Posted on 06/19/2002 2:01:37 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Bishop says priests will lose posts
By Ray Flanagan
As many as six men serving the Diocese of Scranton will no longer be able to act publicly as priests because of the policy adopted by American bishops in cases involving the sexual abuse of minors, Bishop James C. Timlin said Monday.
The plan adopted last weekend calls for their removal to be taken without naming the priests or explaining their offenses. The bishop conceded there is a small possibility it could change.
"We are committed to be open," he said, but added the diocese wants to "temper" the purging "with compassion and charity."
Bishop Timlin said those being divested of their priestly trappings would be included in a list of assignment changes, which will be announced shortly and become effective July 3. The reason for their new assignments will not be listed.
The bishop said he is taking the action reluctantly because he believes the priests -- all one-complaint offenders who have received treatment and shown devotion to their vocation -- have earned their second chances.
"I feel badly about these men," he said. "They're doing good work and now we have to do this."
But his feelings will not interfere with his duty, Bishop Timlin said.
"We are committed to implementing the policy."
Conflicting figures made it unclear exactly how many priests face action.
The bishop spoke of three or four men who will no longer be able to show any sign that they are ordained, but diocesan officials said in April that five men, who had been involved with teen-agers, had been continued as priests in assignments where they had no contact with youngsters.
At the time, the Rev. Thomas Skotek had just been suspended because he admitted improper conduct with a teen-age girl 30 years ago.
The Revs. Carlos Urrutogoity and Eric Ensey remain under suspension because of still-unconfirmed allegations they molested a teen-age boy several years ago.
The issue of what to do with priests who had sexually abused minors in the past was one of the most hotly debated last week at the bishops' meeting in Dallas. Many victims and others demanded "zero tolerance," so the bishops took a hard line.
Bishop Timlin, who favored a case-by-case policy, said he was surprised at the support behind his position. It blunted the complete casting out of all sexually abusive priests.
About the only connection that will remain between those who are divested and the priesthood will be the ability to celebrate Mass for themselves.
"They can't present themselves as priests," Bishop Timlin said. "They can't wear the collar."
Some who will lose their priestly capacity are aged, the bishop said, so they will be retired. He did express concern that others who are retiring, which is mandatory at 75, might be mistaken for the sexual offenders.
He did not say what would happen to the younger men.
The bishop said he has not talked to any of the priests about the action he will take against them.
Bishop Timlin noted the new national policy, which calls for police and prosecutors to be informed of all complaints about the sexual abuse of minors, does not fully define what is prohibited.
For example, he recalled a heated complaint he received years ago from a parent about a priest kissing his daughter on the hand. He said he does not consider that incident reportable, but his thinking could be changed.
"If you don't (report it)," the bishop said, "they think you're hiding something."
He also said the Dallas policy does not address civil lawsuits. The church has been criticized for using attorneys who play hardball with victims.
Bishop Timlin regrets that happens, but does not see any way around it. "If you choose the court system," he said, "then you have to play that game."
The bishop said the most difficult part of the meeting was hearing from the victims.
"We would be so anxious to talk to people if they would be reasonable," he added.
The diocese is named as a defendant in a federal lawsuit along with Fathers Urrutigoity and Ensey of the Society of St. John. The matter has been under investigation for several months by Lackawanna County District Attorney Andy Jarbola.
TSJDGI ping...
(TSJDGI--TheyStillJustDon'tGetIt)
They continued to ask me for donations so I called and spoke with the priest in charge of giving. I leveled each charge at him as found on the Roman Catholic Faithful website and he denied them. He maligned the boy involved in the sleeping in the priest's bed as a "problem child". He denied the plying of young boys with wine at the dinner table which had been reported. He denied the extravagant misuse of funds which had been reported.
He had the cheek to tell me that I was nothing more then a protestant if I stopped my giving to he and other rogue priests including my own Bishop (who is Egan and who I consider to be unfit for service as Bishop). He said I was a heretic for believing RCF. He said Christ himself was a loose liver! Hah!!! What blasphemy. He quoted Mathew. I challenged him on the exact text and said, no Christ was accused of associating with prostitutes and was accused of being a drunkard but nowere was there evidence he WAS! one. Can you imagine this liars gall?
So I called Bishop Timlin, and he went on about how good these priests were, but allowed that they had made mistakes. Ultimately I said, Bishop did they squander funds? Answer: yes. Bishop did they give young boys wine at the dinner table? Answer: yes, in the European manner. Reply: I have a seventeen year old, you don't give a youth unaccustomed to alcohol wine and not have a resulting drunken youth on your hands, everyone knows that. Bishop, did they have boys sleep with them? Answer: yes, but not anymore.
He then went on to character assasinate the man who brought this information to light and the boy who was at the center of some accusations.
Father John Hardon says Satan presents his lies with the greatest of piety, I believe Father Hardon. V's wife.
Let's just hope some more courageous leaders step forward in the future to restore orthodoxy, sound morality, and authentically "Catholic" spiritual discipline. The homosexual captivity of the Church must be addressed or we just sink further into post-civilizational decline. The bishops need to reflect on whether they want to risk that for cheap and short-term PR with the Lavender mafia.
BTW, then the Bishop said he was going to go on a local PBS station the night of my call to him, and take calls from the public regarding the whole scandal and that I should pray for him cuz he didn't know what he was going to say. I just said: tell the truth. He kinda gurgled on the other end of the phone. V's wife.
This is also tragic. A man of God not knowing he only has to speak the truth? What happened to them? This really brings tears to my eyes.
Amidst all the cut-backs in our Archdiocese (Boston), Cardinal Law still employs a professional spokesperson - now I understand.
Thank you for posting your story. As hard as it is for us to hear, we need to hear it.
Excellent job! If you want to find what charges are being leveled against your bishop, click on the following link, key in your bishop's name, press search and follow the list of links to the accusations.
Here are the results of a search on Mahony : Mahony Results
If you and others wish to read the other side in this controversy about the Society of Saint John, please pay a visit to http://www.friendsofssi.com/
As a further aside, I have had correspondence with Alexis Bugnolo, a man who claims the title of "Brother" and is quoted in the RCF charges. He belongs to no recognized order in the Catholic Church and is but a layman. FWIW, he sees homosexuals and homosexual tendencies virtually everywhere.
I am also an acquaintance of the canonist mentioned in Bugnolo's 'recollections' and he has told me that he has no memory of any contemporaneous discussion with Bugnolo about questionable practices at St. Gregory's Academy.
I would advise prudence and caution when reading of allegations which have not yet been adjudicated.
Sursum Corda
If you wish to counter the claims made and that the offending priest was dismissed or asked to leave the order because of these allegations, please do so, and present contrary evidence. Are you saying he is still there?
There is only one kind of damage control that will work anymore. It is not spin, it is action, and truth. No matter how hard.
v.
You did good!!
Well they have other pressure groups now. The laity. I hope we can all be like ventana. Way to go!
I did do a search on Dr. Jeffrey Bond who confronted the Bishop and the priests at SSJ, and came up with lots of links.
From the RCF's article about all this, let's listen to Bishop Timlin:
"Bishop Timlin's right-hand man, Aux. Bishop Dougherty, reportedly told Dr. Bond and another witness that he believed Urrutigoity was a "cult leader" who was "capable of pederasty at any time." Bishop Dougherty also reportedly said that Urrutigoity was "grooming" young men for sexual encounters. Bishop Timlin said that Dr. Bond "twists things around" and "misquoted Bishop Dougherty." However, Bishop Timlin conceded that Bishop Dougherty "may have made a statement about cult." "I haven't questioned Bishop Dougherty about the cult-like statements," Bishop Timlin told RCF. In response to Timlin's claims about misquoting people, Dr. Bond said, "he' s lying," adding that Dougherty took notes on a yellow pad during their meetings. "I'm waiting for them to say that under oath," Dr. Bond told RCF. He further disclosed that in a conversation with his lawyer, Bishop Timlin suggested that Dr. Bond was emotionally unstable and said that Bond would never work anywhere else after the dust settled on this scandal."
This character attack was reiterated to me by the Bishop and Father Ryan at SSJ. They attacked the boy's character as well. They acted entirely without charity and they obfuscated the truth, or, admitting some truth wouldn't then proceed to the logical conclusions based on the truth. They struck me as liars.
I called Dr. Bond to speak with him and get a handle on his demeanor. He was forthright, though prudent, and gave every indication of being charitable though angry at the predicament. I was impressed by him and told him I believe him. He sighed such a deep sigh and spoke so profoundly and with gratitude, that I have every confidence in him. I can't offer a hundred percent guarantee, I only go by my gut feeling: that is, I believe him. V's wife.
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.