From Stravinskas's website and info about some of the associates:
The Gregory Foundation for Latin Liturgy
The Most Rev. Rene H. Gracida, D.D.
Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi
The Most Rev. James C. Timlin, D.D
Bishop of Scranton
Open Letter of May 19, 2002
A Fourth Open Letter to Bishop James C. Timlin, Diocese of Scranton
Dear Bishop Timlin,
Last January you relieved Fr. Carlos Urrutigoity and Fr. Eric Ensey of their duties in Shohola, and you relocated them in Scranton for psychiatric evaluation. At that time you promised that your 11-member review board would investigate the accusations of homosexual molestation made against these two priests of the Society of St. John.
It is now May, over four months since you relocated these priests, and you have yet to report the findings of your review board. This same review board previously investigated Fr. Urrutigoity in 1999 when he was accused of homosexually molesting a young seminarian. At that time you and your review board found the evidence to be “inconclusive,” and so you returned Fr. Urrutigoity to his position as chaplain to the boys at St. Gregory’s Academy. What have you and your review board decided to do about Fr. Urrutigoity this time? And what about Fr. Ensey?
Since your review board has neglected to call any witnesses to inform itself concerning the facts, it is obvious that your handpicked board members have no independence or interest in the truth. Your review board will simply echo your voice in this matter. So what is your decision, Bishop Timlin?
As we await your decision, I think it is important to inform all concerned parties that your handling of the Society of St. John scandal closely parallels the way you handled the infamous case of Fr. Caparelli ten years ago.
Fr. Robert Caparelli, a priest of the Diocese of Scranton, was the first priest in the United States diagnosed as being HIV-positive who pleaded guilty to sexually abusing altar boys. He died of AIDS in the Lackawanna Correctional Facility in December 1994.
As with the case of Fr. Urrutigoity, who has been accused repeatedly of making unwanted homosexual advances, accusations of sexual misconduct against Fr. Caparelli went back more than 20 years before he was convicted. The first accusation against Fr. Caparelli was made in an August 14, 1968 letter to your predecessor, Bishop McCormick. That letter was written by a former Hazelton police officer who informed Bishop McCormick that Fr. Caparelli had “demoralized” two altar boys “in a manner that is not natural for any human that has all his proper faculties.” The former police officer was a parishioner at Most Precious Blood Roman Catholic Church in Hazelton where Fr. Caparelli was the assistant pastor.
In his letter, the former police officer requested an audience with Bishop McCormick, but instead he received a letter from you, Bishop Timlin. You were a monsignor at the time, and the Assistant Chancellor of the Diocese of Scranton. In your letter, you assured the former police officer that, “The matter you have treated will be investigated further.” Those familiar with the Society of St. John scandal will not be surprised to see that you were making empty promises as early as 1968 concerning the investigation of sexual abuse by priests.
Fr. Caparelli was then sent to Padua Retreat House in West Chester, Pennsylvania for psychiatric evaluation. The report on Fr. Caparelli concluded that, if he did abuse the two altar boys, he “would be likely to commit these actions again.” Another report on Fr. Caparelli, written by a psychologist from Villanova University, stated: “If there is good evidence that he did engage in this behavior, then his problem is indeed serious . . . this, in turn, means that without therapeutic help, he would be likely to commit these actions again.”
Yet Fr. Caparelli’s record shows that he did not receive any further treatment. He was simply reassigned to a new parish.
In July 1993, when a reporter questioned you about Fr. Caparelli’s reassignment, you said that you remembered it only vaguely. But despite your vague memory, you remembered enough to insist that the Diocese did everything it could at the time. You also claimed that it was almost impossible to get further evidence of Fr. Caparelli’s sexual misconduct. As is clear from your current failure to gather the readily available evidence against Fr. Urrutigoity and Fr. Ensey, you apparently have still not realized that one has to look for evidence by calling in witnesses, making telephone calls, writing letters, etc.
Fr. Caparelli was then made the assistant pastor at the Church of St. Mary in Old Forge, Pennsylvania. Once again he was accused of sexual improprieties. This time a retired Pennsylvania State Trooper, who was a parishioner at St. Mary’s, told the pastor that Fr. Caparelli had been groping young boys. When the pastor confronted Fr. Caparelli, he admitted it. Fr. Caparelli was then transferred again.
In 1974, Fr. Caparelli was appointed director of religious formation at Bishop O’Reilly High School in Kingston. He was subsequently made chaplain at Mercy Center in Dallas, Pennsylvania. In 1981 Fr. Caparelli became the pastor at St. Vincent de Paul in Dingman Township.
In October 1991, Fr. Caparelli abruptly left St. Vincent’s with no explanation. Your auxiliary bishop, Francis DiLorenzo (now Bishop of Honolulu), told the parishioners at St. Vincent’s that Fr. Caparelli could no longer continue his pastoral duties because of “personal and family problems.” Bishop DiLorenzo also told the parishioners that once those problems were resolved, Fr. Caparelli would be taking a vacation before being reassigned to another parish. Was it you, Bishop Timlin, who instructed your auxiliary bishop to lie to the parishioners at St. Vincent’s?
Only a week or so earlier, Bishop DiLorenzo had celebrated Mass at St. Vincent’s and had praised Fr. Caparelli’s work as a pastor. This was considered remarkable by the St. Vincent parishioners at the time because, as one former parishioner has written in a letter to me, Fr. Caparelli “had been accused by a few families of inappropriate behavior with some of the altar boys, however since there was little proof initially it was not dealt with. However, in no time at all the number of complaints were mounting and people who had NEVER written to the bishop before were writing to him on a regular basis and Bishop Timlin chose to do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!” (emphasis in the original).
The truth about Fr. Caparelli finally came out in December 1991 when he was indicted and charged with 26 sex-related counts involving a 13-year-old altar boy from September 1985 through June 1986. Later Fr. Caparelli was also indicted for abusing a second altar boy from March 1987 through January 1989. Fr. Caparelli was charged with statutory rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, indecent assault, indecent exposure, and corruption of a minor. In the civil lawsuits brought by the families of the abused boys, Fr. Caparelli was charged with committing these acts by deception, under the guise of a spiritual advisor. As I am sure you recall, Fr. Urrutigoity has used the pretense of spiritual direction to lure young men into his bed.
After Fr. Caparelli’s first arrest, your director of communications, Maria Orzel, confirmed in a formal statement on December 13, 1991 that Fr. Caparelli was undergoing a complete psychiatric evaluation and “extensive treatment.” The statement also said that Diocesan policy in such a case was to conduct a “prompt, thorough investigation.”
Is it possible, Bishop Timlin, to issue such ridiculous statements with a straight face? What was the point of conducting a “prompt, thorough investigation” of Fr. Caparelli AFTER he had already been indicted?
In January 1992, in response to speculation that Fr. Caparelli may have been previously arrested on similar criminal charges, Maria Orzel stated: “We absolutely emphatically deny it.” But Maria Orzel could not deny that two former police officers had previously accused Fr. Caparelli of sexual misconduct with altar boys, and that you certainly had knowledge of the first accusation, and either knew or should have known about the second.
As Bishop of Scranton, your response to the two civil lawsuits was to file documents proposing that Fr. Caparelli was an “independent contractor” for the Diocese. (Bishop Egan employed this same ruse in Bridgeport, Connecticut, but it never passed the “giggle test” there.) This was the basis for your claim that the Diocese of Scranton had no responsibility for Fr. Caparelli’s criminal and immoral actions. The two civil lawsuits were eventually settled out of court for an undisclosed amount.
I have presented this brief review of the Fr. Caparelli case in order to give readers the necessary background to evaluate your comments in a recent front-page article in the Scranton Times (April 28, 2002). In that article, entitled “Bishop Details Sex Scandals,” you boasted about how little money the Diocese of Scranton has paid to victims of sexual abuse by priests: a mere $500,000 since 1970. You specifically mentioned the case of Fr. Caparelli and said that the Diocese eventually settled the two civil lawsuits for much less than the victims were asking. Is this something of which you should be proud, Bishop Timlin? What good is it to save dollars, but not souls?
You claimed that the victims got much less than they sought because there was a lack of proof that the Diocese knew Fr. Caparelli was a pedophile. As evidence for the supposed lack of proof, you claimed that the pastor at St. Mary’s simply asked for the transfer of Fr. Caparelli without ever telling the Diocese why. Your claim is disingenuous, Bishop Timlin, because you know full well that no diocese would act upon a pastor’s request for the transfer of a parish priest without chancery officials reviewing the matter. Moreover, even if you yourself were not consulted about the transfer, you were morally obliged to intervene because you knew of the accusations against Fr. Caparelli as early as 1968 when, as Assistant Chancellor of the Diocese, you told the former police officer that the matter would be investigated further.
Yes, you may have saved the Diocese a great deal of money, but at what price? I can now understand why one of the attorneys who took your deposition in the Fr. Caparelli case has stated: “Bishop Timlin is the biggest liar I ever deposed.”
Michael Chapman, a reporter from Washington, has quoted you in his recent article, “The Seduction of the Society of St. John,” as having said that if the victims “try to use a lead pipe on us by asking for millions of dollars, we’ll have to fight that because we’re not responsible.” You added: “I’m not responsible for whatever happened, if it happened. I’m not liable.”
One marvels at the parallels between then and now:
You denied responsibility for Fr. Caparelli then, and you deny responsibility for Fr. Urrutigoity, Fr. Ensey, and the Society of St. John now.
You failed to investigate repeated accusations of sexual immorality then, and you have failed to investigate repeated accusations now.
You lied then, and you are lying now.
Sincerely,
Dr. Jeffrey M. Bond
President
College of St. Justin Martyr
142 Market Road
Greeley, PA 18425
570/685-5945
jmb3@ltis.net
www.saintjustinmartyr.org
PRESS RELEASE
Roman Catholic Faithful, Inc.
P.O. Box 109, Petersburg, Illinois 62675-0109
Phone: (217) 632-5920 / Fax: (217) 632-7054 / www.rcf.org / sbrady@rcf.org
Date: 1/15/02
For Immediate Release.
Harboring Catholic priests who are sexual predators
Subject: Society of St. John
Roman Catholic Faithful, Inc. (RCF) has learned that the Society of St. John, a clerical association operating under the Diocese of Scranton, Pennsylvania, is harboring priests who are sexual predators. RCF has further learned that this matter has been brought to the attention of Scranton bishop James C. Timlin, who refuses to take action to remove and punish those responsible for potential psychological and moral harm to seminarians and other young men. RCF demands the following:
1. That Fr. Carlos Urrutigoity, the Superior General of the Society of St. John, be immediately suspended and that canonical proceedings, including possible laicization, be initiated against him.
2. That any priest or other person affiliated with the Society who has been sexually involved with seminarians or other young men be removed from the Society and that canonical proceedings also be initiated with respect to such persons.
3. That an independent Blue Ribbon Committee of Catholic laity be appointed to thoroughly investigate the sexual and financial scandals at the Society of St. John.
4. That Bishop Timlin resign as bishop for the Diocese of Scranton.
5. That an immediate criminal investigation be undertaken to determine whether the sexual misconduct of any priests or other members of the Society with seminarians or others, included persons who were legally minors.
6. That a communication be sent to the parents of any boys or young men who may have had contact with the priests of the Society of St. John, advising them that their sons may have come in contact with a sexual predator.
Background
Fr. Carlos Urrutigoity is the Superior General of the Society of St. John. When he was a seminarian at the Society of St. Pius X seminary in La Reja, Argentina, he was dismissed for homosexual behavior. He then obtained admission to the Society of St. Pius X seminary in Winona, Minnesota. At this seminary he came under a cloud of accusations of homosexuality due to his particular and excessive attention to certain young seminarians. Fr. Urrutigoity was dismissed from the Winona seminary after it was discovered that he was undertaking a secret agenda, which became the mission of the Society of St. John. After his departure from the seminary he molested a former seminarian whom he had been “grooming” for two years.
Bishop Fellay of the Society of St. Pius X warned Scranton Bishop James Timlin of the homosexual misconduct of Fr. Urrutigoity. Bishop Timlin sent his auxiliary bishop to interview the above-referenced seminarian but Bishop Timlin chose not to accept the accusations against Fr. Urrutigoity.
Another young man under Fr. Urrutigoity’s spiritual direction has stated that Fr. Urrutigoity made homosexual advances to him. A third young man has stated that he slept in the same bed with Fr. Urrutigoity after being plied with alcohol to the point of intoxication.
This leads to the topic of what some have euphemistically called Fr. Urrutigoity’s “sleeping sickness.” He has regularly invited and promoted the practice of having seminarians and other young men sleep in the same bed with him. Bishop Timlin has been aware of this practice for some time. Despite the fact that numerous young men have stated that they have slept alone with Fr. Urrutigoity in the same bed, the priests of the Society have repeatedly told concerned donors that this activity never took place. What has Bishop Timlin done in the face this scandalous behavior? He has angrily denied that the practice is “immoral” and has simply asked that young men no longer sleep over at the Society’s property. In fact, Bishop Timlin indicated at one point that he was willing to approve Fr. Urrutigoity’s recent request to join another religious order. THIS IS PRECISELY THE CYCLE OF TOLERANCE AND SILENCE THAT HAS PROMOTED THE CANCER OF HOMOSEXUAL MISCONDUCT AND ABUSE OF THE YOUNG IN THE CATHOLIC PRIESTHOOD! Fr. Urrutigoity engaged in this behavior in Argentina, continued it in Winona, was welcomed in the Scranton diocese and now may presumably go on to corrupt morals at another Catholic institution. That is where we Catholic laity step in and say:
NO! NO! NO! It ends here. If Bishop Timlin lacks the moral courage to publicly expose Fr. Urrutigoity, then we will step in and do it for him.
We have credible information that Fr. Urrutigoity is not the only priest at the Society of St. John who has engaged in homosexual conduct with young men. Only a full scale investigation of the Society by an independent commission (not some toadies of the Bishop) can expose the degree and severity of the harm done to youth there. We also know that Fr. Urrutigoity and at least one other priest gave alcohol and tobacco to minors. Additionally, Fr. Paul Carr, District Superior of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter has also warned Bishop Timlin of Fr. Urrutigoity’s habit of sleeping with young men from St. Gregory’s Academy. How many priests at the Society of St. John are involved in covering up for Fr. Urrutigoity’s behavior? All this, while evidence comes to light that the Society has grossly mismanaged millions of dollars given by trusting Catholics, has purchased $100,000 of luxury furniture, and continues an aggressive fund raising campaign to build a Catholic village on land infeasible for this purpose?
Scranton Auxiliary Bishop John Dougherty has admitted to Dr. Jeffrey Bond, President of the College of St. Justin Martyr, that Fr. Urrutigoity is a “cult leader” capable of pederasty.
BISHOP TIMLIN, HAVE YOU NO SHAME? Is it true, as your auxiliary bishop has admitted, that your inaction is due to the fact that you are being held hostage by the colossal debt of the Society of St. John?
____________________
This Press Release is not the end of RCF’s involvement in this matter. Future plans may include picketing Bishop Timlin, a letter writing and post-card campaign, and efforts to advise the parents of seminarians that their boys may have been exposed to a sexual predator. Studies show that most boys who are sexually molested will not report this behavior to their parents. Therefore, if Bishop Timlin will not fulfill his moral responsibility to inform parents, RCF will.
Viva Cristo Rey!
Steve Brady, President
Roman Catholic Faithful, Inc.
James Bendell, Board Member
Roman Catholic Faithful, Inc.
Texas sues Bishop Gracida; he sues back - Corpus Christi Bishop Rene H. Gracida is accused of conflict of interest in the administration of a charitable fund - includes related article about the origins of the fund
National Catholic Reporter, May 24, 1996 by Arthur Jones
Texas authorities have brought suit against Corpus Christi Bishop Rene H. Gracida -- who as president of a controversial, multimillionaire-dollar foundation, funneled more than $100 million to his diocese in 12 years -- charging that he "manipulated the grant process" and breached his fiduciary duty.
According to the suit, filed May 2 in Travis County by the Texas state attorney general's office, Gracida's involvement in the fund is laced with conflicts of interest and improprieties, including the diversion of funds from charity for the purchase of a for-profit television station. The suit again draws attention to one of the more controversial major U.S. foundations with Catholic connections. It is the fourth time since 1963 that the state has tackled the actions of officers and board members of the John G. and Marie Stella Kenedy Memorial Foundation. The most recent was in 1984.
In response this time, Gracida has filed suit against the state to secure a position on the foundation for himself and his successors and, among other points, seeking for the foundation board sole discretion in distributing the funds in Texas.
In fact, recourse to the law has been frequent since the death of rancher Sarita Kenedy East in 1961, when she left Trappist Br. Leo Gregory in charge of her charitable foundation worth nearly $500 million. She wanted the money, Leo said, directed to the poor of Latin America (NCR, Feb. 6, 13 and 20, 1987).
According to a 1963 agreement with the state, the foundation's board would be 60 percent Catholic, including the Corpus Christi bishop, and 33.3 percent non-Catholic. At least 10 percent of the charitable distributions would be nonsectarian and nonchurch-related and all made within Texas. The Corpus Christi diocese would receive 15 percent of the oil, gas and mineral resources from foundation properties, plus 10 percent of the foundation's income.
According to the suit, Gracida, foundation president since 1984, "has been faced with numerous conflicts of interest in his dual role" as bishop and foundation president and "has exercised de facto control over the foundation contrary to the terms, spirit and intent" of previous agreements and a 1984 lawsuit.
The suit said that by manipulating the grant process, ignoring foundation bylaws, flouting grant procedures and misrepresenting the foundation's status and financial situation, "the defendants [Gracida and the board] have transformed the foundation from a charitable trust designed to serve the public of the state of Texas into an entity primarily controlled by and for the bishop of the Diocese of Corpus Christi," including diverting money "away from charitable purposes into for-profit ventures."
According to court documents, the Corpus Christi diocese received more than $100 million in the nine years leading up to June 1993. (The state has no figures beyond that date.) The bishop and board are charged with having breached "common fiduciary duties" for failing to properly distribute, "failing to properly oversee," "failing to require accounting," and "failing to terminate or redesignate grants which were not properly and timely spent."
"Gracida," the action continues, "has consistently subordinated the interests of the foundation to the interests of the Diocese of Corpus Christi," and "the foundation's board has ratified all Gracida's actions without exercising independent judgment, allowing the foundation to be controlled by Gracida."
According to a copy of the suit obtained by NCR, the state charges that Gracida has dictated which grants should be approved and denied, with the overwhelming number going to the Corpus Christi diocese. Limits of $50,000 on sectarian grants are avoided by dividing them "into dozens of requests for $50,000 or less, [which] at Gracida's request the board routinely approves."
The suit charges that Gracida has made use of foundation funds to acquire a for-profit business ... KDF-TV, Channel 13, the Fox network affiliate in Corpus Christi, by forming and using as a purchasing agent Paloma Broadcasting Co., a for-profit company organized on Feb. 25, 1991, as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Corpus Christi Diocesan Telecommunications Corporation [DTC], a nonprofit corporation funded and operated by the diocese."
DTC received $3.1 million in 25 foundation grants and channeled some of its funds to the for-profit company in order to acquire and operate KDF-TV, says the attorney general. Gracida has made no public reply.
His coadjutor, Bishop Roberto O. Gonzalez, in a statement, said he is "distressed" by the suit, has "the highest respect" for Gracida, and pleaded with "all persons of goodwill to reserve judgment." He concluded, "Let us pray that the judicial process will be conducted in a climate of civility and mutual respect, without rancor or bitterness, that the court will render justice, and truth will prevail."
At press time, Gracida's attorney, Jorge Rangel, had not returned NCR's phone calls.
RELATED ARTICLE: Bishop led fight to keep funds in Texas
At one point, Bishop Rene Gracida, as president of the John G. and Marie Stella Kenedy Memorial Foundation, was running a game park that provided wealthy hunters with exotic animals to kill.
But given the events surrounding the life and death of multimillion-dollar rancher Sarita Kenedy East, once the best horsewoman in Texas, anything seems possible.
In 1961 she left Trappist Br. Leo Gregory in charge of her charitable foundation worth nearly $500 million.
In discussions with NCR's Michael Farrell (NCR, Feb. 6, 13 and 20, 1987), Leo insisted that in her later years East wanted that money to aid the desperately poor in Latin America. Instead, a group in Texas, led by Corpus Christi Bishop Mariano Garriga, claimed that Gregory had exercised undue influence over East to gain control of the foundation, and that East wanted the money to stay in Texas.
The Texans filed suit in a south Texas court. Gregory and industrialist J. Peter Grace, a foundation comember, appealed to Rome. Rome appointed Philadelphia Cardinal John Krol as mediator. Krol, Grace and the Texans reached an agreement in 1964 whereby most of East's money would stay in Texas. Gregory, aware that the agreement was not in accord with East's wishes, refused to sign it.
Caught between his vow of obedience in the Trappist order and the dead woman's wishes, he opted to fight the settlement in the Texas courts. As a result, in 1966 he was expelled from the Trappists.
In 1983, Gracida became Corpus Christi bishop. But even before that, accusations of impropriety concerning the money were surfacing, though no action was pursued. Further court appeals by Gregory were rejected.
COPYRIGHT 1996 National Catholic Report
The Mischief
at the
John G. and Marie Stella Kenedy
Memorial Foundation
Part Two
Update: Wednesday, July 21, 2004
In the next few paragraphs I'm going to discuss one of the players in the John G. and Marie Stella Kenedy Memorial Foundation mess. I'm going to write about the retired Bishop of Austin, John McCarthy, who, back in the mid-90s, urged then Texas Attorney General Dan Morales (now in prison himself for fraud, etc.) to go after his brother in the episcopacy, Rene H. Gracida of Corpus Christi, who was hogging all but a few crumbs of Kenedy Foundation grants. McCarthy was not concerned about getting the foundation to help the poorest of the poor. He was concerned about getting his share of the Kenedy loot to build up his diocese and to help pay the upkeep on his own $500,000-plus residence in Austin's ploshest neighborhood. Here's what I have to write about John McCarthy ...
In subsequent years, the Attorney General of the State of Texas brought suit against the foundation alleging mismanagement of the non-profit organization, and an out-of-court settlement was reached in which the bishop, The Most Rev. Rene H. Gracida, resigned from the foundation as well as retired from his post as a diocesan bishop, and the foundation’s board was expanded with the proviso that never again could a Catholic bishop preside over the foundation’s board.