Traditionalist Issues
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Urrutigoity Moved to U.S. by Galarreta,
Made a Priest & Professor by Williamson
I continue today from my last article to reproduce excerpts of the report written by a group of priests and seminarians at the La Reja seminary in Argentina about the homosexual behavior of seminarian Carlos Urrutigoity. Later, Fr. Andres Morello, the rector of La Reja, sent a full dossier that included this report, to the SSPX general superior Arch. Marcel Lefebvre.
After presenting the text I will make some comments.
We who live in these last days of 2019 are sadly familiar with this method of cover-up; the progressivist superiors know the situation, the perpetrator is not expelled but simply moved to another seminary, then moved to another country.
Here we see the same method inside the traditionalist SSPX. Urrutigoity was not only moved to another place in Argentina and then to the Winona seminary in the U.S., but he was promoted. Indeed, he was considered worthy of receiving the major holy order of priesthood. Soon later being ordained, he was elevated to professor at that seminary, under the rectorship of Bishop Richard Williamson.
Allow me to present some details to show the reader how matters reached this point.
Fr. Morello, the superior of La Reja seminary, had intended to expel Urrutigoity. In her book The Rite of Sodomy Randy Engel affirmed:
I cannot avoid asking further questions: Did Bishop Williamson have enough power to expel Fr. Morello - the rector of an important seminary - from the SSPX? Or did he consult Arch. Lefebvre? It seems normal that in such an important issue, the SSPX supreme leader should have the last word.
Then, if the answer to this question is positive, we would come to the unpleasant conclusion that Msgr. Lefebvre himself protected – radically protected and promoted – the homosexual Urrutigoity in order to make him a priest and expelled Fr. Morello, who correctly demanded sanctions be taken against him.
I return to Document No. 2 written by a group of priests and seminarians.
The witnesses and the accusations against Urrutigoity were numerous enough to alarm anyone. Not only was Galarreta negligent in his duty as superior of the SSPX district of South America, but, far worse, the report is clear: “Bishop de Galarreta made it impossible to take measures against him [Urrutigoity].” In other words, he forbade others to pursue any punishment against the predator.
It is a case of clear protection of a homosexual seminarian, who became a priest and then instructor at a seminary.
But Galarreta was not the only one who took this position. Bishop Williamson stopped Urrutigoity’s accusers from preventing the ordination and charged Fr. Morello and the authors of the report with lying. Nonetheless, the future proved that Fr. Morello was absolutely correct.
Again, I cannot avoid asking: If two of the four Bishops of the SSPX took this position, was not also Archbishop Lefebvre orienting this decision?
There is evidence that when informed about the first actions of Urrutigoity he ordered: “Watch him like a hawk.” This was the only reported response given by Arch. Lefebvre concerning this predator. The author of The Rite of Sodomy, Randy Engel, admits that this is “a virtually impossible task given the secretive life of a homosexual predator like Urrutigoity.” (p. 964)
I will go a step further: With the data presented so far, I am obliged to say that, given the regime of strict obedience existing within SSPX, it is very difficult to pretend that Msgr. Lefebvre was not orienting all this protection.
What is revealed in these two articles makes it indisputable that, from the early days of SSPX, there was an atmosphere of complacency toward the vice of homosexuality within the two mentioned seminaries of the organization. Also that there was a disgraceful handling by two of the SSPX Bishops of a case concerning this grave sin.
As we can see, these traditionalist Bishops are not much different from their Novus Ordo Missae confreres in the Conciliar Church. We see the same tactics of cover-up, relocation, threat, bullying, silence, secrets, free-reign and protection that only benefit the homosexual/pedophile predators.
Why is it that when I read works printed within Lefebvrist circles, they are quick to point out the disgraceful actions of Cardinals McCarrick and Pell, but slow to address such problems in their own house?
I believe that the mask of holiness donned by SSPX Bishops and priests to impress their grassroots and the public is nothing but a façade. They have many more points in common with the Conciliar Church than the average traditionalist Catholic imagines.
Continued
Posted December 30, 2019
After presenting the text I will make some comments.
8. “We ask your forgiveness, Father, for writing about these unpleasant issues but we consider it necessary since nobody has heard our complaints. What worries us right now is that (a) the superiors know about this situation. Not only was the seminarian not expelled, but the solution to his moral and disciplinary problems is simply to send him to another seminary. (b) Carlos Urrutigoity is about to receive major orders in Winona, USA. (c) A serious investigation was never started.” (bold added)
Bishop Galarreta admiring a photo of himself
Here we see the same method inside the traditionalist SSPX. Urrutigoity was not only moved to another place in Argentina and then to the Winona seminary in the U.S., but he was promoted. Indeed, he was considered worthy of receiving the major holy order of priesthood. Soon later being ordained, he was elevated to professor at that seminary, under the rectorship of Bishop Richard Williamson.
Allow me to present some details to show the reader how matters reached this point.
Fr. Morello, the superior of La Reja seminary, had intended to expel Urrutigoity. In her book The Rite of Sodomy Randy Engel affirmed:
“Unfortunately, the planned dismissal of Urrutigoity by Fr. Morello never took place as the seminarian had the support of Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta, the SSPX District Superior and other influential priests.In July 1989, Fr. Morello, accompanied by an associate, travelled to Winona with a copy of the mentioned dossier to prevent the imminent ordination of Urrutigoity. He was confronted and stopped by Bishop Richard Williamson who accused him of lying. A few days later, on July 16, 1989, Morello was expelled from the Society. It is difficult not to say that he was punished for accusing Urrutigoity.
“Instead of being expelled, Urrutigoity was sent to the Priory of Cordoba (Argentina) [over 400 miles away from La Reja] where he received the necessary recommendations that enabled him to transfer to the SSPX seminary in Winona [USA]. By this time Fr. Morello had been posted to Santiago, Chile, so he was temporarily out of the picture.” (p. 964 - bold added)
Above, Bishop Richard Williamson ordaining priests at the seminary of Winona, below
Then, if the answer to this question is positive, we would come to the unpleasant conclusion that Msgr. Lefebvre himself protected – radically protected and promoted – the homosexual Urrutigoity in order to make him a priest and expelled Fr. Morello, who correctly demanded sanctions be taken against him.
I return to Document No. 2 written by a group of priests and seminarians.
9. “We are worried and scandalized by all this. We have tried by all means to initiate an investigation to no avail. Bishop de Galaretta made it impossible to take measures against him [Urrutigoity], and despite the fact that he now acknowledges his mistake, he still does nothing to repair it.” (bold added)Why didn’t Bishop de Galarreta investigate this seminarian – any investigation, canonical or otherwise – and then take the appropriate action of immediately expelling him?
The witnesses and the accusations against Urrutigoity were numerous enough to alarm anyone. Not only was Galarreta negligent in his duty as superior of the SSPX district of South America, but, far worse, the report is clear: “Bishop de Galarreta made it impossible to take measures against him [Urrutigoity].” In other words, he forbade others to pursue any punishment against the predator.
It is a case of clear protection of a homosexual seminarian, who became a priest and then instructor at a seminary.
But Galarreta was not the only one who took this position. Bishop Williamson stopped Urrutigoity’s accusers from preventing the ordination and charged Fr. Morello and the authors of the report with lying. Nonetheless, the future proved that Fr. Morello was absolutely correct.
Again, I cannot avoid asking: If two of the four Bishops of the SSPX took this position, was not also Archbishop Lefebvre orienting this decision?
There is evidence that when informed about the first actions of Urrutigoity he ordered: “Watch him like a hawk.” This was the only reported response given by Arch. Lefebvre concerning this predator. The author of The Rite of Sodomy, Randy Engel, admits that this is “a virtually impossible task given the secretive life of a homosexual predator like Urrutigoity.” (p. 964)
Homosexual Carlos Urrutigoity was ordained a priest at Winona by decision of Bishop Williansom
What is revealed in these two articles makes it indisputable that, from the early days of SSPX, there was an atmosphere of complacency toward the vice of homosexuality within the two mentioned seminaries of the organization. Also that there was a disgraceful handling by two of the SSPX Bishops of a case concerning this grave sin.
As we can see, these traditionalist Bishops are not much different from their Novus Ordo Missae confreres in the Conciliar Church. We see the same tactics of cover-up, relocation, threat, bullying, silence, secrets, free-reign and protection that only benefit the homosexual/pedophile predators.
Why is it that when I read works printed within Lefebvrist circles, they are quick to point out the disgraceful actions of Cardinals McCarrick and Pell, but slow to address such problems in their own house?
I believe that the mask of holiness donned by SSPX Bishops and priests to impress their grassroots and the public is nothing but a façade. They have many more points in common with the Conciliar Church than the average traditionalist Catholic imagines.
Continued
Posted December 30, 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 |