Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X, certainly did his due diligence to warn “Bishop” James Clifford Timlin of the Diocese of Scranton about Father Urrutigoity’s ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ behavior. He is to be commended for this. By that time, however, the behavior, which was not the reason for his expulsion from the Society, could not be denied.

Dougherty, then vicar general, learned of the allegations of bed-sharing and alcohol consumption on August 14 or 15, 2001, according to an unpublished article Timlin wrote in February 2002. Dougherty visited Shohola to meet with the accused on August 16. “The priest [Urrutigoity] admitted that such sleeping incidents did occur,” Timlin wrote, but he denied they were sɛҳuąƖ in nature. Society members also acknowledged that they had given alcohol to minors. But Urrutigoity maintained nothing immoral had taken place. So Timlin sent Urrutigoity to Fr. Benedict Groeschel, who holds a master’s in counseling and a doctor of education in psychology, for evaluation.

The nature of that evaluation remains murky. Bond had written to the apostolic nuncio about his concerns, and the nuncio promptly forwarded the letter to Timlin. The bishop replied, quoting part of Groeschel’s evaluation of Urrutigoity:

Carlos [Urrutigoity] is one of those people whose creative mind outstrips his common sense…. As regards the question of moral impropriety that some people have raised against him—I found no indication of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity in this report at all.

The report Groeschel mentioned is not available, nor is it explained. Also unclear is whether Urrutigoity and Groeschel were previously acquainted. In February 2000, Urrutigoity wrote to Timlin to ask whether the bishop would meet two priests and one brother he’d invited from Argentina who were “looking to establish their order,” Miles Christe, in the United States. “I am encouraging them to meet with the Rev. Frs. Groeschel, Hardon, and Fessio, so that they can benefit from their vast experience,” Urrutigoity wrote.

In the meantime, Timlin ordered SSJ members to stop sharing beds with young men and to stop giving them alcohol—“in the strongest possible terms”—he wrote to the nuncio. “The Independent Review Board…agreed that we were proceeding properly and prudently.”

Is there a point to this thread? Scandal is everywhere and always will be. We just have to hope that in societies with more people in the state of grace or at least striving for it, it happens less often. We have to beware of our motivations in dredging up dirty details. Morbid curiosity is a first step to our own paths turning this way. It's the same "knowledge of good AND evil temptation" all over again.

 

Your comment is lukewarm.  Are you a sodomist sympathizer?
The thread is to point out the ugly truth of sin that is being promoted and condoned.

Is there a point to this thread?

All readers who still fail to see the OP's motivation for this thread (i.e., to mislead and to slander via deceptive manipulation and coloration of the truth) should note that the first words offered in reply to this very reasonable question are insulting and defamatory. Note, too, that nowhere has the OP indicated the hostile media sources for the material he is quoting—and surely there can be no doubt that he is quoting secular news reports, since what are clearly his own few comments show him to be barely capable of constructing a sentence of the complexity of "See Spot run."

… Scandal is everywhere and always will be. … We have to beware of our motivations in dredging up dirty details. Morbid curiosity is a first step to our own path's turning this way.

"Dredging up" are les mots justes here. No one over the (maturational) age of fifteen who frequents this site is unaware of the circuмstances in which the wicked and deceitful Carlos Urrutigoity plays the lead role. What's more, no CI commenters have ever stepped forward in defense of this monster, have they? So as both wallflower and Matthew are asking, what precisely is going on here? (My own diagnosis is in the previous paragraph.) Think about this: can anyone doubt that if even more deplorable conduct than Urrutigoity's were brought to media attention and its perpetrator were Sultan Obama or Harlot Hillary, the media would spike it on the ground that it was "old news," as they routinely did with Bill Clinton's rapes and other crimes?

Carlos Urrutigoity is a monster. But any presentation of his crimes—such as the OP's—(1) that calls him a pedophile rather than a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, (2) that uses his crimes either to sideswipe or to frontally assault the True Faith and its ministers (whether present or former SSPX priests and bishops), and most risibly, (3) that would have readers believe that Frank the Humble is in every way an improvement on Benedict ought to receive a prima facie presumption of coming from a saboteur.

Quote from: Guest

Sodomy is taking over the Church.  

It is taking over the Conciliar church, not the Catholic Church.

There is only One Holy Catholic Church

Quote from: wallflower

Is there a point to this thread? Scandal is everywhere and always will be. We just have to hope that in societies with more people in the state of grace or at least striving for it, it happens less often. We have to beware of our motivations in dredging up dirty details. Morbid curiosity is a first step to our own paths turning this way. It's the same "knowledge of good AND evil temptation" all over again.

 

Your comment is lukewarm.  Are you a sodomist sympathizer?
The thread is to point out the ugly truth of sin that is being promoted and condoned.

I see no sin being condoned or promoted. I see someone who successfully deceived and ran under the radar for a while. Completely different story.

I also see someone, guest, who seems to be trying to hurt the SSPX by posting all and any inflammatory articles they can find. There is absolutely no context for this except to satisfy whatever weak motives you, and perhaps other guests, have. This may be a Resistance forum but for the wise, Resistance =/= anti-SSPX. It's not that simple.