“I want to assure everyone,” Bishop Rogelio Ricardo Livieres Plano wrote in 2008, “that I have never hidden or protected anyone convicted of any crime.” The bishop was attempting to quell the outcry of Catholics in Ciudad del Este, Paraguay, over his decision to invite an accused priest and his followers—the Society of St. John—to establish themselves in his diocese. “My track record in these cases is very clear,” Livieres continued. “Just as I have not hesitated to convict the guilty, neither will I punish an innocent victim of slander.” The victim, according to Livieres, was Fr. Carlos Urrutigoity, an Argentine native who has been followed by allegations of sɛҳuąƖ misconduct across three countries over three decades.

That troubling history, readily available to anyone with an internet connection, made it difficult for many Ciudad del Este Catholics to take their bishop at his word. So in 2009 they mounted a campaign against him, enlisting the support of other Paraguayan bishops and priests, who took the case to Pope Benedict XVI. But, unbeknownst to them, Livieres claimed to have the support of Benedict—in part because of their shared fondness for the Latin Mass. Livieres’s critics would not receive a satisfying response to their complaints until Benedict retired—and Pope Francis was elected.

Livieres was installed as bishop of Ciudad del Este in 2004. Before he even arrived, Livieres—a member of the conservative Catholic group Opus Dei—caused consternation among the bishops, priests, and laypeople of Paraguay. The bishops were surprised by John Paul II’s decision to appoint Livieres because his name was not on the terna—the list of three names recommended by the local bishops conference. Soon after Livieres took over in Ciudad del Este, more than one hundred fifty clerics wrote to Pope Benedict XVI to protest the bishop’s “renewal of church discipline” and “new pastoral guidelines,” as Livieres would later put it. But Benedict did not respond, according to an account Livieres wrote in 2014. Instead, Benedict told him to “form a new clergy,” according to the bishop. He took that advice, and established his own seminary. That failed to go over with other bishops, who wanted to know what was wrong with the main seminary in Asunción.

Livieres also clashed with his fellow bishops over the candidacy of former bishop Fernando Armindo Lugo Méndez, who ran for president of Paraguay in 2008—and won. Lugo had ties to the liberation-theology movement, which Livieres long opposed. But Livieres also criticized Lugo for fathering children before he left the episcopate—and his brother bishops for remaining “silent” about it. During a radio interview, the archbishop of Asunción, Pastor Cuquejo Verga, publicly called for the Vatican to investigate Livieres. In a follow-up interview, Livieres rebuffed Cuquejo’s suggestion, and called him a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ.

In August 2009, Crispin Angel Silva, the leader of a lay Catholic association in Ciudad del Este, complained to the local media about Livieres’s style of governance, his “misappropriation of funds,” his “unfair dismissal of priests,” and his decision to bring on Urrutigoity. Silva organized hundreds of Catholics to protest outside the bishop’s residence. They called for his resignation, and, with the help of a canon lawyer, sent their request to the Vatican. Reportedly three Paraguayan bishops flew to Rome to share their worries about Livieres’s governance with the Holy See. But nothing happened.

Emboldened by the apparent support from Rome, Livieres courted controversy in early 2014 by promoting Urrutigoity to vicar general—second in command of the Diocese of Ciudad del Este. The decision made international headlines, forcing the new bishop of Scranton, Pennsylvania, Joseph Bambera, to respond to a local paper’s report on Urrutigoity’s history in the diocese, where he was accused of fondling young men while they slept (he has denied the allegations under oath). The article claimed that Bishop Joseph Martino “allowed” Urrutigoity to transfer to Ciudad del Este. The Diocese of Scranton’s statement, issued March 15, noted that Martino strenuously objected to Livieres’s request to excardinate Urrutigoity, but failed to mention that Martino eventually said he would grant that request. Bambera brought his concerns about Urrutigoity’s promotion to the attention of Pope Francis, according to a spokesman for the diocese. “In so doing, Bishop Bambera’s participation in this matter ceased.” The bishop refused to comment further.

Meanwhile, the Catholics of Paraguay—bishops, priests, and laypeople—renewed their public protest of Livieres’s leadership. Again they took their case to the Holy See. But this time there was a different result.

On July 2, 2014, the Vatican announced that it would send investigators to the Diocese of Ciudad del Este. Before issuing their final report on the diocese, the investigators informed Livieres that he could no longer ordain anyone for the priesthood—a virtually unprecedented disciplinary act. Two months later, Pope Francis would remove Livieres.

Before the Vatican investigators arrived, Urrutigoity was relieved of his duties as vicar general. In an August 2014 interview, Urrutigoity claimed he was removed at the suggestion of the papal ambassador to Paraguay. (When asked whether he was a pedophile, he said that he was not. The interviewer did not ask whether he had fondled young men while they slept.)

Livieres replaced Urrutigoity with Fr. Dominic Carey, a Canadian whose affiliation with the SSJ dates back to the early 1990s, before the group was ousted from the Society of St. Pius X and settled in Scranton, Pennsylvania. He would go on to become the SSJ’s main fundraiser—that was one of the reasons Bishop Joseph Martino wanted to meet him. But Carey left for Paraguay without Martino’s permission. “I never laid eyes on him,” Martino testified in 2008.

Carey admitted that some SSJ priests shared their beds with boys, but claimed there was nothing sɛҳuąƖ about the practice, according to the 2002 affidavit of Diane Toler, a former supporter of the SSJ. “Father [Carey] said that this was Fr. Urrutigoity’s method of having the Society priests bond with boys,” she testified. (Under oath, Urrutigoity denied sharing beds with boys; the sworn testimony of several others disputed his claim.) Carey did not respond to a request for comment.

Livieres’s response to the Holy See’s inquiry shocked close observers of the Catholic Church. Usually when bishops are subject to Vatican scrutiny, they quietly allow the Vatican to do its work. Not Livieres. Almost as soon as the Holy See announced its investigation, he published a ten-page response—defending himself and Urrutigoity—on the homepage of the diocesan website. The docuмent, titled “Support to Bishop Livieres,” went into excruciating detail about the resistance Livieres encountered when he arrived in Ciudad del Este. In every dispute, Livieres is portrayed as taking the side of the angels. His critics come off as warped by unsavory ideologies such as liberation theology. Livieres even repeated his accusation that the archbishop of Ascuncion was gαy. Rarely has the Catholic Church seen such a brazen display of episcopal defiance.

Livieres’s 2014 defense of Urrutigoity looked much like the one he issued in 2008. He praised the priest’s ministerial gifts, denied that he had molested anyone, falsely stated that prosecutors didn’t bring charges because the accusations lacked merit, claimed Urrutigoity was the victim of a smear campaign aided by a scandal-mongering U.S. media, named the plaintiff in the John Doe case, and claimed that Urrutigoity came to Ciudad del Este on the recommendation of some cardinals in Rome—including Joseph Ratzinger, who would go on to be elected Pope Benedict XVI.

The docuмent rebutted the allegations of bed-sharing by producing heavily redacted copies of Urrutigoity’s psychological evaluations—the ones he refused to produce during the John Doe lawsuit. Those reports, according to Livieres, “confirmed” Urrutigoity’s heterosɛҳuąƖity. Only one sentence from the Southdown Institute report is visible in the copy posted to the Diocese of Ciudad del Este website: “The Abel Assessment of sɛҳuąƖ Interest suggests that he is heterosɛҳuąƖ and has no enduring interest in males.” The Abel Assessment has been widely criticized by mental-health experts as unreliable, and in several jurisdictions it is inadmissible in court. The defense brief continued: “These evaluations discarded any possibility of psychopathies or personality disorders.” In fact, the Southdown report classified Urrutigoity’s “problems…under the umbrella of personality disorders, principally antisocial and narcissistic,” according to the minutes of a March 21, 2002, meeting of the Diocese of Scranton’s Independent Review Board.

The brief ends with a dramatic flourish, recalling the “unfair trial and suppression of the Jesuit missionaries [to Paraguay] in the late eighteenth century,” depicted in the 1986 film The Mission. It compares the allegations against Livieres and Urrutigoity to those made against the Jesuit missionaries: “They were also accused by questionable ecclesiastics in league with powerful lobbies and politicians.” But, the docuмent concludes, “those who are betting that the story will be repeated in our diocese may be surprised to discover that now the bishop of Rome is heir to those Jesuits [Pope Francis is a Jesuit]…ready to write the story in a new way.” As the webpage loads, the score to The Mission plays automatically.

Despite that impressive effort, Vatican investigators were not persuaded. On September 25, 2014, the Holy See announced that Livieres was resigning. Strangely, the news release did not mention the canon law on which Livieres’s resignation was based. It simply explained that Livieres was being replaced “for the greater good and unity” of the diocese. Canon law is clear that a pope can appoint a bishop, but removing one is a different matter. That’s why, in the unusual event that a pope wants to get rid of a bishop, it is said that the bishop resigns his office. Reportedly Pope Francis had to ask several times before Livieres would give up his diocese. Last month, Pope Francis codified his ability to seek the resignations of bishops.

Soon after the Holy See revealed Livieres’s resignation, a spokesman claimed that the decision was mainly about Livieres’s management—especially his relations with other bishops—not sɛҳuąƖ-abuse allegations. But there’s no question that the Urrutigoity controversy was a precipitating event for the departure of Bishop Livieres.

He did not go quietly. Livieres called the decision to replace him “unfounded” and “arbitrary,” according to a September 25, 2014, letter he sent to Cardinal Marc Ouellet, prefect of the Congregation for Bishops. (The letter leaked to the press days after it was written.) “I had the blessing of being supported by St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI,” Livieres continued. “I understand that Pope Francis has decided to pull his support.” The pope, Livieres concluded, “will have to give an account [of his decision] to God.”

The Livieres case became something of a cause célèbre among conservative Catholics. The conservative Vatican-watcher Sandro Magister called the pope’s decision “outlandish”—because Francis is a Jesuit and Livieres is Opus Dei—and reproduced the entirety of Livieres’s defense brief. Edward Pentin of the National Catholic Register, another conservative outlet, reported the concerns of “many” that Francis deposed Livieres for “ideological reasons.” Yet even the traditionalist blog Rorate Caeli—which has repeatedly published speculation that Francis is harder on conservatives than he is on liberals—dismissed claims that Livieres was unjustly removed: “The bishop’s fall was indeed mostly of his own making.”

Livieres’s replacement, Heinz Wilhelm Steckling—born in Germany—was installed on December 21. Steckling previously served as superior general of his religious order, the Oblates of Mary Immaculate. He has served as a consultant for the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples and the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue.

Steckling is currently pictured on the Diocese of Ciudad del Este’s website. But the main story on the homepage remains “Support to Bishop Livieres.” Other vestiges of Livieres’s tenure remain on the site. For example, Fr. Dominic Carey is still listed as vicar general. After being asked by e-mail whether the diocese was aware that sworn testimony alleged that Carey had defended the practice of men sharing beds with boys, a spokesperson replied, “Let this be the last time that you address this Press Department in such a rude tone,” and suggested Carey was no longer the vicar general. “In case you didn’t know,” the spokesperson continued, “when a diocese is declared vacant, all the charges cease. That should answer your question about Fr. Dominic. And this is the last question I will answer you from this e-mail.” The spokesperson did not reply to a follow-up query.

What Bishop Steckling plans to do with the Society of St. John remains unknown.

Fr. Carlos Urrutigoity currently has no ministerial assignment, and resides somewhere in the Diocese of Ciudad del Este, according to a diocesan spokesperson. He remains a priest in good standing.

Eric Ensey, who was accused of sɛҳuąƖly abusing a minor, was thought to be living in Rome and California as late as 2007. In 2011, the Vancouver Sun reported that for the previous five years a Vancouver priest had been soliciting donations from parishioners for the Society of St. John in Paraguay—at Ensey’s behest. The cleric, John Horgan, never informed donors about the SSJ’s history. Without those donations, Fr. Dominic Carey reportedly told parishioners, the SSJ’s seminary in Paraguay could never have been built.

On a pilgrimage to Europe led by Horgan, according to the Sun, Ensey met Charlene Anderson, who found the cassocked cleric so inspiring that she planned to invite him to Christmas so he could meet her teenaged children. That idea was scotched when her husband Googled “Eric Ensey.”

Ensey filed for bankruptcy in 2004; the case was terminated in 2010. His latest attorney of record reported that he has not had “any contact with him in years.” Ensey apparently maintains a P.O. box outside Scranton. After exhausting his appeals in the canonical case against him that began a decade ago, Ensey was finally laicized in 2014.

Some of the original members of the Society of St. John found assignments elsewhere. Fr. Dominic O’Connor, who succeeded Urrutigoity as superior of the Society of St. John, asked Bishop Martino for permission to relocate to the Diocese of Nottingham in 2005. He remains there still. And Fr. Daniel Fullerton, who became superior general after O’Connor, received Martino’s permission to serve as a chaplain to the U.S Navy.

Deacon Joseph Levine, another former superior general of the SSJ, sought ordination as a priest of the Diocese of Scranton. But Martino was not comfortable with Levine’s “generous verbal excuses for the conduct of some members of the Society of St. John,” the bishop testified. So he put him in a seminary he trusted in order to get a “totally objective group of people to look at him.” Levine was eventually assigned to a parish in Philadelphia, but his public support of the SSJ caused “quite a stir,” according to Martino, and he had to be moved to another parish—where the same thing happened. Levine decided to seek ordination to the priesthood in the Diocese of Paterson, New Jersey, but an open letter to the bishop brought that plan to a halt. The letter was written by Jeffrey Bond—hired by Urrutigoity to establish his dreamed-of Catholic college, only to become the SSJ’s fiercest critic. Bond alleged that Levine had told him that “Urrutigoity was like St. Ignatius of Loyola, insofar as he operates on a plane ‘above the realm of human reason and prudence.’” During Martino’s 2008 deposition, he was asked whether Levine had ever been made a priest, and the bishop replied, “I hope not.”

Levine was eventually ordained a priest, and he now serves as pastor of a parish in the Diocese of Baker, Oregon. He declined to be interviewed, but offered a written statement explaining that he hasn’t been in touch with Urrutigoity in about a decade, and has never had contact with the SSJ in Paraguay. He has “no direct knowledge of any of the accusations” against Urrutigoity. Still, “it seems to me that the three specific accusations of which I am aware together make a strong case against Fr. Urrutigoity,” Levine concluded.

Other early members of the SSJ have left the priesthood behind. Fr. Marshall Roberts vacated the Diocese of Scranton without permission and became the pastor of a schismatic group in Jacksonville, Florida. Fr. Basel Sarweh asked to be dispensed from the clerical state in 2006.

But Fr. Anthony Myers, now fifty, has not left the priesthood. When he worked with the SSJ in Scranton, he was Br. Anthony Myers. In 2000, while residing at the Society’s property in Shohola, Myers took umbrage when John Doe, who sued Urrutigoity and Ensey for sɛҳuąƖ abuse, dared to criticize Urrutigoity’s lavish spending habits, according to Doe’s sworn testimony. Myers “cussed at me for over an hour and a half, saying that I was an insolent arrogant prick and that I had no business making these observations and Fr. Urrutigoity was a priest and knew better than me and I needed to leave the premises unless I wrote a retraction, which I did,” Doe said. Myers insisted that the young man include the following sentence in his letter of apology to Urrutigoity: “I put my trust in your judgment of all situations arising,” according to Doe.

Myers moved to Ciudad del Este with other SSJs and was ordained by Livieres in 2006. He authored several of the Society’s newsletters after the group had reestablished itself in Paraguay. But it seems that Myers no longer exercises his ministry exclusively in Ciudad del Este. In late 2013, he posted a video to YouTube seeking financial support for a new endeavor—a co-ed bilingual K-12 school on the outskirts of Buenos Aires. “Please pray for us down here," Myers says at the start of the film, "for the many families who are trying to do their little part to restore all things in Christ.” (The Archdiocese of Buenos Aires did not respond to a request for comment; neither did Myers.)

TRADITIO:
Francis-Bergoglio: The Kiss of Death for Children
"Mr. Fraud" Newpope Appointed a Paedophile to Head a Chilean Newdiocese
4,000 Outraged Rioters Prevented the "Installation Mess" on March 21 2015
Yet Bergoglio Forced His Appointee through Anyway
Now Bergoglio's Own Commission on Child sɛҳuąƖ Abuse
Has Denounced Bergoglio's Hypocrisy and Complicity in Paedophilia

As international outrage grows against Francis-Bergoglio for his appointment of a paedophile Newbishop, members of the Newpope's own Commission on Child sɛҳuąƖ Abuse has slammed Bergoglio for appointing Juan Barros Madrid as Newbishop of Osorno, Chile, who was denounced in court by three child victims as a voyeur in the room while Chile's most notorious paedophile presbyter, Madrid's "intimate" friend, sodomized them. Madrid then tried to cover up the sex crimes in an elaborate fraud involving the Newarchbishop Primate of Chile.

Francis-Bergoglio could hardly claim ignorance that he appointed a paedophile as a Newbishop. Newvatican itself prosecuted Madrid's "intimate" friend for sex crimes against children and then hid him away in a monastery. Moreover, the three victims notified Bergoglio of his Newbishop appointee's active complicity in sex crimes, and most of the Newdiocese's presbyters and half of the Chilean parliament demanded that Bergoglio withdraw the appointment.

Bergoglio, however, refused to admit that he had made a grave error in appointing a known paedophile accomplice. Bergoglio refused to withdraw the appointment. He refused even to suspend the appointment. Instead, he went full bore in forcing the installation of Madrid on March 21, 2015. He even went so far as to express "full confidence and support" in his paedophile appointee.

But the Chilean Newchurchers and people courageously stood up to the hypocrite Francis "Mr. Zero Tolerance" Bergoglio. Four thousand of them rioted in the Newcathedral, and Newbishop Madrid barely escaped with his life. The Chileans prevented a "Mess of Installation" from being performed and prevented Newbishop Madrid from delivering a "homily." The irony of all this is that the only sitting Newbishop whom Bergoglio has fired was one whose "crime" was perhaps spending a little too much money on building a Newdiocesan administration center and convent for his Newdiocese. Clearly, for Bergoglio, sex crimes against children does not rise to the level of firing!

A victim of Newchurch clergy's sex crimes against children who serves on Bergoglio's Commission said that Bergoglio's forcing the installation of the sex criminal as Newbishop in Chile "goes completely against what [Bergoglio] has said in the past about those who protect abusers." [Some information for this Commentary was contributed by the Associated Press.]

True Catholics, the jig is close to being up for Francis-Bergoglio. Even his own people are now calling him a liar and a hypocrite -- one that preys upon children. Christ Himself prescribed the penalty for such as Bergoglio: "a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and ... he should be drowned in the depth of the sea" (Matthew 18:6/DRV). The unrepentant Bergoglio can play propaganda games all he wants in this life, but when shortly he faces The Judgment -- and he himself indicates that that will be soon -- the Divine millstone is ready drag him down to the very pit of Hell.

" He was given a second chance at another SSPX seminary in Winona, Minnesota, where the superior was Bishop Richard Williamson, one of the four bishops illicitly ordained by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1988—an act that brought automatic excommunication from the Catholic Church.*"

Where is this info from? Are you trying to accuse +W of aiding this foul pederast in some way? I am familiar with the story, but the bit you posted stops abruptly- the way I remember it is +W threw him out, and called to warn the diocesan bishop who was considering bringing U onboard...

**************************************
Dr. Jeffrey Bond on Fr. Carlos Urrutigoity

Source: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CTAC-list/message/9572
Yahoo! Groups : CTAC-list Messages : Message 9572

From: Jeffrey Bond
To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;
Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 8:39 PM
Subject: The Early Years of Carlos Urrutigoity's ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ Career

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 ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ 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 ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ 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 ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ 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 ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ 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 ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ 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 ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity 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 ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, 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 ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖly molesting him. This young seminarian, with whom Fr. Urrutigoity had had a very close particular friendship at Winona, had been under Fr. Urrutigoity's spiritual direction for two years before Fr. Urrutigoity molested him.

Bishop Williamson also told me that he had accompanied this young seminarian when he gave testimony against Fr. Urrutigoity at a Diocese of Scranton inquiry in July 1999. The inquiry was held at the request of Bishop James Timlin of Scranton who sent his auxiliary bishop, John Dougherty, along with another diocesan priest and an attorney, to hear this young seminarian's testimony. Bishop Bernard Fellay of the SSPX had set this whole process in motion when he formally accused Fr. Urrutigoity in a letter to Bishop Timlin dated February 11, 1999. Bishop Fellay had sent this letter to Bishop Timlin because Bishop Timlin had welcomed Fr. Urrutigoity and his followers into the Diocese of Scranton after Fr. Urrutigoity's expulsion from Winona. At the time of Bishop Fellay's formal communication to Bishop Timlin, Fr. Urrutigoity was working as a chaplain at St. Gregory's Academy, an all-boys high school in Elmhurst, Pennsylvania, owned and operated by the Fraternity of St. Peter. Despite Bishop Fellay's letter and the testimony of the molested seminarian, Bishop Timlin allowed Fr. Urrutigoity to continue in his position as chaplain to adolescent boys.

In order to learn more about the charges against seminarian Urrutigoity, I next contacted Fr. Andres Morello, the former rector of the SSPX seminary in La Reja. Fr. Morello is currently the rector of a group called "Campania de Jesus y de Maria" located in the Andes. I wrote to Fr. Morello to ask him about the accusations against Carlos Urrutigoity while he was a seminarian at La Reja. Below is a literal translation of Fr. Morello's response:

------------------------------------------------------

I was the rector of the seminary of La Reja from 1981 until 1988, having been previously the vice-rector; therefore I was able to witness the behavior of now Father Urrutigoity all throughout his stay in that seminary.

I was transferred to the priory of Santiago in Chile in 1989, and I remained there from February until July of the same year. I was expelled because of a denunciation or better said a confidential request I made for a canonical investigation of some priests members of the Society of St. Pius X, and also because of the support I gave to some seminarians who left the seminary of La Reja.

When I was rector at the seminary of La Reja, I had the intention of expelling the then seminarian Carlos Urrutigoity for a number of reasons, mainly:

- a significant pride
- maintaining particular friendships
- forming a faction of seminarians under his influence
- grave denunciations regarding moral matters (probably the very ones you already know about)
Against my intention of expelling him, as the product of a delicate situation of intrigues which at the time affected the seminary, and undoubtedly with the support of certain priests and the then superior of the district (bishop de Galarreta), instead of being expelled he was sent to the priory of Cordoba (Argentina). The good recommendations obtained there, as well as the support which I just mentioned, motivated his transfer to the seminary of Winona (USA). Meanwhile I had already been posted at Santiago, Chile.

His imminent ordination to the major orders obliged me in conscience to write a confidential report to the rector of Winona's seminary, bishop Williamson, in order to stop the ordination. A canonical report of such characteristics demanded reciprocal confidentiality, and in particular to keep it secret from the person in question. Bishop Williamson made it known to the then seminarian Urrutigoity so that he could defend himself from our accusations.

On July 1989 we traveled to Winona, and bishop Williamson read to us the defense of Father Urrutigoity, defended his "humility" and accused us of lying. A few days later, on July 16, 1989, I was expelled from the Society.

You know better than I the rest of the story.

-------------------------------------------------------
According to Fr. Morello's account above, he not only sought to expel Urrutigoity from La Reja for the four reasons stated, but he even traveled all the way to Winona from Chile to argue against Urrutigoity's ordination to the priesthood. The "grave denunciations in moral matters," which Fr. Morello mentions as the fourth reason for expelling Urrutigoity, were set down in writing as part of a dossier given to Archbishop Lefebvre when Fr. Morello requested a canonical investigation of certain SSPX priests (as Fr. Morello explains in his letter above). The accusations of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ behavior made against seminarian Urrutigoity appear in this dossier as part of a report entitled "Docuмento 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 "Docuмento 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 sɛҳuąƖ 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 sɛҳuąƖ predator who was not yet able to manipulate others by means of the full authority of the priesthood. Indeed, the above account confirms reports of Fr. Urrutigoity's frequent initiation of discussions on "chastity" in order to test the willingness of his objects of seduction. And given what is already known about Fr. Urrutigoity's fondness for suppositories, it is not surprising to read about seminarian Urrutigoity's efforts to manipulate "medical problems" for his own perverse purposes. We also see in the account above a slightly more modest version of Fr. Urrutigoity's willingness to parade naked in front of potential victims. Moreover, we see here further testimony of Fr. Urrutigoity's penchant for late night visits to those who are asleep and thereby vulnerable to his advances. Although Docuмent 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.

Docuмent 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 ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ 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 Rreja 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 ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ 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 ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ 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 dio34@e... 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. Mr. Jarbola's address is 200 N. Washington Avenue, Scranton, PA 18503. His telephone number is (570) 963-6717.

Sincerely,

Dr. Jeffrey M. Bond
President
College of St. Justin Martyr
142 Market Road
Greeley, PA 18425
(570) 685-5945
jmb3@l...

www.SaintJustinMartyr.org

(Note: Emphasis added by F. John Loughnan Sean Ó Lachtnáin's Home Page
August 28, 2005)

Serious Misconduct
More on Father Van der Putten

By Christopher Zehnder
San Francisco Faith
February, 2004

After the December Faith ran an interview with Father Benedict Van der Putten, a priest who left the Society of St. Pius X and sought reconciliation with Rome, I received a number of e-mail messages and telephone calls suggesting there was more to his story than he let on. Some of those who contacted me wished to defend the Society; but one communication I found particularly disturbing. It moved me to look more closely at Father Van der Putten.

I had first heard of Van der Putten through mutual friends. They had told me of his seemingly conscientious decision to abandon the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X when the Society refused an offered reconciliation with the Holy See. Thus, I welcomed an interview with Van der Putten, not to promote him, but to examine his reasons for leaving the Society and to "pick" the mind of a traditionalist cleric. I myself objected to certain of his statements; in particular, I found his justification for freelance priests hearing confessions evasive.

Afterwards, I found some of his published statements strange, at best. Perusing the website www.paxvobis.org, which offers talks by Van der Putten and online articles by him, I came across an article, "An Explanation of the Religious Life." In this "explanation," Father Van der Putten not only encourages the religious life but says that everyone should embrace it. Using the image of religious life as marriage to Christ, he asks, "how could anyone who truly put God as #1 refuse to marry Him? How could we pass up our only life for such a great opportunity? And he meekly and lovingly invites everyone and promises them the grace to remain steadfast to the marriage vow to Him." Though Christ blessed marriage at the wedding feast at Cana, Van der Putten informs us that "some bible scholars say it was Nathaniel who got married at Cana, left his wife after the party, changed his name to Bartholomew, and followed Jesus as one of his apostles! Many have left -- even emperors and kings during their reign of power -- left all to follow Christ. Couldn't they have saved their lives before? Of course. But they chose the better route." Van der Putten no where informs his readers that one must receive permission from his or her spouse before leaving all to follow Christ.

But perhaps the strangest part of the "explanation" was where Van der Putten lumps marriage with the sacraments of penance and extreme unction. Noting that some assert that "marriage is a sacrament!" Van der Putten says, "yes, but so is extreme unction and penance, and yet I don't see people energetically or irrationally persuading people to get sick or die in order to receive the sacrament. And I don't hear of any saint promoting mortal sin so that one might utilize the sacrament of penance." Van der Putten asserts that "Our Lord did not raise matrimony to a sacrament in order to recommend it. He did it because He knew how difficult it was and it needed all the help (grace) it could get!"

Such an approach to marriage seems contrary to Catholic doctrine. The Catechism of the Catholic Church calls marriage a "vocation" and an "efficacious sign of Christ's presence." It is not merely an antidote for weakness, as is penance.

But it seems Van der Putten's view of marriage may be connected to deeper personal troubles of his own. The most disturbing communication I received concerning Van der Putten came from the diocese of Scranton, Pennsylvania -- Father Van der Putten, according to the diocese, has engaged in serious sɛҳuąƖ misconduct.

According to James Earley, chancellor for the Scranton diocese, Scranton's bishop, Joseph Martino, had sent out a fax concerning Van der Putten on December 10, 2003 to the general secretary of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The general secretary circulated it to the bishops on December 19. According to the faxed message, Van der Putten did indeed approach the Holy See's Ecclesia Dei commission after he had left the Society of St. Pius X in order to be regularized in the Catholic Church. (The commission oversees the indult Tridentine Mass and the priests and priestly fraternities that offer it.) The commission absolved Van der Putten "of the canonical penalties he had incurred ... with a view toward his full regularization which would require his incardination into a Diocese or Religious Institution."

To achieve this "full regularization," Van der Putten approached the diocese of Scranton, which has been generous to traditionalist priests. However, said the faxed memo, "though living for a brief time in northeastern Pennsylvania in 2001-2002, Father Van der Putten was never incardinated in the Diocese of Scranton because of the seriousness of his admitted sɛҳuąƖ misconduct."

Earley told me in December that "at the time [Van der Putten] was in our diocese, he admitted to certain behaviors; and he knew that he would be unable to be assigned, so he picked up and left." Under the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, adopted by the U.S. bishops in June 2002, said Earley, "our first obligation is to protect children, and so we felt that what we knew about this behavior was serious enough to alert people about him."

Referring to the Pax Vobis website, Earley said, "you see him photographed with families with young people, and that's very disturbing."

I contacted Father Van der Putten by e-mail, asking him to affirm, deny, or clarify the diocese's statement concerning him. Van der Putten did none of these. Rather, saying that "at the moment I am very confused about all this," he said, "you may state that at the present time, Father Van der Putten is not available for Masses or Mass stipends. That should be sufficient till I get to the bottom of this."

 

Awards Post Falls man $800K in damages

POST FALLS -- A Kootenai County jury on Thursday found an ultra-conservative Catholic church liable for slandering a former parishioner.

Jurors unanimously awarded Anthony J. Ferro $200,000 in compensatory and $600,000 in punitive damages after an eight-day civil trial in 1st District Court.

Ferro, a Coeur d'Alene wine distributor filed suit against the Post Falls Immaculate Conception Chapel of the Society of St. Pius X in August 2003, claiming a former priest interfered with his marriage and slandered him in front of the congregation.

"It's enough to get me out of trouble and set the record straight," said Ferro.

"It's close to what we asked for," said Ferro's lawyer, Jed Manwaring.

He asked jurors in his closing to award $250,000 compensatory and $750,000 punitive.

Manwaring told 1st District Judge Charles Hosack he would submit a judgment form for his signature within a day.

Lawyers for the church had no comment on the verdict.

Ferro claimed the Rev. James H. Doran "abused his office as spiritual director for his parishioners" when he counseled his now-ex-wife without his consent and outside his presence. He also claimed Doran "ordered" him to undergo psychiatric evaluations, then published libelous statements about his mental condition to other church members.

The suit named Doran, the Post Falls priory, as well as the entire religious order as defendants.

The jury went into deliberations late Wednesday morning and returned with the verdict shortly after noon Thursday.

The jury found Doran inflicted intentional emotional distress upon Ferro. For that, they awarded the $200,000.

They also found that the Rev. Peter Scott, as the agent for the society, approved Doran's conduct toward Ferro.

Ferro claimed following Doran's arrival in Post Falls in 1992, the priest "began to engage in a host of inappropriate actions during his term as parish priest."

He said Doran began to take private horse riding lessons from his wife which were "hurtful and shameful" because they "unjustly provided Mrs. Ferro greater standing with the parish priest than her husband."

Ferro also claimed Doran engaged in private counseling sessions outside his presence and against his wishes, despite assurances by Doran the sessions would involve both spouses.

Those sessions, Ferro said, "were inappropriate, held in bad faith and caused great harm" to the marriage.

The couple eventually split in a reportedly messy divorce.

Ferro said Doran ordered him to undergo a psychiatric examination. The results, Ferro said, concluded he suffered from "no mental defects, imbalances, instabilities, disorders or other illnesses."

But on Christmas Eve 1993, Ferro alleged, Doran sent a letter to about a dozen people which contained "false, malicious and defamatory statements."

Ferro claimed in the letter, included in the court filing, Doran suggested the psychiatrist was not to be believed. Ferro said it caused "great division within (his) family."

Ferro also claimed Doran, in a sermon given in March 1996 to more than 450 parishioners, defamed him by questioning his adequacy as a father, alleging disobedience to Doran's orders and that he was impossible to deal with. The sermon also allegedly instructed parishioners to have no social or business dealings with Ferro.

Ferro and his wife, who was at one time married to actor David Soul, split in 1994 and underwent a two-year-long legal battle for custody of their daughter. Doran's letter was used as ammunition during that fray.

The filing also claims Doran said in his sermon he ordered the couple to divorce, resulting in Ferro being "ostracized by a large percentage of the parishioners."

Ferro also claimed Doran formed an "honor guard" to protect him and members of that guard ridiculed him and even went so far as to pantomime assaults upon him.

Doran left Post Falls in 1996.

In 1999, Ferro published "The Assault of Catholic Fatherhood in Post Falls Idaho," a lengthy recitation of his battle with Doran and church hierarchy.

Ferro said the actions of the priests became so severe it prevented him from attending Mass at the church, and he was threatened he would be arrested for trespassing if he came to the church.

There was no word if the church planned to appeal the verdict.

Dave Turner can be reached at 664-8176, ext. 2009 or at dturner@cdapress.com.


(Divorced and remarried are allowed in sspx???) woman was on second marriage.

The word "mercy" is being abused.
The trouble with the Catholic Church is that false mercy is given to many unfaithful priests.

Have mercy on God and His people and get rid of sodomists and others.

Sodomy is taking over the Church.  

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