarians under his authority at Winona, and with boys and young men under his spiritual direction at St. Gregory's Academy and at the Society of St. John's property in Shohola.
Document No. 2 and Fr. Morello's letter also reveal that Fr. Urrutigoity's present suspension is nothing new for him. Carlos Urrutigoity has been formally accused of homosexual molestation in three different places, yet each time he has managed to evade justice by enlisting episcopal support. Urrutigoity was first accused, as we have seen above, when he was a seminarian in La Reja, Argentina. After Urrutigoity was ordained a priest, and soon after he left the seminary in Winona, Minnesota, he was accused again, this time by the young seminarian who left Winona with him. The third accusation was made in a federal lawsuit by a graduate of St. Gregory's Academy when Urrutigoity was the superior general of the Society of St. John. Note that Fr. Urrutigoity's victims came from three completely different backgrounds and that they knew nothing about the prior victims. Hence, there is absolutely no basis for the Society of St. John's claim that the accusations of homosexual molestation reflect a conspiracy against Fr. Urrutigoity.
Note also that even those who initially found themselves on opposite sides, such as Bishop Williamson and Fr. Morello, are now all agreed on at least one thing: Carlos Urrutigoity is a homosexual predator. How then can Bishop Timlin, without whose assistance and support Fr. Urrutigoity would have long ago been stopped, continue to protect this Rasputin in a Roman collar? Although Bishop Timlin has been repeatedly warned that Fr. Urrutigoity continues even to this day to create scenarios that place him in the company of young men, Bishop Timlin still does nothing but claim that all the accusations against Fr. Urrutigoity have been fabricated by his enemies.
All who are disgusted with Bishop Timlin's failure to protect his flock from a clear and present danger should write to him at xxxxxx. I also encourage all concerned parties to contact Mr. Andrew Jarbola, the District Attorney of Lackawanna County: (1) to exhort him to ensure that the ongoing criminal investigation of Fr. Urrutigoity and Fr. Eric Ensey is both rigorous and independent of diocesan influence; and (2) to ask why there is no news of impaneling a grand jury.
Jeffrey M. Bond
The College of St. Justin Martyr
142 Market Road
Greeley, PA 18425
Accusations of sexual misconduct by Fr. Urrutigoity in the wake of his departure from the seminary of the SSPX in La Reja, Argentina. Despite these accusations, Fr. Urrutigoity is accepted into the seminary of the SSPX in the USA.
Fr. Carlos Urrutigoity, along with another priest and 2 seminarians are expelled from the seminary of the SSPX in the USA. Six other seminarians soon leave as well. We are told that the reason for the expulsion is that they were planning to found a new religious order.
Diocese of Scranton
The former priests and seminarians of the SSPX find refuge in the Diocese of Scranton PA, where the Fraternity of St. Peter has its North American HQ. Bishop Timlin of the Diocese of Scranton accepts them without doing background checks.
Diocese of Scranton
Accusations of sexual misconduct by Fr. Urrutigoity in the wake of his departure from the seminary of the SSPX in Winona, MN. After a diocesan inquiry is held, Bishop Timlin of the Diocese of Scranton decides that there is insufficient evidence, despite a letter of condemnation from Bishop Fellay of the SSPX.
Institute of Christ the King
Fr. Marshall Roberts is expelled from the seminary of the Institute of Christ the King because of accusations of sexual misconduct. He finds refuge in the SSJ.
St. Gregory's Academy, FSSP
The police are called in by Fr. Paul Carr of the FSSP (Fraternity of St. Peter) after it is discoverd that the priests of the SSJ have served alcohol to minors (boys).
Dr. Bond of St. Justin Martyr College
Dr. Bond, HeadMaster of St. Justin Martyr College, which is affiliated with the SSJ, learns of the sexual misconduct of Fr. Urrutigoity. Dr. Bond then begins a series of discussions with Bishop Timlin, and with the SSJ. Bishop Timlin refuses to suspend any of the SSJ priests, despite evidence of wrongdoing. The SSJ refuses to admit there is a problem.
Oct 14, 2001
Dr. Bond of St. Justin Martyr College
Dr. Bond decides that St. Justin Martyr College must separate from the SSJ.
Nov 19, 2001
Dr. Bond of St. Justin Martyr College
Dr. Bond sends letters to Apostolic Nuncio for USA and to Cardinal Hoyos, Prefect for the Clergy, telling them about the sexual misconduct of Fr. Urrutigoity.
Nov 21, 2001
Fr. Urrutigoity threatens Dr. Bond with libel.
Dec 8, 2001
Dr. Bond of St. Justin Martyr College
Sexual misconduct by Fr. Eric Ensey becomes known. Dr. Bond issues a public notice to concerned Catholics.
Jan 12, 2002
Diocese of Scranton
The Diocese of Scranton receives a letter of complaint from one of those molested by Fr. Urrutigoity.
Jan 15, 2002
Roman Catholic Faithful (organization)
Press Release, asking for suspension of Fr. Urrutigoity and any other priests involved in sexual misconduct, for resignation of Bishop Timlin, for criminal investigation.
Jan 25, 2002
Diocese of Scranton
Bishop Timlin transfers Frs. Urrutigoity and Ensey elsewhere in the Diocese of Scranton, but does not suspend them.
Jan 26, 2002
Times Leader (paper)
News of the scandal hits the secular press.
Feb 6, 2002
Dr. Bond of St. Justin Martyr College
Fr. Marshall Roberts becomes a third suspected sexual offender.
Feb 27, 2002
Scranton Times-Tribune (paper)
The DA's office of Lackawanna County, PA, launches an investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct by members of the SSJ.
Mar 20, 2002
National Review Online (paper)
A former student of St. Gregory's Academy launches a $1 million lawsuit against the SSJ, FSSP and Diocese of Scranton.
Mar 28, 2002
St. Justin Martyr College
Fr. Richard Munkelt, formerly with the SSJ, comes forward with further insights into the scandal.
Extracts froms news about Urrutigoity and Williamson
While he was a tiller of souls as the gardener of the harvest, he also found the necessity to weed out those who would weaken the soil. Such was the situation in 1997 when he expelled Father Carlos Urrutigoity and two seminarians from St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary. They subsequently took up refuge in the troubled diocese of Scranton, welcomed by the undiscerning Bishop Timlin who ignored the warnings of Bishops Williamson and Fellay. Now Timlin's successor in Scranton is reaping the bitter fruits of sexual abuse lawsuits by priests of the Society of Saint John which the rebellious Urrutigoity formed when he could not pass muster under Williamson's watchful, careful scrutiny. Thank God the Bishop was a good gardener and one of the signs of the SSPX to guard carefully not only the Sacred Deposit of the Faith, but the virtues of chastity and modesty.
In the fall of 1993, the Seminary received two new professors: Fr. Juan Iscara and Fr. Carlos Urrutigoity. Fr. Iscara assumed duties teaching Moral Theology and Church History. Fr. Urrutigoity became professor of Dogma, Latin and Sacred Music. Through Fr. Urrutigoity’s influence, the Seminary would soon begin to focus heavily on perfecting the Gregorian chant of the seminarians.
The 1996-97 academic year began smoothly, but as the second semester approached, there was a certain restlessness at the Seminary. Cliques had formed, and an ever-widening rift became perceptible, dividing seminarians in everything from the Liturgy to Gregorian Chant to recreational activities. The initial signs of the problem seemed insignificant, but underlying the minor differences in taste was an unhealthy “Medievalism” – the desire to “restore” the tried and true curriculum according to a romanticized “medieval model,” leaving behind what were termed the excesses and deviations brought about by the Counter-Reformation. Five months later, it was discovered that a break-away society was secretly being planned. The Society of St. John was to establish a religious life without the despised “deviations” (which were in fact the glories of the Church).
This return to an imagined Golden Age was, in fact, the construction of something completely new; the Middle Ages are past and its return is impossible. In trying to execute such a project in today’s world, it would be necessary to introduce novelties that never existed in the history of the Church, much less in the Middle Ages. This is precisely what the Modernists did at Vatican II. Every innovation was justified by the call of a return to the pristine purity of the ancient Church, while alongside there was the never avowed intention of avoiding the burdens that life according to the Church’s doctrine and laws, and our own statutes, impose upon us.
After a long build-up, Bishop Williamson dismissed from the Seminary the “talented but proud young Argentinian priest” (to quote the Bishop) who had spearheaded the plans for the new society. He had seen this happen before: a recently-ordained, intellectually brilliant priest using his skills in an effort to reshape the SSPX in his own image and finally, when frustrated in his plans, resorting to subversion and disobedience – taking others with him in his fall. Such as these would have to go their own ways, while the Seminary continued to hand on what it received from Archbishop Lefebvre.
As a consequence of this affair, the Seminary lost two priests and over 12 seminarians. Following these painful events, the Seminary was solemnly consecrated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus on June 6th, to give glory to His name and reaffirm that the Seminary is His domain.
Nevertheless, however, there are more than a handful of priests in the Society of Saint Pius X and in the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter who look fondly upon the Ordo Missae of 1965, which was in place for just five years before being replaced by the Novus Ordo Missae itself (which was a period precisely three years longer than the modernized 1961 Missal of John XXIII had been in place). There are still some priests in the Society of Saint Pius X, for example, who remain supportive, albeit privately, of the liturgical views of Father Carlos Urrutigoity, the founder of the corrupt Society of Saint John, which has now taken refuge under the protection, believe it or not, of the conciliar bishop of Ciudad del Este in Paraguay, Rogelio Livieres Plano (who issued a letter in support of the Society of Saint John on September 8, 2006), a little fact that should prove that perversion is no impediment to being welcomed in the official quarters of the conciliar church.
Urrutigoity's belief, expressed to me personally in an interview I conducted with him in Shohola, Pennsylvania, in November of 1999, is that "we should see where the liturgy would have gone" had there not been the "polemics" of the 1960s. In other words, "we" should be open to liturgical change so as not to "cement" the Mass according to any one Missal, which is why Urrutigoity, who had the full support of Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, said that he would sometimes use the Missal of 1910 or the Missal of 1955 or the Missal of 1962 or the Missal of 1965, but never the Missal of 1969, he emphasized. Urrutigoity thus was in favor of some degree of "approved" liturgical experimentation, a view that he professed during his days as a teacher at Saint Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona, Minnesota, before his expulsion from the Society of Saint Pius X circa 1998.
There were some seminarians in Winona who supported Urrutigoity's liturgical approach but who did not want to denounce the late Archbishop Lefebvre by following him, Urrutigoity, out of the Society of Saint Pius X. There is at least some sympathy for Urrutigoity's view of the liturgy in some circles with the Society of Saint Pius X. Thus the very thing that has so devastated souls in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, liturgical experimentation, has varying degrees of support among some priests in the Society of Saint Pius X and among a few "priests" in the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, which has the additional "baggage" of "priests" within its ranks in France who will celebrate the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic service that is the Novus Ordo Missae at the behest of the local conciliar bishop (see Griff Ruby's THE RESURRECTION OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, an excellent review of the entire history of the Traditional movement, "fair and balanced" as a certain Masonically-owned cable propaganda network advertises itself).
Pour vous abonner ou vous désabonner de la lettre d’information Virgo-Maria, veuillez remplir le formulaire disponible sur notre site http://www.virgo-maria.org/
 See messages VM dated September 17th and October 2nd, 2007:
 See messages VM dated October 15th and 18th, 2007:
All documents of Urrutigoiti’s case inside Scranton Diocese, (letters, articles...) may be downloaded from this web page and from its 9 references :
 [Note from VM] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Webster_Leadbeater :
Charles Webster Leadbeater, 1854-1934, ordonné « prêtre » anglican en 1879, théosophe membre de la Société de Théosophie d’Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, proche collaborateur dès 1895 de la Théosophe fabienne Annie Besant (33ème degré du rite écossais), accusé de pédérastie dès 1906 : Mary Lutyens in "Krishnamurti: The Years of Awakening" writes:
 http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/04May/may28ttt.htm. Original source into English : While he was a tiller of souls as the gardener of the harvest, he also found the necessity to weed out those who would weaken the soil. Such was the situation in 1997 when he expelled Father Carlos Urrutigoity and two seminarians from St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary. They subsequently took up refuge in the troubled diocese of Scranton, welcomed by the undiscerning Bishop Timlin who ignored the warnings of Bishops Williamson and Fellay. Now Timlin's successor in Scranton is reaping the bitter fruits of sexual abuse lawsuits by priests of the Society of Saint John which the rebellious Urrutigoity formed when he could not pass muster under Williamson's watchful, careful scrutiny. Thank God the Bishop was a good gardener and one of the signs of the SSPX to guard carefully not only the Sacred Deposit of the Faith, but the virtues of chastity and modesty.”