Posted on 12/02/2004 8:30:46 AM PST by NYer
Thankfully I ended up in Byzantium, not Lefevredom. Too much casting aspersions and ascribing motives among your gang if you ask me.
The SSPX got darn close to doing the right thing, but they too made a prudential error. However, I agree that overall the SSPX has a stellar record in this regard while the USCCB's record is dismal, if not downright evil.
1987-88 SSPX: Argentina Accusations of sexual misconduct by Fr. Urrutigoity in the wake of his departure from the seminary of the SSPX in La Reja, Argentina. Despite these accusations, Fr. Urrutigoity is accepted into the seminary of the SSPX in the USA.
May 1997 SSPX USA Fr. Carlos Urrutigoity, along with another priest and 2 seminarians are expelled from the seminary of the SSPX in the USA.
Simple question: why did it take the SSPX 10 years to get rid of him, knowing his record at their own seminary in Argentina?
Until I get a reasonable explanation on this, I cannot grant you that the SSPX did the right thing.
Dear St. Johann Tetzel,
"Until I get a reasonable explanation on this, I cannot grant you that the SSPX did the right thing."
There is more, though.
If, indeed, the SSPX expelled the molestor because of his sexual crimes against minors, then why was the official explanation that he was plotting to create a new order? Why was he not turned over to prosecutors? Why was it not made clear to the world that he was what he was?
If he had been expelled publicly for abuse of minors, then Bishop Timlin may have acted differently.
Certainly, that the SSPX publicly said one thing, and Bishop Fellay privately told Bishop Timlin might lead Bishop Timlin to rightly say to himself that perhaps Bishop Fellay was just acting vengefully. In all likelihood, the abuser advanced this to Bishop Timlin, "Oh, Bishop Fellay is still mad at us for trying to set up our new order," or what have you.
Even in expelling him, the SSPX erred in not reporting this to the authorities, and publicly stating the true reasons for his expulsion.
These are the very same things that our bishops have been doing for years, and for which we are rightfully angry and hurt. Why would this sort of cover-up be permissible for the SSPX?
sitetest
what a mess.
You make good points. It is simply not in the job description of bishops of any kind to turn offenders over to authorities.
You posted that timeline with a very tendentious use of bold type in order to try to find a way to make the SSPX look bad in a situation in the SSPX did the right thing while the diocese did the wrong thing.
You are incorrectly assuming that he was working with the SSPX all that time in between. The news release from Bishop Williamson at the time of the expulsion from Winona says that he had been there for 2.5 years.
Remember, he was expelled, twice. And most of all, there was no cover up. This is the biggest difference of all, in addition to the fact that he was expelled, unlike the Diocese of Scranton which tried to stonewall for several years even after lawsuits were filed.
He also got his timeline from this rather biased website:
Is the Society of St. Pius X a Cult?
You have nearly all your facts wrong. First, there were never crimes against minors in Winona. Secondly, he was plotting to create a new order, that is more than clear. Third, the evidence of sexual turpitude may have been revealed after he was expelled. Fourth, homosexual relations between consenting adults are not crimes in Minnesota, so there was nothing to report to civil authorities, and the facts were reported to the appropriate ecclesiastical authorities.
If he had been expelled publicly for abuse of minors, then Bishop Timlin may have acted differently. Certainly, that the SSPX publicly said one thing, and Bishop Fellay privately told Bishop Timlin might lead Bishop Timlin to rightly say to himself that perhaps Bishop Fellay was just acting vengefully.
Bishop Timlin had to use his own judgment, which was revealed to be woefully lacking. An official letter from one bishop to another is "private" only in the sense that it's not published in the newspaper. But it was a direct and unequivocal notification, taken as officially as possible. Even only some New Order bishops had ever acted as responsibly, we wouldn't have the current sad state of scandal.
I did a search for the timeline, which I had seen on another site in the past. The timeline was the same, so I posted it. I've never seen the website it came from before, "Is the SSPX a Cult?" so your point is moot. Furthermore, I do NOT believe the SSPX is a cult, nor is it as grave a threat to the unity and faith of Catholics as the USCCB.
Dear Maximilian,
If he was expelled for plotting to create a new order, and the SSPX was unaware of homosexual relations on his part prior to his expulsion, then on what basis did Bishop Fellay make his accusations? For accusations made after the fact of his expulsion? Frankly, if I were the individual to whom Bishop Fellay communicated these things, I would discount them heavily.
It is a natural human tendency to demonize those whom we have decided were once our friends but are now our enemies. When an individual's picture of someone grows increasingly darker after the rupture of the relationship, others need to be careful in accepting uncritically all that is purported by the individual. Even if Bishop Timlin were to ascribe goodwill to an excommunicant, he should still have dealt with any accusations of this nature very gingerly, with great caution.
Certainly, the SSPX did. For ten years or more. It took ten years for the SSPX to figure out the priest was not a good fellow.
If the SSPX did not know that he was an active homosexual at the time of departure, then for ten years, he ably fooled the SSPX! What good judgment is represented there? If they were unaware of his perverted lusts, he deceived the SSPX for ten years while living in their midst!
If, on the other hand, the SSPX had some knowledge of his homosexual acts before expelling him, then at the least, it should have been made clear that that was a reason for expulsion, at the time of expulsion.
But the question arises, then, what did the SSPX know, and when did they know it? Even you are unclear as to the actual facts of the situation.
"An official letter from one bishop to another"
Well, this is as true as it goes, but this phrase truncates the truth. The letter sent was not between two Catholic bishops in communion with the Catholic Church, but between a Catholic bishop in communion with the Catholic Church and an excommunicated, renegade bishop without any jurisdiction whatsoever leading up an organizaiton that has been declared in schism by the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church.
Whether you regard the SSPX as being in or out of the Catholic Church, the pope does not, and it is very unlikely that Bishop Timlin disagrees with the Holy Father. Thus, from Bishop Timlin's perspective, he is not receiving a communication from a brother bishop of the Catholic Church. He is receiving accusations that are "coming over the transom" from the head of an organization with a checkered history, that has been declared out of communion with the Catholic Church. He is receiving accusations from someone who has beeen marked, by name, as excommunicated by the Supreme Pontiff of the Holy Catholic Church.
Furthermore, he is receiving this accusation against someone who eventually turned against the excommunicant's organization.
Just as the SSPX took over ten years to come to a negative conclusion about this person's fitness to be a priest, it took the Catholic Church some time, as well (although somewhat less than 10 years).
I'm not sure that either the SSPX organization or the Catholic Church covered themselves in glory in this case, but one certainly can't condemn the actions of the Catholic Church while upholding the prudence and good judgment of the SSPX organization.
sitetest
I'm not sure that either the SSPX organization or the Catholic Church covered themselves in glory in this case, but one certainly can't condemn the actions of the Catholic Church while upholding the prudence and good judgment of the SSPX organization.
You must be a hateful person blind to the truth for pointing this out...(/sarcasm)
"You must be a hateful person blind to the truth for pointing this out...(/sarcasm)"
I try. ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.