Traditionalist Issues
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Galarreta’s Complacency with
Homo Seminarian Urrutigoity
The Society St. Pius X (SSPX) is an organization that presents itself as being composed of highly virtuous Bishops and priests. This cupola projects to its lay members an idea that it is the true representative of the Catholic Church as she was prior to the Vatican II Revolution. Such an image is then passed on by the grassroots to the general public.
If this were true, SSPX should be free from the vices and errors that characterized the post-Vatican II Church. Or, if some guilty homosexual and pedophile priests would appear inside its milieu, the grassroots and the public would expect that the guilty party would be punished in an exemplary way.
I started my research in order to check whether this spotless image paints the real picture of SSPX or makes a hypocritical façade. This research has generated a series, which begins with today’s article.
Explosion of homosexual & pedophile priest crisis
With the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), the Church opened the window to the world “to let the fresh air in.” This “fresh air” brought with it all the errors and vices of the modern world including homosexuality and pedophilia.
By the 1990s, news reports of clerical homosexuality and the sexual abuse of minors (pederasty/pedophilia) were drawing public attention throughout the world. By the early 2000s, these reports exploded all over the world making global headlines in the media. The crisis continues to this day, in other words, for about 20 years.
The fuel that feeds this fire is the ever-increasing evidence of the criminal complacency of Conciliar Bishops, Cardinals and Popes with regard to these “sins that cries out to Heaven for vengeance.” Some of the Bishops practice these vices, others protect and promote the perpetrators, and others feign ignorance. Still others only give lip service to justice, responding to victims, eye-witnesses, media and law enforcement personnel with empty statements like: “Oh yes, we will look into it” or simply chant slogans like “Zero Tolerance!” and “Total Transparency.”
The relocation of sexual-deviant and sexual-predator clergy remains one of the most common tactics used by Bishops to cover-up these crimes.
Fr. Carlos Urrutigoity of the SSPX
Carlos Urrutigoity was a seminarian at Our Lady Co-Redemptrix Seminary – SSPX – in La Reja, Argentina, during the 1980s. He later was ordained a priest and promoted to professorship at Winona Seminary in Minenesota, until he was expelled in May 1997.
From 1981-1988, the rector of La Reja Seminary in Argentina was Fr. Andres Morello, who previously had been vice-rector. Fr. Morello was the rector during the entire stay of Urrutigoity at that seminary.
Against Urrutigoity, Fr. Morello and others made, according to author Randy Engel, “‘grave denunciations in moral matters,’… [which were] set down in writing as part of a dossier given to Archbishop Lefebvre when Fr. Morello requested a canonical investigation of certain SSPX priests. … Accusations of homosexual behavior made against seminarian Urrutigoity appear in this dossier as part of a report entitled ‘Document No. 2.’ This report was signed by a group of priests and seminarians from the seminary of La Reja.” (1)
Below are some excerpts from the dossier (Document No. 2). For reference purposes, I have numbered them. I will insert some commentaries and questions when deemed appropriate:
1. A young layman who lived at La Reja seminary denounced Urrutigoity, “for entering his room without knocking previously. One night at about 3:00 AM he woke up and found him inside the room uncovering him. The excuse that Urrutigoity gave the next day was that he had entered the room in order to cover him. Before this situation the lad went to Fr. Canale, a priest whom he trusted. He laughed and said to him: ‘The only thing I can tell you is to lock the door.’ Fr. Canale was therefore fully aware of the situation and he never talked about it with the superior of the house.”
Why would a “trusted priest” of the La Reja seminary, Fr. Canale, find Urrutigoity’s late night actions laughable? Why has his disgust and rejection of this vice against nature become so lax?
“Ha-ha. The only thing I can tell you is to lock the door. Ha-ha”? Was this the pervasive attitude in SSPX seminaries regarding homosexuality? It would seem so. Why was this priest not repulsed and indignant about Urrutigoity after what the youth had just told him? Why didn’t he immediately report this incident to the rector Fr. Morello and others in a position to confront the homosexual behavior of that seminarian?
Or did Fr. Canale not act because he knew that “Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta, the SSPX District Superior and other influential priests” would do nothing?
2. On one occasion the same witness stated that “the seminarian [Urrutigoity] entered into his room and, finding him in bed, told him that he had a fever. The lad replied that he was feeling well, but Urrutigoity insisted that he had a fever and that, in order to confirm it, he was going to fondle his genitals to see if they were inflamed, and he did it.”
3. “One day Carlos Urrutigoity gave him underwear, insisted that he should get naked and try it on before him to see if it fit. He proposed that he take measurements every week of his physical development, naked and with his back towards the wall, which the young man refused to do.”
4. “He gave him a shot and insisted on massaging his buttocks, which he did. We finish here the testimony of the young man, and we wish to make it clear that these are not all the incidents, just those which we consider more relevant.”
5. “A seminarian declares that being in the restroom he [Urrutigoity] touched him in his private parts, and that often he told him things about the private parts, among others that ‘he adored his buttocks’ (the seminarian had not yet received the soutane). He said: ‘I adore your little round butt’ (and made a gesture with his hands).”
6. “Another seminarian tells us that he [Urrutigoity] asked him about the sexual life of his past and about his present temptations.”
7. “Two traditional young laymen declare that during a summer camp organized by Carlos Urrutigoity – with the inexplicable authorization of Bishop de Galarreta, who knew about the situation, and while the seminarian [Urrutigoity] was in the priory of Cordoba under observation because of his disciplinary problems – he went to the river with a group of young men. There he removed his clothes before the others and remained in underwear. One of the youngsters immediately offered him a swimming suit which Urrutigoity rejected, and in such attire he bathed in the river.”
How could Bishop de Galarreta, who knew about the situation, allow Urrutigoity’s presence at this “summer camp?” What is more, Galarreta authorized a known predator like Urrutigoity to organize and be in charge of this “summer camp” for youngsters. I believe that this constitutes an act of criminal negligence.
Given the length of the report about the seminarian Urrutigoity, I will leave the final items of “Document No. 2” for the next article.
Continued
Posted December 16, 2019
I started my research in order to check whether this spotless image paints the real picture of SSPX or makes a hypocritical façade. This research has generated a series, which begins with today’s article.
Explosion of homosexual & pedophile priest crisis
With the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), the Church opened the window to the world “to let the fresh air in.” This “fresh air” brought with it all the errors and vices of the modern world including homosexuality and pedophilia.
By the 1990s, news reports of clerical homosexuality and the sexual abuse of minors (pederasty/pedophilia) were drawing public attention throughout the world. By the early 2000s, these reports exploded all over the world making global headlines in the media. The crisis continues to this day, in other words, for about 20 years.
The fuel that feeds this fire is the ever-increasing evidence of the criminal complacency of Conciliar Bishops, Cardinals and Popes with regard to these “sins that cries out to Heaven for vengeance.” Some of the Bishops practice these vices, others protect and promote the perpetrators, and others feign ignorance. Still others only give lip service to justice, responding to victims, eye-witnesses, media and law enforcement personnel with empty statements like: “Oh yes, we will look into it” or simply chant slogans like “Zero Tolerance!” and “Total Transparency.”
The relocation of sexual-deviant and sexual-predator clergy remains one of the most common tactics used by Bishops to cover-up these crimes.
Fr. Carlos Urrutigoity of the SSPX
Carlos Urrutigoity was a seminarian at Our Lady Co-Redemptrix Seminary – SSPX – in La Reja, Argentina, during the 1980s. He later was ordained a priest and promoted to professorship at Winona Seminary in Minenesota, until he was expelled in May 1997.
Fr. Carlos Urrutigoity
Against Urrutigoity, Fr. Morello and others made, according to author Randy Engel, “‘grave denunciations in moral matters,’… [which were] set down in writing as part of a dossier given to Archbishop Lefebvre when Fr. Morello requested a canonical investigation of certain SSPX priests. … Accusations of homosexual behavior made against seminarian Urrutigoity appear in this dossier as part of a report entitled ‘Document No. 2.’ This report was signed by a group of priests and seminarians from the seminary of La Reja.” (1)
Below are some excerpts from the dossier (Document No. 2). For reference purposes, I have numbered them. I will insert some commentaries and questions when deemed appropriate:
1. A young layman who lived at La Reja seminary denounced Urrutigoity, “for entering his room without knocking previously. One night at about 3:00 AM he woke up and found him inside the room uncovering him. The excuse that Urrutigoity gave the next day was that he had entered the room in order to cover him. Before this situation the lad went to Fr. Canale, a priest whom he trusted. He laughed and said to him: ‘The only thing I can tell you is to lock the door.’ Fr. Canale was therefore fully aware of the situation and he never talked about it with the superior of the house.”
Why would a “trusted priest” of the La Reja seminary, Fr. Canale, find Urrutigoity’s late night actions laughable? Why has his disgust and rejection of this vice against nature become so lax?
Fr. Andres Morello, today monsignor, was the rector of SSPX La Reja seminary, below
Or did Fr. Canale not act because he knew that “Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta, the SSPX District Superior and other influential priests” would do nothing?
2. On one occasion the same witness stated that “the seminarian [Urrutigoity] entered into his room and, finding him in bed, told him that he had a fever. The lad replied that he was feeling well, but Urrutigoity insisted that he had a fever and that, in order to confirm it, he was going to fondle his genitals to see if they were inflamed, and he did it.”
3. “One day Carlos Urrutigoity gave him underwear, insisted that he should get naked and try it on before him to see if it fit. He proposed that he take measurements every week of his physical development, naked and with his back towards the wall, which the young man refused to do.”
4. “He gave him a shot and insisted on massaging his buttocks, which he did. We finish here the testimony of the young man, and we wish to make it clear that these are not all the incidents, just those which we consider more relevant.”
Fr. Alfonso de Galarreta, district superior of SSPX in Argentina, with Msgr. Lefebvre at La Reja seminary
6. “Another seminarian tells us that he [Urrutigoity] asked him about the sexual life of his past and about his present temptations.”
7. “Two traditional young laymen declare that during a summer camp organized by Carlos Urrutigoity – with the inexplicable authorization of Bishop de Galarreta, who knew about the situation, and while the seminarian [Urrutigoity] was in the priory of Cordoba under observation because of his disciplinary problems – he went to the river with a group of young men. There he removed his clothes before the others and remained in underwear. One of the youngsters immediately offered him a swimming suit which Urrutigoity rejected, and in such attire he bathed in the river.”
How could Bishop de Galarreta, who knew about the situation, allow Urrutigoity’s presence at this “summer camp?” What is more, Galarreta authorized a known predator like Urrutigoity to organize and be in charge of this “summer camp” for youngsters. I believe that this constitutes an act of criminal negligence.
Given the length of the report about the seminarian Urrutigoity, I will leave the final items of “Document No. 2” for the next article.
Continued
- Randy Engel, The Rite of Sodomy: Homosexuality and the Roman Catholic Church (Export, Pennsylvania: New Engel Publishing, 2006), p. 963, footnote 176. As with other items that expose the Lefebvrists, the webpage address (URL) given in Randy Engel’s book for footnote 176 leads nowhere. Those who wish to read it may do so here.
Posted December 16, 2019
______________________
______________________
 Volume I |
 Volume II |
 Volume III |
 Volume IV |
 Volume V |
 Volume VI |
 Volume VII |
 Volume VIII |
 Volume IX |
 Volume X |
 Volume XI |
 Special Edition |