§"The Society of St. John: EXPLOITING TRADITIONALIST ORDERS" («Rite of Sodomy»)

[Maximilian]

In a single paragraph you manage to contradict yourself more than once and spread slander against the names of several traditional priests and bishops. The fact is that Bishop Williamson did expel Carlos Urrutigoity from the seminary. He was also expelled from the seminary in Argentina. The SSPX did its job. It's not clear what you find so hard to believe about that.

Are you sure he wasn't ordained by the SSPX?

Yes, he was. He was expelled from the seminary in Winona, but only after he had been ordained. So they woke up a little bit too late, despite the best efforts of the rector from Argentina who made a trip to the US to try to stop the ordination.

[Maximilian]

I swear I've read that the then-argentinian rector for the sspx asked bp Williamson to not ordain urrutigoity but Williamson ignored him and ordained him at winona.

Yes, that's true. Williamson listened to the rector from Argentina, but he decided there wasn't enough substantial evidence. Urrutigoity had been on his best behavior in the US until after he was ordained. Then there started to be problems as soon as he was ordained.

[Maximilian]

As someone who has met him, I can see why people were not suspicious of him, because he isn't one of those people who immediately strikes you as a weirdo.

That's very interesting.

[Elizabeth]

I swear I've read that the then-argentinian rector for the sspx asked bp Williamson to not ordain urrutigoity but Williamson ignored him and ordained him at winona.

Yep.

[Elizabeth]

The main issue of is SSJ "sacramental" pederasty.  That is they elevated the practice of sleeping in the same bed as boys, showering together, being in love, and so forth as a sort of "religious practice".  (this tactic is common amongst clerical predators; they have no remorse whatsoever in trying to convince their victims of the spiritual benefits of un-natural vice)

[Elizabeth]

The headmaster of St. Gregory's says that they didn't lose even one student at that time. They closed 10 years later. We should avoid doing the devil's work for him by spreading slander.

http://stgregoryshistory.wordpress.com/interview-with-alan-hicks/

"Despite all the negative attacks broadcast on the Internet, the overwhelming response of the Academy parents, all of whom knew me and Mr. Clark personally, was supportive, as their many letters gave witness. I don't believe we lost even one student as a result of these claims, which speaks to their confidence in us. I should also add that during this time, Mr. Clark and I met and communicated regularly with an advisory group of experienced legal and educational professionals to seek their guidance in how to proceed."

The numerous court documents which I have read paint a FAR different picture to that of Mr. Hicks. 

[erin is nice]

I swear I've read that the then-argentinian rector for the sspx asked bp Williamson to not ordain urrutigoity but Williamson ignored him and ordained him at winona.

I'm pretty sure he was ordained by the SSPX. As someone who has met him, I can see why people were not suspicious of him, because he isn't one of those people who immediately strikes you as a weirdo.

Okay, I have to take this back-- I met a different priest from the SSJ, it was not Fr. Urrutigoity, I got them confused. Sorry!

[Geremia]

In a single paragraph you manage to contradict yourself more than once and spread slander against the names of several traditional priests and bishops. The fact is that Bishop Williamson did expel Carlos Urrutigoity from the seminary. He was also expelled from the seminary in Argentina. The SSPX did its job. It's not clear what you find so hard to believe about that.

Are you sure he wasn't ordained by the SSPX?

Yes, he was, but Bp. Fellay then expelled him.

[Elizabeth]

In a single paragraph you manage to contradict yourself more than once and spread slander against the names of several traditional priests and bishops. The fact is that Bishop Williamson did expel Carlos Urrutigoity from the seminary. He was also expelled from the seminary in Argentina. The SSPX did its job. It's not clear what you find so hard to believe about that.

Are you sure he wasn't ordained by the SSPX?

Yes, he was, but Bp. Fellay then expelled him.

Which caused some serious paybacks, in the form of certain people pretending to be part of the "resistance" against SSPX.

[Michael Wilson]

I knew Fr. Urrutigoity when he was a seminarian, as he stayed with our family a couple of times in his trips back and forth from Argentina from the seminary; he was also stationed in the priory of Spain while we lived there, so I was able to get to see him work as a priest. On all the occasions where we were with him, he made a very favorable impression on me and the rest of my family. He was very polite, easy to talk to; he put everyone right at their ease. He was very intelligent and well mannered; he obviously came from a wealthy family as he had very polished manners and an innate nobility of bearing.  When the news broke about his behavior at St. Gregory's, we were totally shocked.  I subsequently asked one of his former classmates at Winona if he had ever gotten any "bad vibes" from Fr. U, when he was there living with him?  He told me that he didn't get any at all in the moral sense, but he was a little disturbed by some of Fr.'s opinions on theological matters, and he made his concerns known to Msgr. Williamson. But nothing came of it.
So I can believe that Msgr. Williamson and others could have been deceived by Fr. U. As I myself and my family were.

One other detail that I remember from Fr. Urrutigoity: Either he or one of the other SSPX priests told us that he was either engaged to be married or seriously dating a trad girl in Argentina, and she convinced him to go to an Ignatian retreat run by the SSPX; there he claimed to have received his vocation, and broke up with his  girlfriend and entered the seminary.  His family were not trads; but were close to the Opus Dei.

[Elizabeth]

Hey Mike,  Sounds like a typical sociopath who fools everyone until the mask falls off--usually when confronted or "outed".  His elegance, the aristocratic manners and taste and superior intelligence would have been a great pull for the homosexuals who founded the SSJ.  People like U. are incredibly able to make grave moral issues into grand themes, similar to art forms.  In his case, pederasty as a sacred ritual.  They have an acute ability to tell people what they want to hear, to size people up and know exactly how to deal with them in a manner suited to his own requirements.  They figure out instantly whether a person is open or closed to their personal agenda and behave accordingly.  In Urrigoity's case, being an aristocratic Argentinian would have appeared very noble, considering how lower class the Mass had become.  This is why sociopaths like Urriogoity are able to con people out of huge sums of money to make something so sordid appear elegant and important.  It appeals to the narcissistic foundation of homosexuals, and the compassion of normal people. 

I suspect Franciscus shares similar traits, except for elegance he has substituted humble-ness.

[Geremia]

he was a little disturbed by some of Fr.'s opinions on theological matters

There's the red flag.

But nothing came of it.

Well, some did come of it...
Oremus pro eum.

[Maximilian]

I knew Fr. Urrutigoity when he was a seminarian, as he stayed with our family a couple of times in his trips back and forth from Argentina from the seminary; he was also stationed in the priory of Spain while we lived there, so I was able to get to see him work as a priest. On all the occasions where we were with him, he made a very favorable impression on me and the rest of my family. He was very polite, easy to talk to; he put everyone right at their ease. He was very intelligent and well mannered; he obviously came from a wealthy family as he had very polished manners and an innate nobility of bearing.  When the news broke about his behavior at St. Gregory's, we were totally shocked.  I subsequently asked one of his former classmates at Winona if he had ever gotten any "bad vibes" from Fr. U, when he was there living with him?  He told me that he didn't get any at all in the moral sense, but he was a little disturbed by some of Fr.'s opinions on theological matters, and he made his concerns known to Msgr. Williamson. But nothing came of it.
So I can believe that Msgr. Williamson and others could have been deceived by Fr. U. As I myself and my family were.

One other detail that I remember from Fr. Urrutigoity: Either he or one of the other SSPX priests told us that he was either engaged to be married or seriously dating a trad girl in Argentina, and she convinced him to go to an Ignatian retreat run by the SSPX; there he claimed to have received his vocation, and broke up with his  girlfriend and entered the seminary.  His family were not trads; but were close to the Opus Dei.

Thank you for this first-hand testimony. Perhaps I have defamed Fr. Urrutigoity. If so, I apologize.

After I wrote the earlier posts on this thread, I felt some pangs of conscience regarding the fact that while I defended the reputations of the other people involved in this incident, I assumed that Fr. Urrutigoity was the villain at the center of it who caused trouble for everyone else. So I was willing to throw him under the bus for the benefit of those who were unfairly maligned.

But perhaps he was innocent as well. The evidence is extremely sketchy. Nothing that can stand up to scrutiny. Perhaps I spoke too soon, and didn't have enough information. In any case, I made a rash judgment since I have never heard his side of the story. It is a principle of law that the first side to present their case always appear to be in the right until you hear the other side of the case. I should not have made any judgment until I heard both sides.

[Chestertonian]

I knew Fr. Urrutigoity when he was a seminarian, as he stayed with our family a couple of times in his trips back and forth from Argentina from the seminary; he was also stationed in the priory of Spain while we lived there, so I was able to get to see him work as a priest. On all the occasions where we were with him, he made a very favorable impression on me and the rest of my family. He was very polite, easy to talk to; he put everyone right at their ease. He was very intelligent and well mannered; he obviously came from a wealthy family as he had very polished manners and an innate nobility of bearing.  When the news broke about his behavior at St. Gregory's, we were totally shocked.  I subsequently asked one of his former classmates at Winona if he had ever gotten any "bad vibes" from Fr. U, when he was there living with him?  He told me that he didn't get any at all in the moral sense, but he was a little disturbed by some of Fr.'s opinions on theological matters, and he made his concerns known to Msgr. Williamson. But nothing came of it.
So I can believe that Msgr. Williamson and others could have been deceived by Fr. U. As I myself and my family were.

One other detail that I remember from Fr. Urrutigoity: Either he or one of the other SSPX priests told us that he was either engaged to be married or seriously dating a trad girl in Argentina, and she convinced him to go to an Ignatian retreat run by the SSPX; there he claimed to have received his vocation, and broke up with his  girlfriend and entered the seminary.  His family were not trads; but were close to the Opus Dei.

Thank you for this first-hand testimony. Perhaps I have defamed Fr. Urrutigoity. If so, I apologize.

After I wrote the earlier posts on this thread, I felt some pangs of conscience regarding the fact that while I defended the reputations of the other people involved in this incident, I assumed that Fr. Urrutigoity was the villain at the center of it who caused trouble for everyone else. So I was willing to throw him under the bus for the benefit of those who were unfairly maligned.

But perhaps he was innocent as well. The evidence is extremely sketchy. Nothing that can stand up to scrutiny. Perhaps I spoke too soon, and didn't have enough information. In any case, I made a rash judgment since I have never heard his side of the story. It is a principle of law that the first side to present their case always appear to be in the right until you hear the other side of the case. I should not have made any judgment until I heard both sides.

A lot of seemingly "nice"  "good" people come across as safe when you meet them, but behind closed doors you find out you're in the presence of a bona fide sociopath.

I was brutally attacked by someone, a complete psycho who worked as a healthcare professional in a hospital where I was a cardiac patient.  The man was very nice to my wife and my family suspected nothing.  This is how they get away with their crimes.  They fool others into thinking they're "good people" in order to get closer to their prey.  They go into helping, healing and teaching professions where they encounter people who are vulnerable.

I've been in sexual assault support groups before, back when I mistakenly thought that sort of thing was useful to me, and one of the things I heard all the time was that the victim was not believed because the attacker came across as "such a nice person."  Often the victim is a child and the perpetrator came across to the child's family as very good natured around children  That's exactly what they want the child's family to think, so they'll trust them more.

When I was in college, there was this professor that everyone loved.  I took a class with him and he was fantastic, a wonderful mentor for me in the field of education.  Most students on campus agreed that he was not only knowledgeable but also pleasant to be around.  And then, a few years after I graduated, I read that he'd been arrested and escorted off campus by the police because they found his work PC and home PC were filled with child pornography.  It was shocking to say the least because no one, even students and faculty who were closest to him, got a "bad vibe" from him.  Never in a million years would I suspect that this guy was a pedophile.  But apparently he was, Lord have mercy.  It was crushing for many of his former students.

This is exactly why I'm hoping to homeschool my son.  There's no such thing as safety this side of heaven, and there's no way for sure to know if someone is trustworthy.

People are multi-faceted and we have the capacity to commit grave sins but also to commit acts of good will and charity.  So the fact that this Fr. Urrutigoity had some good qualities doesn't mean that he is incapable of doing some pretty terrible things.

[Maximilian]

So the fact that this Fr. Urrutigoity had some good qualities doesn't mean that he is incapable of doing some pretty terrible things.

Of course it's true that all of us are capable of doing terrible things. But I have an obligation to believe the best of others until I have proof otherwise. After hearing from Michael Wilson, it simply confirmed for me the nagging doubt that I haven't actually seen any proof of wrongdoing by Fr. Urrutigoity, and yet I was willing to make a rash judgment against him.

Before I would be in a position to believe him guilty of some crime, I should have first seen substantial evidence against him, and then given equal consideration to the other side of the argument exonerating him. If I didn't do that, then I committed the sin of rash judgment.

Our legal system is based on these Christian principles. But virtually no one practices them anymore. That's why it seems to me that it's nearly impossible for anyone to receive a fair trial today.