PARAGUAY
Roman Catholic Diocese of Ciudad del Este
[RESUMEN EXPLICATIVO DE LA SITUACIÓN]
THE APOSTOLIC VISIT
The chapters in this story
1. LUGO AND LIVIERES
2. «ECCLESIAL COMMUNION»
3. RELIGIOUS PEOPLE
4. THE CLERGY
5. NEW SEMINARS FOR THE THIRD MILLENNIUM
6. STONE OF SCANDAL
7. FATHER CARLOS URRUTIGOITY
8. MONSEGNIOR PASTOR CUQUEJO
9. NEW COMMUNITIES
10. ECONOMIC ISSUES
11. JAVIER MIRANDA
12. LET’S NOT REPEAT THE STORY
Officially, the Apostolic Nuncio in Paraguay, in a public conference of 2 July 2014, announced that the Diocese of Ciudad del Este would receive an imminent Apostolic Visitation i«n order to offer an assistance for the good of that particular church» informally, the mass media said it was about a true «intervention to the Diocese» i.e. of a process that would end up, either with the resignation or with the deposition of our Bishop, and the stop to the work which has been going on.
We present now, an explicative summary that frames the milestone of this juncture with its facts and supporting documents. We do it in a plane and direct style of God’s People, and with the transparency and honesty to which Msgr. Rogelio accustoms us.
1. LUGO AND LIVIERES
The most famous Paraguayan bishop, with no doubt, is the «father-Bishop» Fernando Lugo, the Republic’s ex-president. He took on the presidency on august of 2008, after being dispensed of obligations as a consecrated bishop and reduced to the laical state.
He was deposed in 2012, after a political judgment in the Congress.
Lugo and the minuscule but intelligent left of the country would have never reached power and overridden the Red Party without alliance with the strongest minority of the country, the Liberal Party, and the massive support (expressed or tacit) of the hierarchical church. From decades, in Paraguay, there has been a systematically assignments as bishops with certain anti-red party tendencies and, moreover, soaked up in a blurry formation on the derived ideologues of the theology of liberation. …
7. FATHER CARLOS URRUTIGOITY
A separate chapter in this history of opposition to our bishop Livieres and to the new seminary in Ciudad del Este is, without a doubt, the attack against Father Carlos Urrutigoity. He arrived to the diocese in 2005 together with other priests and laymen who would later on establish the Priestly Communities of Saint John. Father Urrutigoity came to the diocese recommended by some cardinals with roles in the Vatican (one of whom was elected pope Benedict XVI a few days later). Father Carlos brought with him a long and harsh defamation campaign in the U.S. Full of calumnies, about which Msgr. Livieres wrote a detailed letter clarifying matters.
From the beginning, Father Carlos proved to be a close collaborator of the bishop, and due to this his case was used as a battle cry to question everything the bishop achieved pastorally in the diocese, specially concerning the formation of a new clergy. This was specially so because Father Carlos was intimately involved in the formation of the new seminary. He later left this activity to help with the diocesan curia.
The bishop’s continual refutations notwithstanding, a repetitive and self referential press continued to quote itself again and again, on matters of alleged “accusations of pedophilia” which, in reality, never existed. These defamation campaigns have been generally headed in Paraguay by the same newspaper that, prior to this time, had forced the resignation of another Bishop with the surname Livieres. (The courts of justice in that case showed as well the falsity of the accusations, all made by paid witnesses involved in a political maneuver to force the resignation of the bishop). At the same time, the press has been fueled by the same Paraguayan ecclesiastical opponents already mentioned above, who have influential contacts in the U.S. And in Rome, and with whom they share identical lobbies and political tendencies.
These sources came up with all sorts of things, except, of course, proofs of pedophilia. This was due to the simple fact that there were no accusations from any victims at all. All that could be repeated was a rehashed series of calumnies made by interested third parties. Consequently, there was no criminal process, nor any condemnatory judgments in any court of law whatsoever of any country, nor of the Holy See. To top it all off, Father Carlos’ heterosexuality was confirmed professionally by two independent psychological evaluations, one of which was in the U.S. and the other in Canada. These evaluations discarded any possibility of psychopathies or personality disorders.
Neither was it true that new accusations came up over time (always without any proof). All accusations made may be reduced to a stubborn and evil repetition of those invented years ago, not by alleged victims, but by two ideological persecutors of Father Carlos. These separately acted from their respective countries, fueling different campaigns at different times: one sustained a “cloister” campaign and the other a cybernetic and mass media campaign. The first persecutor was a “sedevacantist” Argentine priest who is of the opinion that no pope since John XXIII has been legitimately a pope, and who, in addition, had himself “consecrated as a bishop” outside of the legitimate Catholic hierarchy. The second detractor is an American man, a disgruntled ex-employee of the religious community founded by Father Carlos. He was disgruntled because he was disaffected from an educational project by Msgr. Timlin, bishop of the Diocese of Scranton, after the employee tried to illegally take over the project for his own purposes.
The sole accusation presented against Father Urrutigoity before the criminal courts of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in the U.S. (under the name of an adult by the name of Michael Prorock) was dismissed in limine (from the beginning) by two independent investigations by two state district attorneys in two separate counties of the State of Pennsylvania.
From the above two things appear as strikingly clear: First, that the accusations against Father Carlos Urrutigoity did not imply cases of pedophilia, since in the year 2000, the year of the alleged acts, the accuser was an adult; and second, that due to the district attorneys’ dismissal of any charges against Father Carlos, there was never a criminal indictment in the U.S. With respect to the Church’s canonical tribunals, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith denied any possibilities of starting a criminal process against Father Carlos for the same reason: there were no existing accusations of pedophilia.
This failure before the criminal courts seriously damaged the detractors’ lawyers’ case before the civil courts, diminishing any chances to obtain a judgment granting them a large monetary compensation, as is usual in American courts. These detractors began a civil case against the Society of Saint John, founded by Father Carlos, but in it they included for good measure and to assure deep pockets, the Bishop of Scranton, the Diocese of Scranton, the Fraternity of Saint Peter and the Academy of Saint Gregory.
To those not familiar with the ins and outs of legal cases in the U.S., it should be noted that in that country one may initiate at the same time and for the same cause a case before the criminal as well as the civil courts. Success in civil court means large monetary judgments to be paid by the defendant. Such success is substantially diminished where the criminal courts dismiss the complaints as without merit to be judged criminally. Yet, in the United States, it is still worth pursuing a civil case, even if in the criminal courts the parties have not reached the stage of trial due to lack of relevant facts or proofs. There, the possibilities to obtain monetary damages in a civil trial remain high. The cost of defending one self and going to civil trial is so high that many times complainants continue the case to force a large monetary settlement. In average, a diocese may spend over US $2,000,000 in attorneys and costs to defend a case all the way to the end. It remains typical in the system that parties, in order to avoid these large defense costs, reach an early monetary settlement with the judge’s approval.
The Society of Saint John, refused, on principle, to negotiate a settlement. Yet, it was forced to join as a party to a settlement agreement entered into by Msgr. Martino, the new bishop of the Diocese of Scranton, for a total of US $450,000. Of that amount the Society of Saint John had to contribute only US $55,000, an insignificant amount considering the usual amounts paid in these types of cases. This is explained by the fact that the accusing attorneys lacked any minimally solid proofs against the Society in order to demand any more from them, or to refuse a settlement and try to go to trial in civil court.
The Society of Saint John imposed as a condition to sign the settlement agreement that it be stated in writing that the accused were innocent of all charges and the accuser, for his own part, would renounce to any other posterior campaign of accusations or to any other civil action.
It seems that it holds true everywhere that “money talks,” without any concern about deceiving the public nor discrediting innocent people. Coming back to our actors of Ciudad del Este, on the 23rd of this month of July, 2014, in case 2014-6130 before the Juzgado Penal de Garantias No. 6 (Criminal Court No. 6) of the department of Alto Paraná, the district attorney in charge, Ms. María Graciela Vera Colman, requested the total and complete dismissal and filing away for lack of any proofs, of the accusations “filed” before such a court by a radio in Asunción, Paraguay, against Father Urrutigoity, by telephone, of all means! The accusations were the old “alleged sexual abuse of children, not mentioning any names of victims… on top of not identifying…. address and/or date or place in which such deeds allegedly occurred.” All accusations began from the diatribes made – and recorded – in a radio program of Radio Unión from Asunción, by the well known serial accuser Javier Miranda, who, when cited by the district attorney to appear in court to give his “sworn declaration,” never appeared but rather, valiantly disappeared stage left, showing his clear acting conditions.
Being a shepherd and not a mercenary who flees from the wolves, Bishop Livieres always remained adamant in defending the innocent. In the case of Father Carlos, Msgr. Livieres did the same even against those who, while recognizing the justice of the case, still found it imprudent to receive father Carlos in the Diocese and then to promote him to various positions, arguing that such actions may compromise the Bishop’s own image and his “ecclesiastical career”. However, Monsignor judged it healthier and more realistic to take advantage of the concrete human resources that Providence placed in his hands.
Despite the occasional media uproar and clerical protest, the Vatican respected the decision of the Bishop. After a prudent waiting time and accumulation of experience in the new Diocese, the Vatican authorized through the Apostolic Nuncio, and with the consent of the excardinating bishop, the incardination in Ciudad del Este of Father Carlos. That same year, the Vatican issued the laudatory letter consenting to the elevation as a Society of Apostolic Life the Priestly Communities of San Juan. Meanwhile, seminarians, priests, religious and laity of the Diocese, in their vast majority supported and continue to support the bishop and Father Carlos because they are witnesses to their ministry in the Diocese and to their human qualities and moral honesty. These supporting statements are not assumed. They are clearly manifested in written and signed statements available for anyone who wants to see. And when it came time to appoint a new Vicar General for the Diocese, consulted priests and lay leaders almost unanimously proposed father Carlos as the candidate of their choice.
It should finally be noted that when Bishop Livieres faced real corruption or violations of priestly celibacy, in any form, he did not hesitate to proceed, even facing high pressures, according to canon law, and to proportionally and medicinally punish the guilty.
Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.