Bishop Timlin's legacy: from Caparelli to the SSJ

St. Justin Martyr Society ^ | 07.29.03 | Dr. Jeffrey M. Bond

[Land of the Irish]

Williamson's weirdness is only in your perverted mind.

Why don't you tell me about Bishop Reggie Cawcutt' s weirdness?

Reggie the Queer

We can play my bishop is better than your bishop all night long. You up for it?

[sinkspur]

We can play my bishop is better than your bishop all night long. You up for it?

You're asking ME to defend bishops? You ought to know better than that.

[ultima ratio]

You are really so badly-informed about this, it's funny. The money had nothing to do with victims--if there were any. The boys insist nothing happened, remember. The money was for support of the Society of St. John's projects--which include building a Catholic village from the ground up. Millions of dollars were at stake--since the fear was that scandal would dry up support. Why do you insist on posting comments on matters you know nothing about? You jumped to the conclusion these were traditionalists--and they are not. Now you imply the money involved is hush money--and it is not.

[ultima ratio]

No, you are determined to smear traditionalists by hook or crook. You can't even be honest with yourself--though your motives are obvious.

[sinkspur]

Now you imply the money involved is hush money--and it is not.

You're seeing what you want to see, which is one of your bad habits.

In order to protect the money, Timlin was reluctant to do anything about Urrigoity, until he had his face rubbed in the evidence by an accusation.

Where was the background check on this priest and his little friends?

[sinkspur]

No, you are determined to smear traditionalists by hook or crook.

Don't take this personally, UR. Your on the verge of hyperventilation, once again.

[ultima ratio]

You are pretending to know something you haven't a clue about. The money had nothing to do with "victims" as you suggested. There was no "hush money." The money Timlin was concerned about was the heavy investment by bankers and the diocese which would have been lost had the scandal discouraged further support.

[sinkspur]

You know everything, UR. Everyone else is stupid, or ill-informed, or denies the Real Presence.

The list of those who actually communicate with you who are not members of your sect is shrinking by the day.

You ought to examine your approach, son. You're a pain in the ass.

[Coleus]

`

[Coleus]

Thanks for clearing this up. Until yesterday I have never heard of Timlin, Dr. Bond, the college or anything else. A friend of mine sent me the e-mail and then I researched as best as I could have regarding the incidents and charges.

[ultima ratio]

"You're a pain in the ass."

I guess so--since it's always annoying to be proven wrong.

[BlackElk]

There is little reason to disbelieve the work of Rod Dreher. Bishop Timlin did many good things as Bishop of Scranton but he had the obligation to rein in this misbehavior of the Society of St. John. While Bishop Timlin's resignation has been accepted and he will presumably soon be replaced, the new bishop must be held to account from the get-go.

Traditional Catholics have the greatest reason to demand that this cancer be expunged from the Scranton Diocese. We have no obligation whatsoever to be protective of anyone in the hierarchy who tolerates this abusive behavior of the ordained toward children. If the miscreant is traditional, we traditionalists should be all the more zealous in rooting out the traditionalist who is a miscreant.

[BlackElk]

Don't be overly sensitive. It is claimed that SSJ was a "breakaway" from SSPX. Nowhere does it appear to be claimed that SSPX was responsible for Fr. U. or for SSJ. Quite the contrary. SSPX would no more be responsible for Fr. U. and SSJ than would the Roman Catholic Church be responsible for the novelties of Luther simply because he whad previously been ordained a priest. He too was a breakaway and must stand alone before God for judgment without blaming Catholicism for his shortcomings.

All in all, it sounds like a feather in SSPX's cap to have booted Fr. Fruitloop and company.

[Land of the Irish]

"You're a pain in the ass."

The ultimate compliment from sinkspur. Congratulations. I've gotten it once or twice, myself.

[BlackElk]

Assuming that the president of the proposed college is being malevolent, petty, malicious, or whatever, if it is true that these adolescents wound up in Fr. U's bed, whatever the excuse, something very wrong occurred, i.e., they wound up in his bed. Assuming that no sexual act whatsoever occurred, the priest was guilty of extremely poor judgment. The provision of alcohol to minors under supervision of church authorities also reflects, at the very least, extremely poor judgment.

The bishop needed to take more drastic action. He did not. In many ways, Bishop Timlin was a superb bishop. That does not excuse this failure. Mitigation, perhaps. Excuse, no!

[BlackElk]

You would have a lot more credibility on this subject if you would lay off Archbishop Eldon Curtiss who simply refused to sit still for the gross insubordinate conduct of a defiantly cancerously disobedient schoolmarm who had nothing but second hand information including quite non-credible aspects and demanded that the archbishop obey her.

The story she told had zero credibility. The fact that the priest in question accessed kiddieporn on his rectory computer and, having admitted as much to authorities, presumably been sentenced by a court of competent jurisdiction (too bad the court could not hang the sick queer) does not mean that the rest of her fantastic tale holds water. At the very least, the archbishop had an obligation to investigate the situation. He is not subject to the authority of his employees. She is subject to his authority, apparently resents that fact and acts accordingly on his payroll.

It simply does not work that way between employer and employee anywhere. I don't know the final resolution as to the rebellious schoolmarm of the fevered brow but I certainly hope that she was fired and stayed fired. She was a terrible example for the first-graders in her charge in a parochial school. If she carried the fight further, she should have been ecclesiastically disciplined including excommunication if possible.

Just as the traditionalists have a special obligation to go after the "traditionalist" miscreants (which most certainly does NOT include Archbishop Eldon Curtiss for he is no miscreant), so do the progressive set have special obligations for dealing with the likes of Cardinal Mahoney, Cardinal Keeler, the late Cardinal Bernardin and the recently deposed Archbishop of Milwaukee, Rembert Weakland, who personally molested other men in his capacity as Archbishop of Milwaukee and misappropriated archdiocesan funds to pay off the young men to suppress the truth of his own moral crimes against other men, from whom he had to be separated with a crow bar. Was Rembert too regular a contributor to progressive rags to be subjected to the criticism from other progressives which he so richly earned.

[sinkspur]

You would have a lot more credibility on this subject if you would lay off Archbishop Eldon Curtiss who simply refused to sit still for the gross insubordinate conduct of a defiantly cancerously disobedient schoolmarm who had nothing but second hand information including quite non-credible aspects and demanded that the archbishop obey her.

I knew if you read my statement about Curtiss you would have this reaction. I'm sorry, but I stand by everything I've ever said about Curtiss, as it is fact. Viewing child porn is just about the sickest thing one can do, and Curtiss objected to the cops being called in on one of his priests.

We just disagree here, Elk.

[ultima ratio]

I agree. But if nothing happened, I don't think the priest was just showing bad judgment--I think he was just striking out. The bad judgment was Timlin's--for buying their dumb story.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[ventana]

"They denied any wrongdoing, and said they did things like that only when they were crowded. They denied any immoral activity.

So they didn't do anything wrong accept sleep in bed with fifteen year old boys, because it was overcrowded. Well, when scouts go camping it's pretty crowded but I don't think Scoutmasters consider sharing their sleeping bags with them, do you? So with one breath they didn't do anything and with the next they admit they did breach convention, which at the very least is enormously scandalous. Men and boys must not share beds under any circumstances. Take a pillow and blanket and sleep on the floor. But these prevaricators rationalize, rationalize, rationalize. And this is exactly what Timlin said to me. And when I confronted him with the evidence he agreed to, he just could not make a moral judgement. A man like that should not be Bishop. V's wife.