Replies

My take is this. Fr. U. was on the make. He shared a bed with prep school boys--on the pretext of giving them "spiritual direction". The boys were also drinking. So there's plenty of smoke. Whether there was any fire is uncertain. The boys deny anything happened--either out of feelings of shame, or because this is actually true. I tend to believe the boys, since it would have taken more than a few beers to break down such strong barriers. But they were adolescents living in an all-male prep school environment--and kids do get horny. So there's also some doubt in my mind.

Timlin showed very bad judgment. He bought the excuse that there were not enough beds to accommodate all the boys on retreat--which was true--and so the kids had to double-up in Fr. U's bed where they got "spiritual direction"--which was false and patently ridiculous and should have been received as such. Either they should have gotten some cots or some sleeping bags from somewhere or they should have sent the boys home. And Timlin had been warned in a letter by Bishop Fellay that Fr. U. was suspected of gay proclivities. This advice was ignored. He did order the practice of doubling-up to halt immediately, and suspended both Fr. U. and another priest after the affair became public.

As for Timlin personally, I tend to give him the benefit of a doubt, but not quite all the way. He does seem to me to be somewhat naive, yet I also have other serious reservations. It is true, however, that this fellow Bond, who had been appointed president of a college that existed only on paper, had his own ax to grind. He had been brought in on a deal that was half-cocked to begin with, had transferred his family to the middle of nowhere on a promise--and then watched as the enterprise collapsed. He picked up on the seductive behavior of Fr. U. and a few others around boys and eagerly exploited this--not because he cared about the boys--but to give vent to his hostilities. Bad behavior all around.