CAPITAL : Lettre ouverte solennelle des fidèles aux quatre évêques de la FSSPX
http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles/2006/VM-2006-10-10-A-00-Appel_aux_quatre_eveques_de_la_FSSPX.pdf
Qui et
Pourquoi, depuis la mort de Mgr Lefebvre en 1991, a détourné la finalité surnaturelle de l’OPERATION-SURVIE des sacres de 1988, pour assigner à
la FSSPX ce FAUX objectif prioritaire de la «ré-conciliation» avec la Rome
conciliaire |
Qui a, depuis 2000, PROMU, et Pourquoi, le FAUX préalable de l’autorisation de la messe de Saint Pie V ? |
Pourquoi n’a-t-on pas posé la VRAIE question du rétablissement du VRAI Sacerdoce de VRAIS prêtres, ordonnés par des Evêques VALIDEMENT sacrés selon le rite VALIDE des Saints Ordres ? |
Qui a INVENTE, et POURQUOI, le faux préalable de la levée des «excommunications» ? |
Pourquoi n’a-t-on pas posé la VRAIE question de l’abrogation de Pontificalis Romani INVALIDE de 1968 et du rétablissement du vrai rite de la consécration épiscopale VALIDE d’avant 1968? |
A quoi servirait-il, en effet, de faire dire le VRAI rite de la messe par de FAUX prêtres ? |
Serait-ce
donc qu’après avoir obligé de VRAIS prêtres à dire une FAUSSE messe, l’on
veuille désormais faire dire la messe du |
Serait-ce que l’on
veuille «concilier» les VRAIS prêtres qui disent encore la VRAIE messe avec
un clergé aussi INVALIDE que le |
Gaude, Maria Virgo, cunctas hæreses sola interemisti.
(Tractus Missæ Salve Sancta Parens)
lundi 16 février 2009
Ce message peut être téléchargé au format PDF sur notre site http://www.virgo-maria.org/.
Mgr de Galarreta compromis dans l’ordination des deux abbés violeurs-prédateurs homosexuels Urutigoity et Ensey, les protégés de Mgr Williamson, l’ex(?)-Anglican à la Rose[1] de la FSSPX
L’abbé Calderon, un autre protégé de Mgr Williamson,
a été l’ami de l’abbé violeur-prédateur homosexuel Urrutigoity.
L’abbé Calderon, professeur au séminaire de La Reja, a commis un article, à l’argumentation totalement erronée et pernicieuse (faux recours au rite copte), dans le n° d’automne 2006 du Sel de la terre, afin de tenter de justifier[2] de la prétendue validité du nouveau rite conciliaire « oecuménique » de consécration épiscopale (Pontificalis Romani, 1968).
Les révélations se poursuivent sur l’affaire des clercs homosexuels au sein de la FSSPX.
Mgr Williamson apparaît comme l’évêque protecteur et promoteur de ces clercs pédérastes, mais désormais, c’est l’implication de Mgr de Galarreta dans leur ordination au séminaire de Winona de la Fraternité qui apparaît au grand jour.
Les observateurs ont constamment été étonnés du silence mystérieux de cet évêque qui n’intervient que très rarement, qui n’écrit quasiment rien et qui semble vouloir raser les murs et se faire oublier.
Certains médias le disent aussi très proche de Mgr Williamson, ce qui est surprenant pour l’évêque espagnol qui n’a rien de commun avec le milieu anglican de Cambridge et les personnalités qui gravitent dans l’orbite de la Société Fabienne (Fabian Society à laquelle le Mentor de Mgr Williamson, Malcolm Muggeridge (ex MI5-MI6 où il a cotoyé Victor de Rothschild[3], le 5ème homme du groupe de Cambridge « The Apostles ») fut très lié familialement).
VM a déjà découvert, par ses recherches, que l’ancien Anglican, Mgr. Williamson[4]-‘Cunctator’à la Rose, fut l’ancien protecteur et promoteur opiniâtre à Winona des clercs homosexuels prédateurs Carlos Urrutigoity et Eric Ensey, et l’ordonnateur du prêtre « pédéRatz » Marshall Roberts, comme cela est justifié par les pièces du procès public des deux premiers devant la cour pénale ouvert aux États-Unis et placées sur internet par les soins du Dr Bond en particulier.
Nous découvrons désormais que Mgr de Galaretta a conféré l’ordination presbytérale aux deux abbés homosexuels Urrutigoity et Ensey.
Ordination de l’abbé homosexuel Urrutigoity par Mgr de Galarreta - juin 1991 - Winona (États-Unis) (source : revue Verbum (FSSPX) - été 1991 – n°43)
L’abbé Urrutigoity est au premier rang sur la photo, le 2° à partir de la gauche. L’abbé Schmidberger est présent, ainsi que Mgr Williamson.
Ordination de l’abbé homosexuel Ensey par Mgr de Galarreta - juin 1995 - Winona (États-Unis) (source : revue Verbum (FSSPX) - été 1995 – n°58)
L’abbé Ensey est le 2è à partir de la gauche au 1er rang (tête tournée) en même temps que Marshall Roberts au Diaconat, l’abbé Roberts est le 3è à partir de la gauche au 2è rang (devant Mgr Williamson).
Ordination de l’abbé homosexuel Marshall Roberts par Mgr de Williamson - juin 1996 - Winona (États-Unis) (source : revue Verbum (FSSPX) - été 1996 – n°62)
Le commentaire ci-dessous du n°43 de la revus Verbum (du séminaire de la FSSPX aux États-Unis) de l’été 1991 mentionne que
l’abbé Urrutigoity « ayant considéré que la poursuite de ses études était sans objet, il gagna l’amitié de l’abbé Alvaro Calderon alors séminariste de la Fraternité, depuis ordonné et professeur à La Reja. »
Or dans sa correspondance publiée sur internet (voir les références et liens en fin de message) le Dr Bond[5], qui a traîné devant les tribunaux américains l’abbé violeur Urrutigoity, a révélé l’intervention d’une famille Calderon5 auprès de Mgr de Galarreta pour protéger ce clerc violeur-prédateur pédéraste :
« Lettre ouverte du Dr Jeffrey M. Bond, Président du College de St. Justin Martyr, et témoignage de l’abbé Andrés Morello au sujet de l’affaire Urrutigoity
« Deux jeunes traditionalistes déclarent qu’au cours d’un camp d’été organisé par Carlos Urrutigoity – avec l’autorisation inexplicable de Mgr de Galarreta, lequel connaissait la situation –, le séminariste, qui se trouvait en observation au séminaire de Córdoba pour raison disciplinaire, se rendit à la rivière avec un groupe de jeunes hommes. Là, il retira ses vêtements devant tout le monde et resta en slip. L’un des jeunes lui proposa immédiatement un maillot de bain, mais Urrutigoity déclina son offre et se baigna dans cette tenue.
« (manuscrit) Si de Galarreta ne l’a pas chassé, c’est à cause des ennuis que cela aurait pu causer, notamment avec la famille Calderón.
« Nous vous demandons pardon, Monsieur l’Abbé, d’aborder par écrit ces questions déplaisantes, mais nous jugeons cela nécessaire, car nul n’a voulu entendre nos plaintes. Ce qui nous préoccupe à l’heure actuelle, c’est, d’abord, que les supérieurs étaient au courant de la situation : non seulement le séminariste n’a pas été exclu, mais la solution retenue pour les problèmes moraux et disciplinaires qu’il posait a consisté tout bonnement à l’envoyer dans un autre séminaire ; c’est, ensuite, que Carlos Urrutigoity est sur le point de recevoir les ordres majeurs à Winona (États-Unis) ; c’est, enfin, qu’aucune enquête sérieuse n’a jamais été ouverte à ce sujet. »
Page 6, premier paragraphe
« Tout cela nous inquiète et nous scandalise. Nous nous sommes efforcés tant et plus de susciter l’ouverture d’une enquête, mais en vain. Mgr de Galarreta a rendu impossible toute mesure à l’encontre de l’intéressé, et bien qu’il reconnaisse à présent son erreur, il ne fait toujours rien pour y remédier ».
Ceux qui connaissent le modus operandi subtil de l’abbé Urrutigoity reconnaîtront immédiatement, dans ce témoignage, les méthodes initiales d’un prédateur sexuel qui n’a pas encore eu le loisir de manipuler autrui avec la pleine autorité que confère la prêtrise. »[6] Citation reprise du Dr Bond et publiée le 13 novembre 2007 par VM
En janvier 2009, les fidèles ont appris que soudainement l’abbé Calderon, intervenant prévu au congrès Si si no no qui se déroulait à la Mutualité à Paris, venait de se décommander. Cette brutale défausse semble avoir été voulue par Mgr Williamson qui redoutait peut être que la présence de l’abbé Calderon en France relance immédiatement les investigations sur cet abbé et les affaires de pédérastie.
Rappelons que dès novembre 2007, VM dénonçait[7] la protection persistante accordée par Mgr Williamson et Mgr de Galarreta au clerc violeur-prédateur homosexuel Carlos Urrutigoity, en dépit des avertissements canoniques documentés que leur avait adressés à tous deux M. l’abbé Andres Morello, alors Supérieur Général du Séminaire de la Fraternité de LaReja en Argentine
Nous écrivions alors (citations) :
Venant de la ville de Mendoza en Argentine, Carlos Urrutigoity est entré au séminaire de La Reja (Argentine – FSSPX).
Ses tendances homosexuelles et ses attentats à la pudeur furent détectés en 1987 par celui qui était alors le supérieur du séminaire de LaReja, l’abbé Morello, lequel établit un dossier à charge contre lui et demanda son éviction.
L’abbé de Galarreta, alors supérieur du District d’Amérique du Sud de la FSSPX, ainsi que d’« autres prêtres influents » de la FSSPX, intervinrent aussitôt pour protéger le séminariste pédéraste.
Selon une note manuscrite de l’abbé Morello, Mgr de Galarreta serait intervenu pour protéger Urrutigoity, à la demande de la famille Calderon.
Mgr Williamson justifiera auprès du Docteur Bond (le supérieur du collège Saint Justin Martyr qui fera éclater publiquement l’affaire), ce comportement de Mgr de Galarreta, par l’imminence d’un péril sédévacantiste que faisait courir l’abbé Morello au District d’Amérique du Sud.
Suite à cette action de l’abbé Morello, et après un rapide passage de l’abbé Urrutigoity au prieuré de la FSSPX de Cordoba (Argentine) qui lui permit de recevoir une recommandation et de se faire « blanchir », Mgr Williamson l’accueillit au séminaire de Winona aux États-Unis en 1989.
Pendant cette péripétie l’abbé Morello avait été éloigné temporairement, au premier semestre 1989, à Santiago du Chili, alors que l’abbé Schmidberger était supérieur de la FSSPX et décidait des mutations.
A l’inititiave de Mgr Williamson, l’abbé Urrutigoity écrira une lettre d’auto-justification dès son arrivée à Winona en 1989 et Mgr Williamson-‘Cunctator’ à la Rose remettra personnellement cette lettre à Mgr Lefebvre, en sollicitant et en obtenant son autorisation pour l’admission d’Urrutigoity à Winona.
L’archevêque, ainsi visiblement « instrumentalisé » par Mgr Williamson, exigera de Mgr Williamson qu’il surveille le séminariste suspect « avec un œil d’aigle ».
A la veille de l’ordination de l’abbé Urrutigoity en 1989, l’abbé Morello se déplacera personnellement à Winona pour dénoncer l’abbé Urrutigoity que Mgr Williamson soutiendra devant lui au nom de l’« humilité » d’Urrutigoity, traitant même l’abbé Morello de « menteur ». L’abbé Morello sera accusé de « sédévacantisme » puis, dans les jours suivant sa visite impromptue à Mgr Williamson, il sera expulsé de la FSSPX.
A l’automne 1993, l’abbé Urrutigoity deviendra professeur de dogme, de latin et de musique sacrée au séminaire de Winona. Cette promotion de l’abbé Urrutigoity sera suivie par des efforts importants déployés au séminaire de Winona pour le perfectionnement des séminaristes dans le chant grégorien. En sus de l’approfondissement du chant grégorien, l’abbé Urrutogoity se singulisera en prônant les « expérimentations » dans la liturgie et en se montrant favorable au rite réformé de 1965 ; ces positions ne sont pas sans rappeler la lettre de l’abbé de La Rocque (FSSPX) en janvier 2007, où il prônait des adaptations du rite traditionnel de la messe.
De fin 1993 à 1997, l’effervescence se développera au sein du séminaire au point qu’à la mi-1997, les questions liturgiques et de chant sacré deviendront des sujets de profondes discordes entre les séminaristes. La doctrine de l’abbé Urrutigoity prônant un retour à un « modèle médiéval » idéalisé et romantique, duquel auraient été soustraits ce qu’il considérait comme des « excès » de la Contre-Réforme catholique issue du concile de Trente.
Cette nouvelle doctrine liturgique et de chant sacré attirera autour de ce personnage, dès lors considéré comme un gourou, un petit réseau de séminariste qu’il projettera d’organiser sous la forme d’une association secrète au sein du séminaire, cette association rejetant ce qu’il considère comme des « déviations » tridentines et qui ne sont autres que les gloires de l’Église.
Finalement, l’agitation de l’abbé Urrutigoity se poursuivant et son projet de fondation d’une nouvelle communauté étant rejeté par Mgr Fellay, il sera expulsé de Winona en 1997. Mgr Williamson qualifiera l’abbé Urrutigoity de « jeune prêtre argentin talentueux mais fier ».
A l’heure où Mgr Williamson a été relevé de ses fonctions de directeur du séminaire de La Reja, et où la rumeur court d’une nomination de Mgr de Galarreta à la tête du séminaire argentin de la FSSPX, il est plus que temps de rappeler l’enseignement de l’Église, à travers les textes de Saint Pierre Damien, ainsi que des Papes, qui sanctionnent[8] très sévèrement les clercs protecteurs opiniâtres et ordonnateurs – en dépit des monitions – de clercs pédérastes, et qui exigent en particulier leur éloignement systématique des jeunes clercs, pour s’opposer la reconduction de ces mêmes personnages à la direction des séminaires de la Fraternité, personnages qui – alors qu’ils étaient dûment avertis par l’abbé Morello – ont préféré chasser ce dernier de la Fraternité, et ordonner et promouvoir des clercs violeurs-prédateurs homosexuels au sein d’un séminaire de la FSSPX :
Ainsi par exemple comme on pourra lire dans le dossier VM de référence8 du 21 janvier 2009 sur Saint Pierre Damien et son Liber Gommorhianus, voici ce que pensait ce très grand Saint Docteur de l’Église des clercs qui protègent des clercs homosexuels :
« 17) N’épargnant pas ces ecclésiastiques qui permettent en toute connaissance aux sodomites de recevoir les saints ordres ou de rester membres du clergé tout en continuant à polluer leur fonction, le saint moine fustige les "fainéants supérieurs des clercs et des prêtres", leur rappelant qu’ils doivent trembler pour eux-mêmes car ils deviennent "impliqués dans le péché des autres", en permettant à "la plaie dévastatrice" de la sodomie de persister dans leurs rangs.
Le Pape Saint Léon IX ajoute immédiatement, "quant à celui qui n’attaque pas le vice, mais transige négligemment avec lui, il sera justement considéré comme coupable de sa mort, au même titre que celui qui meurt dans le péché". »
Dans une lettre à Saint Damien, voici ce qu’écrit le pape Saint Léon IX à propos de la responsabilité ultime des évêques ou des supérieurs coupables de laxisme envers des clercs pédérastes :
« Si ces derniers critiquaient ou attaquaient les décrets apostoliques, ils risquaient LEUR place ! Les prélats qui négligent d’"attaquer le vice, mais prennent la chose à la légère", partagent la culpabilité et le jugement de celui qui meurt dans le péché, déclarait le Pape. »
Il fut suivi sur ce terrain par la le très grand Pape Dominicain Saint Pie V (1504-1572), qui dans sa Constitution Cum Primum8 du 1er avril 1566 dispose :
« Puisque nous avons orienté notre âme à enlever tout ce qui peut offenser de quelque manière la divine majesté, nous avons établi de punir avant tout et sans délai toutes les choses qui, soit pour l’autorité des Saintes Écritures soit pour les exemples très graves, semblent déplaire à Dieu plus que toute autre et le poussent à la colère : soit la négligence du culte divin, la ruineuse simonie, le crime de la bestialité et l’exécrable vice libidineux contre nature ; fautes pour lesquelles les peuples et les nations sont flagellés par Dieu, pour une juste condamnation avec des catastrophes, des guerres, la faim et la peste. (…)
« Les magistrats doivent savoir que si après notre Constitution, ils seront négligents à punir ces crimes, ils en seront coupables devant le jugement divin et ils s’attirent même notre indignation. (...)
« Si quelqu’un commet ce crime infâme contre nature, pour lequel la colère divine frappa les fils d’iniquité, il sera livré au bras séculier pour être puni et si clerc, il sera soumis à un châtiment analogue après avoir été privé de tout grade ecclésiastique » (Saint Pie V, Constitution Cum primum, du 1er avril 1566, Bullarium Romanum).
Le lecteur pourra lire dans le dossier VM de référence8 sur la question, le détail des diverses sanctions ecclésiales prévues par la Sainte Église catholique au cours de son histoire à l’encontre de ces infâmes clercs protecteurs opiniâtres de clercs homosexuels
Quand donc les lois de l’Église seront-elles enfin appliquées DANS LA FRATERNITÉ, et Mgr Williamson, l’ex(?)-Anglican britannique à la Rose sera-t-il expulsé de la FSSPX ?
Comment ne pas voir qu’il existe un lien entre
- d’une part ces soutiens cléricaux opiniâtres – niant toutes les évidences - et les ordinations imprudentes de clercs violeurs-prédateurs pédérastes administrées par Mgr de Galarreta et
- d’autre part l’étrange silence qu’il conserve alors que la FSSPX est menée à son implosion ou à sa persécution par la politique suicidaire imposée opiniâtrement aux clercs et fidèles de Mgr Fellay pour une prétendue « réconciliaition » avec la Rome antichrist apostate conciliaire et « œcuménique » de l’abbé apostat Ratzinger-Benoît XVI ?
Comme l’a remarqué un intervenant, sous le pseudonyme Dominique, sur le LFC[9], ne faudrait-il pas désormais parler de 1+3 au lieu de 3+1 évêques, en parlant des évêques de la Fraternité ?
Le deuil douloureux qui frappe actuellement la FSSPX, par la mort de 3 séminaristes (un 4° a survécu), n’est-il pas un AVERTISSEMENT SOLENNEL ET PROVIDENTIEL envoyé ENVERS MGR FELLAY par le Ciel le 11 février, jour de la fête de l’Apparition de Notre Dame à Lourdes d’où fut lancée par Mgr Fellay sa dernière croisade sacrilège et insultante pour Notre Dame pour prétendre ainsi auprès des fidèles avoir obtenu par Son intercession de l’abbé apostat le résultat arrangé et prévu à l’avance de la prétendue « levée des excommunications » (cf. les nombreux messages VM sur le sujet), pour désigner, Mgr Tissier, le seul évêque de la Fraternité ni compromis, ni illuministe et ni ex-anglican à la Rose qui puisse encore sauver l’œuvre de Mgr Lefebvre de préservation du Sacerdoce sacrificiel catholique sacramentellement valide ?
Continuons le bon combat
La Rédaction de Virgo-Maria
© 2009 virgo-maria.org
Dossier des
Références Virgo
Maria sur l’ex(?)-Anglican
Mgr Richard
Williamson,
l’évêque
britannique à la Rose de la FSSPX
http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles/2009/VM-2009-02-09-A-00-Mgr_Fellay-protege-Mgr_Williamson.pdf
http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles/2009/VM-2009-02-01-E-00-Hoyos_au_secours_de_Williamson.pdf
http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles/2009/VM-2009-01-25-A-00-Decret_21_janvier.pdf
http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles/2009/VM-2009-01-23-A-00-Mgr_Williamson_Roberts.pdf
http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles/2009/VM-2009-01-21-A-00-Sodomie_et_St_Pierre_Damien.pdf
http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles/2009/VM-2009-01-20-A-00-Homosexualite_de_Paul_VI.pdf
http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles/2008/VM-2008-12-29-B-00-Benoit_XVI_Homosexualite.pdf
http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles/2009/VM-2009-01-09-A-00-Doctrine_sur_homosexualite.pdf
http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles/2008/VM-2008-12-31-A-00-Williamson_Camarilla.pdf
http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles/2008/VM-2008-12-05-A-00-Abbe_Cekada_repond_Mgr_W.pdf
http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles/2008/VM-2008-12-02-A-00-Diversion_de_Mgr_Williamson.pdf
http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles/2008/VM-2008-12-03-A-00-Abbe_Meramo-RC.pdf
http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles/2007/VM-2007-10-02-C-00-Societes_secretes_europeennes.pdf
http://sww.virgo-maria.org/articles/2007/VM-2007-10-15-A-00-Blason_Williamson_Cunctator.pdf
http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles/2007/VM-2007-10-18-A-00-Coat-of-arms_Williamson_Cunctator.pdf
http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles/2007/VM-2007-11-03-B-00-Anglicans_Rose_Croix-FM.pdf
http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles/2008/VM-2008-04-08-B-00-Williamson-Round_Table.pdf
http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles/2007/VM-2007-11-13-A-00-Bond_Williamson.pdf
http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles/2007/VM-2007-11-10-D-00-Schmidberger-Urrutigoity.pdf
http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles/2007/VM-2007-11-01-A-00-Williamson-Urrutigoity.pdf
http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles/2007/VM-2007-10-20-A-00-Vatican-Homosexuel.pdf
http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles/2008/VM-2008-09-07-C-00-Williamson_Urrutigoity-n2_EN.pdf
http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles/2008/VM-2008-05-03-A-00-Williamson_Urrutigoity-n1-ENG.pdf
http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles/2008/VM-2008-05-02-A-00-Mgr_Williamson_Blason_de_Luther.pdf
http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles/2008/VM-2008-04-06-A-00-Hoyos_ment.pdf
http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles/2008/VM-2008-09_20-A-00-VM_Pages_FSSPX.pdf
http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles/2007/VM-2007-09-17-B-00-Mgr_Williamson_Actions_US.pdf
http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles/2008/VM-2008-03-18-A-00-Williamson-Loup.pdf
http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles/2008/VM-2008-03-15-A-00-Williamson-Diaporama.pdf
http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles/2008/VM-2008-03-15-Diaporama_Williamson_2_anneaux.pdf
http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles/2007/VM-2007-10-16-A-00-Hoyos_liberte_religieuse_Colombie.pdf
http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles/2007/VM-2007-09-17-A-00-Mgr_Williamson_Muggeridge.pdf
http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles/2007/VM-2007-09-11-A-00-Mgr_Williamson_Muggeridge.pdf
http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles/2007/VM-2007-04-24-A-00-Rore_refute_l_abbe_Calderon_2.pdf
http://rore-sanctifica.org/etudes/2007/RORE-2007-04-24-FR_Refutation_de_l_abbe_Calderon.pdf
http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles/2007/VM-2007-03-24-A-00-Abbe_Cekada_reordinations_2.pdf
http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles/2007/VM-2007-01-28-A-00-Abbe_Cekada_refute_abbe_Calderon_1.pdf
http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles/2006/VM-2006-12-18-B-00-Mgr_Williamson_Omission_d_Avrille_1.pdf
http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles/2007/VM-2007-12-09-A-00-Hoyos_Versailles.pdf
Dr Jeffrey M. Bond
President
The College of St. Justin Martyr
142 Market Road
Greeley, PA 18425
Jmb3@Itis.net
www.saintjustinmartyr.org
ANNEXE
Dossier de l’affaire Urrutigoity dans le diocèse de Scranton sur les pages Web internet des USA
http://www.saintjustinmartyr.org/news/notices.html
TOUT le dossier public 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...
Saturday, November 10, 2007
III. Letters to Bishop Timlinand Bishop Joseph F. Martino
V. Affidavits
VII. Financial Misconduct
VIII. St. Gregory's Academy
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.
Le 14 Octobre 2001, le Collège St. Justin Martyr s’est séparé formellement de la Société Saint Jean (SSJ), une association cléricale du Diocèse de Scranton, Pennsylvanie. Depuis ce jour le Collège s’est efforcé de démontrer la corruption morale de la Société de Saint Jean. Bien que l’objet premier du Collège soit de se constituer en tant que Collège des grandes oeuvres libérales artistiques marqué d’un caractère catholique orthodoxe, le Collège tient fermement avoir l’obligation morale d’empêcher la SSJ de continuer à nuire aux jeunes âmes, et de continuer à tromper les donateurs catholiques.
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.
1.1.1.1.1 V. Affidavits on the SSJ Scandal
1.) Mr. Jude Huntz's Affidavit on the SSJ
2.) Mr. Paul Hornak's Affidavit on the SSJ
3.) Br. Alexis Bugnolo's Letter on the SSJ
4.) Mr. Joseph Sciambra's Affidavit on the SSJ
5.) Diane Toler's Affidavit on the SSJ
6.) Affidavit of a Former SSJ Novice
7.) Mr. Conal Tanner's letter to Bishop Timlin
8.) Affidavit of Mr. Joseph Girod
9.) Affidavit of Mrs. Louise Carbonaro
I. The Case Against SSJ
The Sexual and Financial Misconduct
of the Society of St. John· 27.) Warning to Catholic Parents
· 26.) Ensey threatens witness with Mafia; Urrutigoity lies under oath
· 25.) Minuteman protest against SSJ event
· 24.) Bishop Timlin's legacy: Caparelli to the SSJ
· 23.) Another Bishop Timlin "Investigation"
· 22.) Our Demonstration Against Timlin and the SSJ
· 21.) Pray to St. John for the Demise of the SSJ
· 20.) Fr. Sarweh and the SSJ Homosexual Cult
· 19.) Another St. Gregory's graduate exposes Fr. Urrutigoity
· 18.) Urrutigoity and Ensey refuse to answer police questions
· 17.) The Early Years of Carlos Urrutigoity's Homosexual Career
· 16.) A Second Open Letter to Deacon Joseph Levine
· 15.) Deacon Levine's story further exploded
· 14.) Response to Deacon Levine
· 13.) An Open Letter to the SSJ's New Superior General
· 12.) Response to SSJ's Webmaster
· 10.) A Third Homosexual Predator in the SSJ
· 11.) SSJ Invasion of former CSJM Web Site
· 9.) The SSJ at St. Gregory's Academy
· 8.) SSJ's "Benedictine" Furniture
· 7.) The Latest Whitewash from Bishop Timlin
· 6.) Response to "The Society of St. John Speaks Out!"
· 5.) SSJ Update: Fr. Urrutigoity, Fr. Roberts, Fr. O'Connor
· 4.) Response to the Society of St. John and Bishop Timlin
· 3.) Update on the SSJ's Sexual and Financial Misconduct
http://www.saintjustinmartyr.org/news/Update2.html
February 6, 2002
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:
- 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.
- 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.
- In the summer of 2000, several young men were seen leaving Fr. Urrutigoity's bedroom in their underclothes.
- 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.
- 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.)
- 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,
Dr. Jeffrey M. Bond
President
The College of St. Justin Martyr
142 Market Road
Greeley, PA 18425
Saturday, January 10, 2004
Dear Friends,
If you do not read the attached reply brief for yourself, you will have difficulty believing the short summary below of the latest bombshell in the federal lawsuit against Fr. Eric Ensey, Fr. Carlos Urrutigoity, the Society of St. John, Bishop Timlin, the Fraternity of St. Peter, and St. Gregory's Academy. (The attached brief was downloaded from the PACER web site, which posts all documents filed in federal lawsuits. For ease of reading, you may want to print out the entire brief and all exhibits.)
Here are the highlights:
(1) Eric Ensey has tried to suborn a key witness and former friend. This witness previously testified in 1999 that Carlos Urrutigoity had homosexually molested him. In the present lawsuit, this witness testified in his recent deposition that Ensey had tried to persuade him either to leave the country (in order to avoid his deposition) or to lie. When Ensey failed to convince him to flee or to lie, Ensey then threatened this witness by telling him that his (Ensey's) attorney has "strong ties to the Mafia." (See Exhibit M to the attached brief.)
(2) This same witness has testified that Ensey attempted to excuse Urrutigoity's groping by claiming Urrutigoity has the power to diagnose illness by grabbing a man's penis. (See Exhibit M.)
(3) This witness has also testified to other peculiar perverted sexual practices of Urrutigoity, such as requesting that a rectal suppository be inserted in his presence as an act of humility. (See Exhibit M.)
(4) Two former St. Gregory's Academy students, Stephen Fitzpatrick and Patrick McLaughlin, have testified in their depositions that Urrutigoity has shared his bed with boys. While this is no surprise to anyone who has followed the SSJ scandal, it is deeply damaging to the credibility of Urrutigoity because their sworn testimony directly contradicts Urrutigoity's own sworn testimony that he does not sleep with boys. Since Stephen Fitzpatrick and Patrick McLaughlin are devoted followers of Urrutigoity and the SSJ, it is now manifest to all that Urrutigoity has perjured himself. (See Exhibits I, J and K.)
As one deposition after another continues to produce a mountain of damaging testimony against these pervert priests and those who have covered up their crimes, their attorneys are scrambling for ways to keep this testimony out of the courtroom. (See the attached brief for details.) As the May 2004 court date for the federal lawsuit approaches, you can expect to see a lot more smoke and mirrors.
Pax vobiscum,
Dr. Jeffrey M. Bond President
The College of St. Justin Martyr
42 Market Road Greeley,
PA 18425
jmb3@ltis.net
www.saintjustinmartyr.org
http://www.saintjustinmartyr.org/news/WarningToCatholicParents.html
July 28, 2004
Dear Friends,
Over two months ago I called upon Bishop Joseph Martino to stop the Society of St. John from promoting and selling a book entitled "A Child's Missal." This book, which the SSJ has developed through its lay corporation, Patmos, attempts to rehabilitate predator priest Fr. Carlos Urrutigoity as "child friendly." Urrutigoity, who has now been accused of sexual abuse by four young men, appears in the child's missal as a model priest giving a sermon. Here is the photograph:
The spokeswoman for the Diocese of Scranton, Maria Orzel, has admitted that Urrutigoity is not to appear in public as a priest. Yet there can be no question that the photograph above presents Urrutigoity to the public as a priest in good standing.
Note the innocent and docile boy in the upper right-hand corner who is being guided by the guardian angel to "observe and obey" Urrutigoity. The text explaining the angel reads as follows:
"The Guardian Angel guides the boy Adam in his understanding and prayerful attention at Mass. Meditate on his words and follow his advice!"
What the text neglects to mention is that Urrutigoity will give this advice while sharing the same bed with Adam, who gets sexually molested as part of the SSJ's indoctrination into Catholic manhood. The text also omits the fact that Urrutigoity will first ply Adam with alcohol to weaken his natural aversion to homosexuality.
The SSJ would like nothing better than to place this image of Urrutigoity in the minds of an entire generation of unsuspecting Catholic boys. What will happen when these boys eventually meet the real Urrutigoity to whom they will be especially vulnerable having already been introduced to him as an exemplary priest from the picture in their child's missal?
So what is Bishop Martino doing to protect Catholic children from Urrutigoity and the SSJ?
In the latest newspaper story about the latest priest in Scranton to be accused of molesting a young boy, Maria Orzel, had this to say:
"This is, indeed, a sad moment for the Diocese of Scranton - one which is being taken most seriously. The pastoral care of all victims of clerical sexual abuse is our utmost priority. Prevention of such incidents remains our principal goal, as we seek to protect the safety and welfare of children and young people."
See: http://www.timesleader.com/mld/timesleader/9248876.htm
Lies, lies, and more lies.
Does Maria Orzel really think a carefully penned press statement is proof of Martino's concern for children?
If the prevention of clerical sexual abuse is truly the "principal goal" of the Diocese of Scranton, then why are Urrutigoity and Ensey allowed to continue to present themselves as priests to unsuspecting Catholics?
If the Diocese of Scranton is really seeking the safety and welfare of children and young people, then why has Martino failed either to demand the psychosexual evaluations of Urrutigoity and Ensey or, if they have been destroyed, to send them for new evaluations?
Bishop Timlin admitted under oath that he sent Urrutigoity and Ensey for these evaluations to determine if they were dangerous to children. Yet Timlin claims he never read the evaluations because the attorney for Urrutigoity and Ensey intercepted them.
And Martino is now pretending that his hands are also tied.
Do not count on bishops like Timlin and Martino to protect your children. Spread this warning far and wide so that Catholic parents will avoid this child's missal like the plague.
Pax vobiscum,
Dr. Jeffrey M. Bond
President
The College of St. Justin Martyr
142 Market Road
Greeley, PA 18425
jmb3@ltis.net
www.saintjustinmartyr.org
http://www.saintjustinmartyr.org/news/CarlosUrrutigoityinLaReja.htm
September 2, 2002
Dear Friends,
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 vicerector ; 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.
Page 5.
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 seein 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.
Sincerely,
Dr. Jeffrey M. Bond
President
The College of St. Justin Martyr
142 Market Road
Greeley, PA 18425
jmb3@ltis.net
www.saintjustinmartyr.org
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/
[1] Cf en fin d’article la liste des références électroniques des études factuelles et documentées de Virgo Maria sur l’ex(?)-Anglican de la FSSPX, Mgr Richard Williamson, l’évêque britannique à la Rose de la Fraternité Saint Pie X et sur son pouvoir de nuisance stratégique au sein de la Fraternité.
[2] Cf http://www.rore-sanctifica.org
http://www.rore-sanctifica.org/etudes/2007/RORE-2007-04-24-FR_Refutation_de_l_abbe_Calderon.pdf
[3] http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/SSmuggeridge.htm
[4] Cf en fin d’article la liste des références électroniques des études factuelles et documentées de Virgo Maria sur l’ex(?)-Anglican de la FSSPX, Mgr Richard Williamson, l’évêque britannique à la Rose de la Fraternité Saint Pie X et sur son pouvoir de nuisance stratégique au sein de la Fraternité.
[5] Cf lettre du Dr Bond du 02 septembre 2002 reproduite en fin de la dernière annexe de ce message.