Monastery abuse - RC and Orthodox
Posted by:
JohnPW
()
Date: March 29, 2004 12:46AM
I do not think I will be able to convince you and I really don't have to...
So I challenge you to stay up there for a Retreat...
However, if your personality is the type that likes fruitcake and the old Latin Mass and you are tone deaf then I will never be able to explain it to you... I won't be holding my breath. You will probably end up having a nice stay at the Monastery and think nothing of it.... He has a big following, many who visit and definitaly would not agree with me...
Calling them all Father is an abuse and causes confusion as to who is a Priest and who is not a Priest with ordained faculties. They are still under the jurisdiction of the Monastery in California and they do not have this practice there.
You'll just have to read it in the newspaper when he is exposed and removed... or you can buy my book.... Even then you may say that you don't see it as a cult...
John
So I challenge you to stay up there for a Retreat...
However, if your personality is the type that likes fruitcake and the old Latin Mass and you are tone deaf then I will never be able to explain it to you... I won't be holding my breath. You will probably end up having a nice stay at the Monastery and think nothing of it.... He has a big following, many who visit and definitaly would not agree with me...
Calling them all Father is an abuse and causes confusion as to who is a Priest and who is not a Priest with ordained faculties. They are still under the jurisdiction of the Monastery in California and they do not have this practice there.
You'll just have to read it in the newspaper when he is exposed and removed... or you can buy my book.... Even then you may say that you don't see it as a cult...
John
Monastery abuse - RC and Orthodox
Posted by:
JohnPW
()
Date: March 29, 2004 02:04AM
Granger....
If possible, please e-mail me at
Johnnadge@mchsi.com
This is not something I will be able to explain through e-mail... I'll give you my phone number or you can give me yours and we can talk and maybe help each other.
Thanks,
Johnpw
If possible, please e-mail me at
Johnnadge@mchsi.com
This is not something I will be able to explain through e-mail... I'll give you my phone number or you can give me yours and we can talk and maybe help each other.
Thanks,
Johnpw
Monastery abuse - RC and Orthodox
Posted by:
JohnPW
()
Date: May 20, 2004 05:03AM
I found this article which explains it better than I can.
Enlarge Text on This Page
STATEMENT BY REV. RICHARD A. MUNKELT ON THE SSJ SCANDAL
March 28, 2002
The scandal brought about by the Society of St. John and the official protection of the Society, which has sown confusion and has only guaranteed that serious harm to others will continue, has imposed on me, a priest and former member of the Society, the grave moral obligation of making this statement, setting forth what I believe to be the truth of the matter. I do so to help those who are, or will be, victims of the Society, to clear my name of any doubt or suspicion stemming from my, until now, public silence, and to defend the Catholic priesthood in a time of crisis. This is my moral duty in charity.
But before I recount the facts of my relation to the Society of St. John affair, allow me to address the question of a priest’s obedience to his bishop, as this will have a bearing on what follows. On the day of my ordination I swore obedience to my bishop and his successor. I did not swear moral cowardice for fear of canonical reprisal. My oath of obedience to my bishop is in full force and effect in all matters of faith, morals, and discipline. While a priest must presume good judgment on the part of his superiors, and ordinarily follow their lead, he is in no way obliged to subscribe to prudential judgments of his superiors when these significantly depart from good faith and morals in serious matters. This is certainly the consensus of the great Catholic theologians, such as St. Thomas Aquinas, who are in harmony with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Thus, when a subordinate becomes aware through solid evidence that danger to faith and harm to souls, not to mention bodily violation, has actively and systematically occurred, and will continue to occur in the absence of disciplinary sanctions, he must take moral action against the perpetrators, even at the displeasure of superiors. St. Thomas Aquinas goes so far as to say, “It must be observed that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly” (Summa Theologiae II, II, q.33, a.4, ad 2).
The priests of the Society of St. John are engaged in a wholesale attack on the sacred priesthood through the abuse of the spiritual office and through deceit and cover-up. Gravely aggravating this situation, they are abusing and debasing the relationship of the priesthood to the episcopacy by deliberately using episcopal protection to hide their misconduct, to deflect criticism, and to promote their nefarious cause to an unsuspecting Catholic public. Their priestly obedience is a pseudo-obedience.
Similarly and deceitfully, the Society has used the issue of liturgical reform to defraud donors by refusing to state publicly their liturgical intentions. The Society has also used the liturgy to shield themselves from those exposing the Society’s financial and sexual immorality. That is, those who find fault with the Society—whatever the issue—are regularly portrayed simply as opponents of the Society’s liturgical practices.
I believe with moral certitude that the Society of St. John is a cult of homosexual predators and their accomplices. They justify, or rather rationalize, perversion by recourse to a theory of male intimacy based in part on a specious criticism of puritanical attitudes. They foster among youth puerile fantasies of male camaraderie. And they use alcohol and tobacco to break down the resistance of victims. Friends of the Society and some parents of boys who have been closely associated with the Society are utterly fooled by the charm of these predators, and refuse to address themselves to the specific warning signs and evidence of Society malfeasance. Moreover, many of them wield the slogan of “innocent until proven guilty” with appalling ignorance of the standards of evidence that justify moral action. I will address this issue at the end of my statement.
But suffice it to say here, even in the civil order a suspect of a serious crime may be legitimately incarcerated on serious evidence before his trial.
I joined the Society of St. John in September 1999 as a deacon. I was then ordained to the priesthood in June 2001 by Bishop James C. Timlin, Diocese of Scranton, Pa., for service in the Society of St. John. The Society, it must be said, is presently nothing more, canonically speaking, than an association of Scranton diocesan priests. In August of 2001, I submitted my resignation to the Superior General of the Society of St. John, Rev. Carlos Urrutigoity, which was later recognized by Bishop Timlin. I remain a priest of the Diocese of Scranton with episcopal permission to pursue an educational apostolate.
Such a brief period of time between my ordination and resignation from the Society is, of course, on its surface curious and due an explanation. The immediate reasons for my resignation were: (1) I came to the conclusion that the Society was engaged in a land development scheme that was both infeasible and quite possibly fraudulent; (2) I had observed that the Society had reduced itself to a debt service and telemarketing corporation; and (3) I was convinced that the Society was unethically using the College of St. Justin Martyr to raise money for itself with no intention of supporting the College. But that is not all. In July 2001, Rev. Carlos Urrutigoity made a wholesale attack on my character and integrity to my collaborator on the college project, Dr. Jeffrey Bond. What occasioned the attack was my disclosure to others in the Society my opinion of the development scheme.
Furthermore, I had my private doubts about Rev. Urrutigoity’s dealings with youth. During my tenure with the Society of St. John, I slowly began to take notice of the gatherings of young men hosted by Rev. Urrutigoity. Many of these young men were St. Gregory’s Academy graduates. These gatherings would sometimes involve evenings of heavy drinking and a number of young men sleeping in Rev. Urrutigoity’s private chambers along with Rev. Urrutigoity. I did not suspect homosexual activity but considered the activity to be rather irresponsible and recklessly imprudent, especially given the times and the publicity over cases of priestly sexual misconduct. Moreover, I thought, should such activity become known to the public it could destroy everything and everyone associated with the Society, including many donors and families, in a maelstrom of scandal. Let it be said right away that such a willful departure from sound judgment by Rev. Urrutigoity, as head of a clerical association and a project involving millions of dollars, itself constitutes gross immorality.
Why, at the time, did I not think there was homosexual activity and victimization of youth, which I now believe was Rev. Urrutigoity’s purpose in arranging the sleep-ins with young men? And why, nevertheless, did I not attempt, at the time, to correct a potentially scandalous situation, as I did believe the situation to be. To the first question I answer that I just did not, and could not believe, that Rev. Urrutigoity was a homosexual, which I now know with moral certitude. I also knew that Rev. Urrutigoity’s nocturnal dealings with male youth—the camping out in Rev. Urrutigoity’s room—was widely known, even to adult women associates of the Society, like Mary Schwerdt. How could it be then that Rev. Urrutigoity was a homosexual preying upon youth? This was my thought.
But why did I not try at least to correct the situation, that is, confront the Society and Rev. Urrutigoity with the possibility of scandal resulting from the young men sleeping in Rev. Urrutigoity’s room with him. Simply put, and without excuse: fear of losing my ordination, after all the years spent wading through the morass and corruption of post-conciliar formation. Was I right? No.
The time came, though, to leave the Society of St. John with all haste for the reasons I mentioned above, but most decisively, after I was informed on August 22, 2001 by Mr. Alan Hicks and Mr. Howard Clark, Headmaster and Assistant Headmaster respectively of St. Gregory’s Academy, that Rev. Urrutigoity had in fact slept one-on-one in the same bed with a dorm father of the Academy, and was reputed to have slept with other youth of the Academy. Mr. Hicks added that he considered Rev. Urrutigoity to be a pervert.
The scales fell from my eyes, as I knew Rev. Urrutigoity had slept with groups of young men in one of the houses of the Society’s Shohola, Pa., property. The marks of homosexuality in the case of Rev. Urrutigoity became morally evident to me, even if I was not aware at that time of certain specific sexual violations by Rev. Urrutigoity. Such occasional dealings with young men by Rev. Urrutigoity, of which I was aware, constituted, in no uncertain terms, grounds for immediate suspension of Rev. Urrutigoity pending an investigation. Mr. Hicks also informed me that Rev. Paul Carr, District Superior of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, had brought the problem of Rev. Urrutigoity’s dealings with youth to the attention of Bishop Timlin. Rev. Carr later referred to this problem as the “sleeping sickness.”
I resolved, therefore, to go and see the Bishops of Scranton in order to submit my resignation from the Society and to plead with them to do something about the Society and Rev. Urrutigoity in particular.
On August 28, 2001, I had a first meeting with Bishop John M. Dougherty, auxiliary of the Diocese of Scranton. I received a sympathetic ear and even admission on his part that there were things seriously wrong with the Society of St. John. He told me that Bishop Timlin had let the Society know that he did not want them hosting youth gatherings on the Shohola property anymore. He advised me to see Bishop Timlin right away. On August 31, I met with Bishop Timlin. It was a very depressing affair. I told the Bishop that I wanted to resign from the Society and why. The Bishop was defensive about the issue regarding Rev. Urrutigoity’s sleeping with young men. According to the Bishop, it was all taken care of and there had been nothing immoral going on. I explained the financial improprieties of the Society, the improper use of the College of St. Justin Martyr, the lack of support of the College, and why the College had to separate itself from the Society due to the dubious, and known, behavior of the Society’s Superior General with boys. The Bishop was indifferent and said that under the circumstances “the College may have to go.” I was utterly stunned. I informed Dr. Jeffrey Bond of the dismal outcome of my meeting with Bishop Timlin.
Under the direction of Dr. Jeffrey Bond, the College of St. Justin Martyr, an independent corporation distinct from the Society of St. John, took steps to protect itself and its reputation by dissociating itself from the Society and purging any and all connection with it. On September 10, 2001, the College Board of Directors met to remove Deacon Joseph Levine of the Society from the Board. I abstained from the meeting, even though I was a Board member. Bishop Timlin intervened with a phone call to Dr. Jeffrey Bond. The Bishop claimed that the College did not have the legal right to do what it was about to do, and that, among other things, Rev. Urrutigoity had done nothing immoral. Dr. Bond rightly objected. However, after the phone call I was able to convince the College Board to suspend the deposition of Deacon Levine and to present our full case to Bishop Timlin.
The subsequent meetings of Dr. Jeffrey Bond and myself with the Bishops of Scranton ending in early October of 2001 are a matter of record, as the College has kept detailed minutes of those meetings.
I shall summarize the proceedings of those meetings. Both Bishops recognized that the Society of St. John had made a mess of things and admitted that they, the Bishops, had to answer for a group of men who were nothing more than diocesan clerics, viz., the Society. Dr. Bond and I maintained the point that we had to separate from the Society because of their financial misconduct and immoral behavior with young men. Bishop Dougherty was especially critical of the Society on all fronts, including what he called euphemistically the “dorming problem,” i.e., Rev. Urrutigoity ’s penchant for sleeping with young men. Bishop Timlin wanted everything to be kept quiet. At one meeting Bishop Timlin announced that the College could go its own way in the Diocese. But Bishop Dougherty strongly objected to such a separation from the Society, and Bishop Timlin relented. Bishop Dougherty said to Dr. Bond and me (but not in the presence of Bishop Timlin) that Rev. Urrutigoity was capable of pederasty at any time, and Rev. Urrutigoity wouldn’t even know he had done it.
After this course of meetings, I called Bishop Dougherty to find out if the Diocese was going to take the strong action against the Society that he over and over again said was needed. I informed Bishop Dougherty that two boys were working for Rev. Urrutigoity in his Shohola residence. I also informed Bishop Dougherty that another young man had spoken to Dr. Bond telling him that he too had slept with Rev. Urrutigoity, but claimed nothing sexual had happened. Bishop Dougherty then said to me that the technical term for Rev. Urrutigoity’s behavior was “grooming,” i.e., the preparation of a victim for a future sexual encounter. I then asked Bishop Dougherty if the Diocese was going to take action. He indicated that there were complex financial considerations involved with respect to the Society. Thus I made bold and asked Bishop Dougherty if Bishop Timlin were being held hostage by the Society’s large debt. Without hesitation or equivocation, Bishop Dougherty answered, “Yes.” I was again stunned.
In a final meeting with Bishop Timlin alone, after the above phone conversation with Bishop Dougherty, the issue of Rev. Urrutigoity’s conduct with young men came up again. Bishop Timlin refused to label Rev. Urrutigoity’s conduct as immoral, but only “perhaps imprudent.” Finally, Bishop Timlin insisted that we, Dr. Bond and I, go back to the Society of St. John and ask their permission to establish the College of St. Justin Martyr independently of the Society in the Diocese of Scranton. The situation, however, clearly required adjudication by Bishop Timlin, considering the canonical status of the Society, and given the Society’s amply attested wrongdoing, not to mention the fact that the College was an independent civil corporation. The idea, then, of going back to the Society to get their permission was preposterous. However, we honored the Bishop’s wishes, hoping against hope for peaceful co-existence with the Society in the Diocese, providing the Bishop took the necessary disciplinary measures to protect souls. Needless to say, the Society obstructed the College’s path to canonical establishment in the Diocese of Scranton, and Bishop Timlin subsequently supported them. This collusion did grievous harm to the legitimate business and work of the College, and was entirely gratuitous inasmuch as the College had merely reported to the Diocese the scandalous misconduct of Rev. Urrutigoity and the Society.
It was evident to Dr. Bond and me that a wholesale cover-up was under way by the Society of St. John and the Diocese of Scranton, and that this cover-up would render serious harm to both donors and targets of clerical sexual abuse. As such, Dr. Bond and I agreed that the College had to take a back seat to our moral responsibility of investigating and exposing the Society.
By November 2001, we learned that there was a past case of a young man who had accused Rev. Urrutigoity of molesting him. Others had admitted to sleeping one-on-one with him, and that sleeping with Rev. Urrutigoity was part of his method of giving spiritual direction. The allegation of molestation, which was known to the Diocese of Scranton, was never disclosed in the meetings between the Bishops of Scranton and Dr. Bond and myself. Subsequent investigation by Dr. Bond unveiled further sexual improprieties, including the molestation of another boy by Rev. Urrutigoity and Rev. Eric Ensey, Chancellor of the Society of St. John. Both Dr. Bond and I were acquainted with this young man. In addition, we received a report from a former seminary vice-rector, and others, that Rev. Marshall Roberts had been dismissed from the seminary for making unwanted sexual advances toward a fellow seminarian. The full results of our investigation of the Society of St. John to date have been well documented and can be found on the College of St. Justin Martyr website (www.SaintJustinMartyr.org).
As a result of the investigation and its substantial evidence, I have moral certitude, to reiterate, that the Society of St. John contains members who are homosexual predators, and that the Society has lied to and defrauded donors.
Furthermore, in order to obstruct justice the Society has engaged in electronic crime by destroying College website material pertaining to the case against them and by re-routing e-mails of the College. I have had conversations with donors who have reported to me the efforts of the Society to cover up their misconduct. And I also have knowledge of the efforts of the Society and the Diocese of Scranton to render harm to Dr. Jeffrey Bond and the College of St. Justin Martyr. I am presently cooperating in a criminal investigation of the Society of St. John, and I am a material witness in lawsuits that have been and will be filed against the Society and the Diocese. While I most certainly deplore and regret the need for legal action, one can understand the action of those who can show that their rights were violated and trampled under foot.
Accordingly, in my March 18, 2001 letter to Bishop Timlin, I have asked the Bishop and the Diocese of Scranton to respect my canonical and civil rights in the exercise of my moral and civil duties. I felt it necessary to keep it present to mind for all involved that civil and criminal proceedings could issue forth due to pressuring, intimidating, and otherwise tampering with or influencing a witness.
It is also utterly astonishing to me that the Diocese of Scranton would wish to ally itself to a group of clerics, viz., the Society of St. John, which has done nothing for the Diocese but repeatedly expose and subject it to financial entanglements and huge liability from irresponsible real estate dealings, sexual misconduct, and lawsuits, all in the span of two years! I am even more astonished, if that is possible, that the Diocese would wish to harm a civil corporation, viz., the College of St. Justin Martyr, for reporting clerical misconduct—a corporation, moreover, that has not preyed upon youth, is under no criminal investigation, and has not violated any Church law or episcopal mandate.
Finally, I should like to address briefly two points that have occasionally arisen in the context of the above affair and that have been the source of some confusion.
First, there is the question of the slogan, “innocent until proven guilty” to which I alluded above. As I mentioned, even in the civil order, a suspect of a serious crime is often put in jail even before he is brought to trial. Moreover, the threshold for moral certitude, moral proof as it were, and moral action is evidence based on first hand knowledge or credible convergent testimonies, especially when the latter are independent of each other and evince a widespread pattern of misconduct. Without question the threshold of moral certitude has been met in regard to the sexual predators of the Society of St. John and the efforts on the part of other members of the Society to cover up the grave misconduct and immorality.
Let me provide a concrete example of how proper moral principles ought to be applied. The Diocese of Scranton, on the basis of one past accusation of molestation against Rev. Urrutigoity, decided that the testimony was “inconclusive,” since Rev. Urrutigoity denied any wrongdoing and no further background checks were made. This might have been a possible reaction (not excusing the failure to do background checks) to the testimony in isolation, though St. Gregory’s Academy should have been warned as Rev. Urrutigoity was functioning as a chaplain there. However, that reaction by the Diocese—deciding the matter to be “inconclusive”—is no longer possible or valid in light of the abundance of additional information and corroborating testimony and allegations, including a second charge of molestation, against Rev. Urrutigoity. Charges and testimonies of homosexual activity have followed Rev. Urrutigoity from Argentina, to Winona, to St. Gregory’s Academy, and finally to Shohola. In sum, it should be morally clear to the Diocese, and others, that Rev. Urrutigoity is a sexual predator, and that other Society members are accomplices by dint of either culpable ignorance or not reporting the truth.
Second, there is the unease that traditional Catholics feel about the involvement in the Society debacle of a bishop who has been good to them, not to mention the involvement of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter and St. Gregory’s Academy. I most certainly share the unease—but not to the point of moral paralysis. The world is full of corruption and unspeakable crimes. The heinous crime of abortion is everywhere taking place. Who can hope to stop any of it? However, I am morally obliged to act and to stop the crime that is in front of me, a crime involving spiritual murder and one that I can reasonably expect to stop, even though at considerable risk to myself and, as it were, to my career. The use of the traditional liturgy is a great good indeed, but it is no good at all to virtue or to the salvation of one’s soul if having it means turning away from the revolting systematic abuse of a spiritual office for sexual ends. The Society of St. John is up to its eyeteeth in that abuse, and as such is mounting a direct assault on the priesthood of God itself. No genuine traditionalist would say: “We need the traditional Mass, don’t anger the bishop—so what if some boys get abused, as long as it is not my son!” Wherever gross negligence lies in this regard, it must be brought to justice. The Church of Christ, namely, the holy Catholic Church, and the traditional movement will be better for it. Speculum Iustitiae, ora pro nobis.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Rev. Richard A. Munkelt, Ph.D.
PO Box 154
Greeley, PA 18425
(570) 685-8868
rmunkelt@ltis.net
Return to Directory Page
Enlarge Text on This Page
STATEMENT BY REV. RICHARD A. MUNKELT ON THE SSJ SCANDAL
March 28, 2002
The scandal brought about by the Society of St. John and the official protection of the Society, which has sown confusion and has only guaranteed that serious harm to others will continue, has imposed on me, a priest and former member of the Society, the grave moral obligation of making this statement, setting forth what I believe to be the truth of the matter. I do so to help those who are, or will be, victims of the Society, to clear my name of any doubt or suspicion stemming from my, until now, public silence, and to defend the Catholic priesthood in a time of crisis. This is my moral duty in charity.
But before I recount the facts of my relation to the Society of St. John affair, allow me to address the question of a priest’s obedience to his bishop, as this will have a bearing on what follows. On the day of my ordination I swore obedience to my bishop and his successor. I did not swear moral cowardice for fear of canonical reprisal. My oath of obedience to my bishop is in full force and effect in all matters of faith, morals, and discipline. While a priest must presume good judgment on the part of his superiors, and ordinarily follow their lead, he is in no way obliged to subscribe to prudential judgments of his superiors when these significantly depart from good faith and morals in serious matters. This is certainly the consensus of the great Catholic theologians, such as St. Thomas Aquinas, who are in harmony with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Thus, when a subordinate becomes aware through solid evidence that danger to faith and harm to souls, not to mention bodily violation, has actively and systematically occurred, and will continue to occur in the absence of disciplinary sanctions, he must take moral action against the perpetrators, even at the displeasure of superiors. St. Thomas Aquinas goes so far as to say, “It must be observed that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly” (Summa Theologiae II, II, q.33, a.4, ad 2).
The priests of the Society of St. John are engaged in a wholesale attack on the sacred priesthood through the abuse of the spiritual office and through deceit and cover-up. Gravely aggravating this situation, they are abusing and debasing the relationship of the priesthood to the episcopacy by deliberately using episcopal protection to hide their misconduct, to deflect criticism, and to promote their nefarious cause to an unsuspecting Catholic public. Their priestly obedience is a pseudo-obedience.
Similarly and deceitfully, the Society has used the issue of liturgical reform to defraud donors by refusing to state publicly their liturgical intentions. The Society has also used the liturgy to shield themselves from those exposing the Society’s financial and sexual immorality. That is, those who find fault with the Society—whatever the issue—are regularly portrayed simply as opponents of the Society’s liturgical practices.
I believe with moral certitude that the Society of St. John is a cult of homosexual predators and their accomplices. They justify, or rather rationalize, perversion by recourse to a theory of male intimacy based in part on a specious criticism of puritanical attitudes. They foster among youth puerile fantasies of male camaraderie. And they use alcohol and tobacco to break down the resistance of victims. Friends of the Society and some parents of boys who have been closely associated with the Society are utterly fooled by the charm of these predators, and refuse to address themselves to the specific warning signs and evidence of Society malfeasance. Moreover, many of them wield the slogan of “innocent until proven guilty” with appalling ignorance of the standards of evidence that justify moral action. I will address this issue at the end of my statement.
But suffice it to say here, even in the civil order a suspect of a serious crime may be legitimately incarcerated on serious evidence before his trial.
I joined the Society of St. John in September 1999 as a deacon. I was then ordained to the priesthood in June 2001 by Bishop James C. Timlin, Diocese of Scranton, Pa., for service in the Society of St. John. The Society, it must be said, is presently nothing more, canonically speaking, than an association of Scranton diocesan priests. In August of 2001, I submitted my resignation to the Superior General of the Society of St. John, Rev. Carlos Urrutigoity, which was later recognized by Bishop Timlin. I remain a priest of the Diocese of Scranton with episcopal permission to pursue an educational apostolate.
Such a brief period of time between my ordination and resignation from the Society is, of course, on its surface curious and due an explanation. The immediate reasons for my resignation were: (1) I came to the conclusion that the Society was engaged in a land development scheme that was both infeasible and quite possibly fraudulent; (2) I had observed that the Society had reduced itself to a debt service and telemarketing corporation; and (3) I was convinced that the Society was unethically using the College of St. Justin Martyr to raise money for itself with no intention of supporting the College. But that is not all. In July 2001, Rev. Carlos Urrutigoity made a wholesale attack on my character and integrity to my collaborator on the college project, Dr. Jeffrey Bond. What occasioned the attack was my disclosure to others in the Society my opinion of the development scheme.
Furthermore, I had my private doubts about Rev. Urrutigoity’s dealings with youth. During my tenure with the Society of St. John, I slowly began to take notice of the gatherings of young men hosted by Rev. Urrutigoity. Many of these young men were St. Gregory’s Academy graduates. These gatherings would sometimes involve evenings of heavy drinking and a number of young men sleeping in Rev. Urrutigoity’s private chambers along with Rev. Urrutigoity. I did not suspect homosexual activity but considered the activity to be rather irresponsible and recklessly imprudent, especially given the times and the publicity over cases of priestly sexual misconduct. Moreover, I thought, should such activity become known to the public it could destroy everything and everyone associated with the Society, including many donors and families, in a maelstrom of scandal. Let it be said right away that such a willful departure from sound judgment by Rev. Urrutigoity, as head of a clerical association and a project involving millions of dollars, itself constitutes gross immorality.
Why, at the time, did I not think there was homosexual activity and victimization of youth, which I now believe was Rev. Urrutigoity’s purpose in arranging the sleep-ins with young men? And why, nevertheless, did I not attempt, at the time, to correct a potentially scandalous situation, as I did believe the situation to be. To the first question I answer that I just did not, and could not believe, that Rev. Urrutigoity was a homosexual, which I now know with moral certitude. I also knew that Rev. Urrutigoity’s nocturnal dealings with male youth—the camping out in Rev. Urrutigoity’s room—was widely known, even to adult women associates of the Society, like Mary Schwerdt. How could it be then that Rev. Urrutigoity was a homosexual preying upon youth? This was my thought.
But why did I not try at least to correct the situation, that is, confront the Society and Rev. Urrutigoity with the possibility of scandal resulting from the young men sleeping in Rev. Urrutigoity’s room with him. Simply put, and without excuse: fear of losing my ordination, after all the years spent wading through the morass and corruption of post-conciliar formation. Was I right? No.
The time came, though, to leave the Society of St. John with all haste for the reasons I mentioned above, but most decisively, after I was informed on August 22, 2001 by Mr. Alan Hicks and Mr. Howard Clark, Headmaster and Assistant Headmaster respectively of St. Gregory’s Academy, that Rev. Urrutigoity had in fact slept one-on-one in the same bed with a dorm father of the Academy, and was reputed to have slept with other youth of the Academy. Mr. Hicks added that he considered Rev. Urrutigoity to be a pervert.
The scales fell from my eyes, as I knew Rev. Urrutigoity had slept with groups of young men in one of the houses of the Society’s Shohola, Pa., property. The marks of homosexuality in the case of Rev. Urrutigoity became morally evident to me, even if I was not aware at that time of certain specific sexual violations by Rev. Urrutigoity. Such occasional dealings with young men by Rev. Urrutigoity, of which I was aware, constituted, in no uncertain terms, grounds for immediate suspension of Rev. Urrutigoity pending an investigation. Mr. Hicks also informed me that Rev. Paul Carr, District Superior of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, had brought the problem of Rev. Urrutigoity’s dealings with youth to the attention of Bishop Timlin. Rev. Carr later referred to this problem as the “sleeping sickness.”
I resolved, therefore, to go and see the Bishops of Scranton in order to submit my resignation from the Society and to plead with them to do something about the Society and Rev. Urrutigoity in particular.
On August 28, 2001, I had a first meeting with Bishop John M. Dougherty, auxiliary of the Diocese of Scranton. I received a sympathetic ear and even admission on his part that there were things seriously wrong with the Society of St. John. He told me that Bishop Timlin had let the Society know that he did not want them hosting youth gatherings on the Shohola property anymore. He advised me to see Bishop Timlin right away. On August 31, I met with Bishop Timlin. It was a very depressing affair. I told the Bishop that I wanted to resign from the Society and why. The Bishop was defensive about the issue regarding Rev. Urrutigoity’s sleeping with young men. According to the Bishop, it was all taken care of and there had been nothing immoral going on. I explained the financial improprieties of the Society, the improper use of the College of St. Justin Martyr, the lack of support of the College, and why the College had to separate itself from the Society due to the dubious, and known, behavior of the Society’s Superior General with boys. The Bishop was indifferent and said that under the circumstances “the College may have to go.” I was utterly stunned. I informed Dr. Jeffrey Bond of the dismal outcome of my meeting with Bishop Timlin.
Under the direction of Dr. Jeffrey Bond, the College of St. Justin Martyr, an independent corporation distinct from the Society of St. John, took steps to protect itself and its reputation by dissociating itself from the Society and purging any and all connection with it. On September 10, 2001, the College Board of Directors met to remove Deacon Joseph Levine of the Society from the Board. I abstained from the meeting, even though I was a Board member. Bishop Timlin intervened with a phone call to Dr. Jeffrey Bond. The Bishop claimed that the College did not have the legal right to do what it was about to do, and that, among other things, Rev. Urrutigoity had done nothing immoral. Dr. Bond rightly objected. However, after the phone call I was able to convince the College Board to suspend the deposition of Deacon Levine and to present our full case to Bishop Timlin.
The subsequent meetings of Dr. Jeffrey Bond and myself with the Bishops of Scranton ending in early October of 2001 are a matter of record, as the College has kept detailed minutes of those meetings.
I shall summarize the proceedings of those meetings. Both Bishops recognized that the Society of St. John had made a mess of things and admitted that they, the Bishops, had to answer for a group of men who were nothing more than diocesan clerics, viz., the Society. Dr. Bond and I maintained the point that we had to separate from the Society because of their financial misconduct and immoral behavior with young men. Bishop Dougherty was especially critical of the Society on all fronts, including what he called euphemistically the “dorming problem,” i.e., Rev. Urrutigoity ’s penchant for sleeping with young men. Bishop Timlin wanted everything to be kept quiet. At one meeting Bishop Timlin announced that the College could go its own way in the Diocese. But Bishop Dougherty strongly objected to such a separation from the Society, and Bishop Timlin relented. Bishop Dougherty said to Dr. Bond and me (but not in the presence of Bishop Timlin) that Rev. Urrutigoity was capable of pederasty at any time, and Rev. Urrutigoity wouldn’t even know he had done it.
After this course of meetings, I called Bishop Dougherty to find out if the Diocese was going to take the strong action against the Society that he over and over again said was needed. I informed Bishop Dougherty that two boys were working for Rev. Urrutigoity in his Shohola residence. I also informed Bishop Dougherty that another young man had spoken to Dr. Bond telling him that he too had slept with Rev. Urrutigoity, but claimed nothing sexual had happened. Bishop Dougherty then said to me that the technical term for Rev. Urrutigoity’s behavior was “grooming,” i.e., the preparation of a victim for a future sexual encounter. I then asked Bishop Dougherty if the Diocese was going to take action. He indicated that there were complex financial considerations involved with respect to the Society. Thus I made bold and asked Bishop Dougherty if Bishop Timlin were being held hostage by the Society’s large debt. Without hesitation or equivocation, Bishop Dougherty answered, “Yes.” I was again stunned.
In a final meeting with Bishop Timlin alone, after the above phone conversation with Bishop Dougherty, the issue of Rev. Urrutigoity’s conduct with young men came up again. Bishop Timlin refused to label Rev. Urrutigoity’s conduct as immoral, but only “perhaps imprudent.” Finally, Bishop Timlin insisted that we, Dr. Bond and I, go back to the Society of St. John and ask their permission to establish the College of St. Justin Martyr independently of the Society in the Diocese of Scranton. The situation, however, clearly required adjudication by Bishop Timlin, considering the canonical status of the Society, and given the Society’s amply attested wrongdoing, not to mention the fact that the College was an independent civil corporation. The idea, then, of going back to the Society to get their permission was preposterous. However, we honored the Bishop’s wishes, hoping against hope for peaceful co-existence with the Society in the Diocese, providing the Bishop took the necessary disciplinary measures to protect souls. Needless to say, the Society obstructed the College’s path to canonical establishment in the Diocese of Scranton, and Bishop Timlin subsequently supported them. This collusion did grievous harm to the legitimate business and work of the College, and was entirely gratuitous inasmuch as the College had merely reported to the Diocese the scandalous misconduct of Rev. Urrutigoity and the Society.
It was evident to Dr. Bond and me that a wholesale cover-up was under way by the Society of St. John and the Diocese of Scranton, and that this cover-up would render serious harm to both donors and targets of clerical sexual abuse. As such, Dr. Bond and I agreed that the College had to take a back seat to our moral responsibility of investigating and exposing the Society.
By November 2001, we learned that there was a past case of a young man who had accused Rev. Urrutigoity of molesting him. Others had admitted to sleeping one-on-one with him, and that sleeping with Rev. Urrutigoity was part of his method of giving spiritual direction. The allegation of molestation, which was known to the Diocese of Scranton, was never disclosed in the meetings between the Bishops of Scranton and Dr. Bond and myself. Subsequent investigation by Dr. Bond unveiled further sexual improprieties, including the molestation of another boy by Rev. Urrutigoity and Rev. Eric Ensey, Chancellor of the Society of St. John. Both Dr. Bond and I were acquainted with this young man. In addition, we received a report from a former seminary vice-rector, and others, that Rev. Marshall Roberts had been dismissed from the seminary for making unwanted sexual advances toward a fellow seminarian. The full results of our investigation of the Society of St. John to date have been well documented and can be found on the College of St. Justin Martyr website (www.SaintJustinMartyr.org).
As a result of the investigation and its substantial evidence, I have moral certitude, to reiterate, that the Society of St. John contains members who are homosexual predators, and that the Society has lied to and defrauded donors.
Furthermore, in order to obstruct justice the Society has engaged in electronic crime by destroying College website material pertaining to the case against them and by re-routing e-mails of the College. I have had conversations with donors who have reported to me the efforts of the Society to cover up their misconduct. And I also have knowledge of the efforts of the Society and the Diocese of Scranton to render harm to Dr. Jeffrey Bond and the College of St. Justin Martyr. I am presently cooperating in a criminal investigation of the Society of St. John, and I am a material witness in lawsuits that have been and will be filed against the Society and the Diocese. While I most certainly deplore and regret the need for legal action, one can understand the action of those who can show that their rights were violated and trampled under foot.
Accordingly, in my March 18, 2001 letter to Bishop Timlin, I have asked the Bishop and the Diocese of Scranton to respect my canonical and civil rights in the exercise of my moral and civil duties. I felt it necessary to keep it present to mind for all involved that civil and criminal proceedings could issue forth due to pressuring, intimidating, and otherwise tampering with or influencing a witness.
It is also utterly astonishing to me that the Diocese of Scranton would wish to ally itself to a group of clerics, viz., the Society of St. John, which has done nothing for the Diocese but repeatedly expose and subject it to financial entanglements and huge liability from irresponsible real estate dealings, sexual misconduct, and lawsuits, all in the span of two years! I am even more astonished, if that is possible, that the Diocese would wish to harm a civil corporation, viz., the College of St. Justin Martyr, for reporting clerical misconduct—a corporation, moreover, that has not preyed upon youth, is under no criminal investigation, and has not violated any Church law or episcopal mandate.
Finally, I should like to address briefly two points that have occasionally arisen in the context of the above affair and that have been the source of some confusion.
First, there is the question of the slogan, “innocent until proven guilty” to which I alluded above. As I mentioned, even in the civil order, a suspect of a serious crime is often put in jail even before he is brought to trial. Moreover, the threshold for moral certitude, moral proof as it were, and moral action is evidence based on first hand knowledge or credible convergent testimonies, especially when the latter are independent of each other and evince a widespread pattern of misconduct. Without question the threshold of moral certitude has been met in regard to the sexual predators of the Society of St. John and the efforts on the part of other members of the Society to cover up the grave misconduct and immorality.
Let me provide a concrete example of how proper moral principles ought to be applied. The Diocese of Scranton, on the basis of one past accusation of molestation against Rev. Urrutigoity, decided that the testimony was “inconclusive,” since Rev. Urrutigoity denied any wrongdoing and no further background checks were made. This might have been a possible reaction (not excusing the failure to do background checks) to the testimony in isolation, though St. Gregory’s Academy should have been warned as Rev. Urrutigoity was functioning as a chaplain there. However, that reaction by the Diocese—deciding the matter to be “inconclusive”—is no longer possible or valid in light of the abundance of additional information and corroborating testimony and allegations, including a second charge of molestation, against Rev. Urrutigoity. Charges and testimonies of homosexual activity have followed Rev. Urrutigoity from Argentina, to Winona, to St. Gregory’s Academy, and finally to Shohola. In sum, it should be morally clear to the Diocese, and others, that Rev. Urrutigoity is a sexual predator, and that other Society members are accomplices by dint of either culpable ignorance or not reporting the truth.
Second, there is the unease that traditional Catholics feel about the involvement in the Society debacle of a bishop who has been good to them, not to mention the involvement of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter and St. Gregory’s Academy. I most certainly share the unease—but not to the point of moral paralysis. The world is full of corruption and unspeakable crimes. The heinous crime of abortion is everywhere taking place. Who can hope to stop any of it? However, I am morally obliged to act and to stop the crime that is in front of me, a crime involving spiritual murder and one that I can reasonably expect to stop, even though at considerable risk to myself and, as it were, to my career. The use of the traditional liturgy is a great good indeed, but it is no good at all to virtue or to the salvation of one’s soul if having it means turning away from the revolting systematic abuse of a spiritual office for sexual ends. The Society of St. John is up to its eyeteeth in that abuse, and as such is mounting a direct assault on the priesthood of God itself. No genuine traditionalist would say: “We need the traditional Mass, don’t anger the bishop—so what if some boys get abused, as long as it is not my son!” Wherever gross negligence lies in this regard, it must be brought to justice. The Church of Christ, namely, the holy Catholic Church, and the traditional movement will be better for it. Speculum Iustitiae, ora pro nobis.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Rev. Richard A. Munkelt, Ph.D.
PO Box 154
Greeley, PA 18425
(570) 685-8868
rmunkelt@ltis.net
Return to Directory Page
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.