BishopAccountability.org
 
  Deacon's Ordination Scrapped — for Now

By Matt C. Abbott
Renew America [Paterson]
May 23, 2007

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/abbott/070523

(On May 24, 2007, a day after the original version of this column was posted, I received the following e-mail from the Rev. Msgr. James T. Mahoney, Ph.D., vicar general and moderator of the curia for the Paterson, N.J., Catholic diocese: "This is to acknowledge and thank all those who have sent e-mails to any member of our diocesan leadership with respect to Deacon Joseph Levine. He will not be ordained to the priesthood on May 26, 2007.")

The following letter, written by Jeffrey M. Bond, Ph.D., president of St. Justin Martyr House of Studies, was sent to Bishop Arthur J. Serratelli, of the Paterson, N.J., Catholic diocese.

'April 14, 2007

'Most Reverend Arthur J. Serratelli

Bishop of Paterson

777 Valley Road

Clifton, NJ 07013

'Your Excellency,

'The purpose of this letter is to bring to your attention certain facts concerning Deacon Joseph Levine who, according to the web site of the Diocese of Paterson, is to be ordained a priest at St. John the Baptist Cathedral in Paterson, New Jersey, on May 26, 2007. It is to be hoped that, upon examination of these facts, you will become convinced that Deacon Levine must never be permitted to work in a parish or ever be ordained a priest.

'My knowledge of the character of Deacon Levine stems from my experience as President of the St. Justin Martyr House of Studies, a civil corporation in the state of Pennsylvania the purpose of which was to establish the College of St. Justin Martyr. The College of St. Justin Martyr was initially part of the overall project proposed by the now suppressed Society of St. John (SSJ), a public association of the faithful erected in the Diocese of Scranton by former Bishop of Scranton, James C. Timlin. The SSJ, to which Deacon Levine belonged, hired me in May 2000 to found a liberal arts college in Shohola, Pennsylvania where the SSJ planned to build a Catholic city.

'Yet by October 14, 2001, I was compelled to dissociate the College of St. Justin Martyr from the SSJ because I had learned that SSJ priests were sharing their beds with boys under their spiritual direction. I spent the next three years in a protracted battle to expose the moral corruption of the SSJ and their official protectors until the SSJ was finally suppressed on November 24, 2004 by Bishop Joseph F. Martino, the current bishop of the Diocese of Scranton. The Vatican Congregation for the Clergy rejected the SSJ's appeal of Bishop Martino's decree on May 3, 2005.

'In his decree, which was published in the November 25, 2007 edition of The Catholic Light, Bishop Martino advanced the following reasons for the suppression of the SSJ:

'(1) Six years after its erection the Society has shown no progress in attaining its stated purpose. It is principally a debt servicing operation currently and can be seen continuing as such for many years to come.

'(2) The Society of St. John has repeatedly refused to cooperate with the Bishop of Scranton in the fulfillment of canon 319 ~1 and ~2, C.I.C. As a result the Bishop of Scranton is at risk of being charged with failure to supervise if donors to this Society judge that they have been deceived.

'(3) Allegations of sexual misconduct against two members of the Society have caused public scandal. If the allegations are not true, there, nevertheless, have been acts of commission and omission by members of the Society in general that have given rise to these allegations and the resultant scandal.

'(4) Past financial decisions and conduct on the part of the Society of Saint John have caused grievous financial burdens for the Diocese of Scranton. These burdens include the Diocese being named in a civil suit for over $1 million and the need for the Diocese to secure a $2.6 million loan in August 2003, because of the Society's indebtedness.

'The moral and financial corruption of the SSJ, as well as the actions I took to expose this cult of homosexual predators, has been well documented on the College of St. Justin Martyr's web site (www.saintjustinmartyr.org/news/notices.html). Of particular interest there is the statement of Rev. Richard Munkelt who, unlike Deacon Levine, left the SSJ when he learned about Rev. Urrutigoity's perverse activities. Rev. Munkelt is currently a priest in good standing of the Diocese of Scranton who is serving as the Administrator of St. Anthony's in West Orange, New Jersey, Archdiocese of Newark.

'I will now turn to Deacon Levine's role in the sordid history of the SSJ. Prior to the SSJ's purchase of and move to its own property in Shohola, Pennsylvania, the SSJ was permitted to live at St. Gregory's Academy in Elmhurst, Pennsylvania, where the SSJ priests served as chaplains. On April 19, 2001, after the SSJ had moved onto its Shohola property, Mr. Alan Hicks, the founder and former headmaster of St. Gregory's Academy, paid a visit to Deacon Levine and to me. Mr. Hicks informed us separately that the founder and Superior General of the SSJ, Rev. Carlos Urrutigoity, while serving as a chaplain at St. Gregory's Academy, had been giving 'spiritual direction' to boys with whom he was sharing the same bed.

'Mr. Hicks sought to warn us that Rev. Urrutigoity's actions were the object of a possible lawsuit for homosexual molestation. This information marked for me the beginning of a long and difficult struggle to expose the moral corruption of the SSJ, and Rev. Munkelt's statement on the College of St. Justin Martyr outlines the steps we took to inform the Bishop of Scranton of the SSJ's immoral activities. Deacon Levine, however, who knew what Rev. Munkelt and I knew and much more, chose the path of cover-up and denial.

'After I had uncovered and revealed Rev. Urrutigoity's long history as a homosexual predator, the SSJ made Deacon Levine their new Superior General. While I have no evidence that Deacon Levine himself sexually abused anyone, I have ample evidence of his efforts to protect the homosexual predators of the SSJ long after the threshold for moral certitude concerning their guilt had been crossed. In fact, upon his election to the office of Superior General, Deacon Levine publicly praised Rev. Urrutigoity in the SSJ's May 2002 Epistle (copy of cover letter enclosed). Deacon Levine made this public defense even though he was fully aware by this time that there was abundant and weighty evidence, including affidavits, establishing Rev. Urrutigoity's moral corruption.

'Indeed, prior to Deacon Levine's public defense of Rev. Urrutigoity, I had already made public the fact that Rev. Urrutigoity had been formally accused of homosexual molestation by three different people from three different places: first, by Rev. Andres Morello, the former rector of the SSPX seminary in La Reja, Argentina, where Rev. Urrutigoity was a seminarian; second, by Bishop Bernard Fellay on behalf of a young seminarian who had left with Rev. Urrutigoity when he was expelled by Bishop Richard Williamson from the SSPX seminary in Winona, Minnesota, where Rev. Urrutigoity was a professor; and third, by a graduate of St. Gregory's Academy. It was Deacon Levine's position, however — which he personally expressed to me — that Urrutigoity was like St. Ignatius of Loyola insofar as he operated on a plane 'above the realm of human reason and prudence.' As a result of this conviction, Deacon Levine turned a blind eye to the overwhelming evidence of Urrutigoity's gross immorality.

'The graduate of St. Gregory's Academy who was abused by Rev. Urrutigoity and another SSJ priest, Rev. Eric Ensey, brought a federal lawsuit against the SSJ that was ultimately settled at the cost of $450,550. At that time the Scranton Times reported that Bishop Martino intended to apologize to the victim for the harm the victim had suffered. In a written statement provided to the Scranton Times, Bishop Martino all but admitted the guilt of Rev. Urrutigoity and Rev. Ensey: 'In view of the serious claims made by the young person and in light of the statements by the witnesses who supported his claim, it was determined that the just decision was to reach a settlement that will assist the victim and his family as they attempt to heal.'

'Yet Deacon Levine in his May 2002 Epistle had not only publicly praised Rev. Urrutigoity for his leadership, but he had also credited Rev. Urrutigoity with transforming the members of the SSJ into a 'disciplined religious community.' Deacon Levine thereby sought to continue to portray the SSJ as Benedictine, a fraud initiated by Rev. Urrutigoity and perpetuated by Deacon Levine. Although the SSJ was nothing more than a group of diocesan priests with permission to live together, nevertheless the SSJ literature published under Deacon Levine's reign continued this fraud to the detriment of many unsuspecting Catholic donors.

'In the same May 2002 Epistle, and throughout his term as Superior General, Deacon Levine also continued to deceive Catholic donors concerning the status of the Catholic city the SSJ had proposed to build. Although it was abundantly clear by this time that there was no hope of building on the Shohola property — in fact, the SSJ was secretly trying to sell the property — nevertheless Deacon Levine exhorted his supporters to continue to donate more money to a project he knew was dead. In fact, the SSJ's Shohola property was finally sold to repay the 2.6 million dollar loan which the Diocese of Scranton had made to the SSJ to cover their enormous debts. (In all, the SSJ had raised over six million dollars yet never erected a single building of their proposed 'city on a hill.' The money was instead wasted on lavish food and drink, parties for their boys, trips, expensive furniture, and high living.)

'Furthermore, Deacon Levine used his office as Superior General to defend the accused priests of the SSJ and to attack me personally for my efforts to expose their crimes. Deacon Levine attacked me personally because my efforts had begun to undercut the SSJ's ability to raise money. Therefore, in a six-page fundraising letter dated June 19, 2002 (copy enclosed), which was circulated to the SSJ's international mailing list, Deacon Levine repeatedly lied in an effort to protect the SSJ and defame me. In response to Deacon Levine's libelous letter, I filed a defamation lawsuit from which Deacon Levine was ultimately released on a technicality. (My attorney failed to serve Deacon Levine in a timely fashion.) While Deacon Levine escaped legal responsibility, his guilt with respect to the moral law was eventually evident for all to see once Bishop Martino's suppression of the SSJ fully vindicated the accusations I had made against the SSJ.

'It should also be noted that Deacon Levine was not willing to leave the SSJ until it was made clear to him that he could not be ordained a priest while remaining with them. With this information to guide him, Deacon Levine suddenly discovered the shortcomings of the SSJ and sought ordination in the novus ordo rite for which he had previously expressed nothing but disdain. There is no reason to believe, then, that Deacon Levine would not seek to rejoin the SSJ (which has reformed itself in Paraguay) or some other cult group, once he has been ordained.

'The Diocese of Scranton permitted Deacon Levine to enter quietly the seminary of Charles Borromeo for the 2005-2006 academic year so that he might yet become a priest for the Diocese of Scranton. At the same time, Deacon Levine was also assigned to the Mother of Divine Providence Parish in King-of-Prussia, Pennsylvania to preach at Sunday Masses and assist with the administration of the sacraments. When I warned the parishioners of the Mother of Divine Providence Parish about Deacon Levine's past association with the SSJ, the pastor removed Deacon Levine from his position. At that point Deacon Levine disappeared from the radar screen until his name appeared on the Diocese of Paterson web site as a candidate for ordination next month. While I do not know how Deacon Levine portrayed his past affiliation with the SSJ in order to be accepted into the Diocese of Paterson, it would appear his account of the facts has been less than truthful.

'Finally, I must inform you that Deacon Levine's full role in the cover-up and protection of the homosexual predators of the SSJ has yet to be fully determined and revealed. Due to the SSJ's endless delaying tactics, the College of St. Justin Martyr's lawsuit against the SSJ has not yet come to trial. Deacon Levine, as a former member of the Board of Directors of the College, and a former Superior General of the SSJ, will be a key witness at that trial. Moreover, Deacon Levine, as an agent of the Diocese of Scranton, is a material witness in my defamation lawsuit even though his successful withdrawal as a defendant has protected him from any personal liability for the damage he has done to my reputation. After all, Deacon Levine's June 19, 2002 fund-raising letter was written under the auspices of the Diocese of Scranton.

'Your Excellency, I have brought the above information to your attention in the belief that the Diocese of Paterson would never have planned to ordain Deacon Levine if the Diocese had been fully informed as to his past involvement with the Society of St. John. I am prepared and would welcome the opportunity to substantiate all of the above at your earliest convenience. Were Deacon Levine to be ordained, he would not only represent a major liability for the Diocese of Paterson, but he would also disgrace the holy office of the Catholic priesthood.

'Sincerely,

'Jeffrey M. Bond, Ph.D.

President

St. Justin Martyr House of Studies'

To date, Dr. Bond has not received a response from the bishop.

Catholic attorney James Bendell sent the following (excerpted) letter to Ken Mullaney, general counsel to the Paterson diocese.

'Dear Mr. Mullaney:

'I am one of the attorneys who successfully represented [John Doe] in sexual abuse litigation against the Diocese of Scranton. I conducted extensive discovery in that case, and I am convinced to a moral certainty that the Society of St. John was a corrupt, dangerous and worldly homosexual cult.

'Jeff Bond has copied me with email correspondence from you regarding the impending ordination of Joseph Levine. You asked Mr. Bond whether he knows of FACTS which would render Levine unfit for the priesthood. As Mr. Bond responded to you, he already provided such FACTS in his letter to Bishop Serratelli. Now, if you are asking whether we have proof beyond reasonable doubt that Levine committed a crime, the answer is no. This absence of a criminal conviction would presumably render him fit for a number of jobs such as, say, Security Guard at a shopping mall. However, it is my understanding that the recruitment standards for Catholic priests are a tad higher.

'Mr. Levine's roll in the phony fundraising activities of the SSJ, and his role in covering up the immoral behavior taking place there makes him unfit for ordination to the priesthood. In fact, I doubt he would be permitted to be a Scoutmaster with the Boy Scouts....'

Dr. Bond sent the following e-mail to Mr. Mullaney on May 21:

'Dear Mr. Mullaney,

'I am troubled, to say the least, that I have received no response from you to my email of 18 May 2007. Nor have I received a response to my letter to Bishop Serratelli dated 14 April 2007. And yet, in an email to James Bendell which he has forwarded to me, you claim to have engaged in an 'investigation' in which you 'have found no evidence that Deacon Levine committed any crimes, no evidence that he himself engaged in homosexuality, no evidence that he himself committed acts of sexual abuse with minors or anyone else, no evidence of financial improprieties and no evidence to support the allegations of Dr. Bond.'

'Naturally I wonder what sort of investigation you have engaged in when you have failed to contact the very person making the allegations. I have charged Deacon Levine not only with financial improprieties, but also defending and protecting (i.e., covering up) the homosexual abuse committed against a minor by two Society of St. John priests, Carlos Urrutigoity and Eric Ensey. Since Bishop Martino of the Diocese of Scranton suppressed the SSJ for both financial improprieties and grave immorality, and since during Deacon Levine's tenure as the superior general of the SSJ he directed their financial operations and publicly defended and protected those who had committed homosexual abuse, I cannot imagine how you can claim to have found 'no evidence to support the allegations of Dr. Bond.'

'In addition to the charges that I have made, I know you have been contacted by two other witnesses, Dr. Russell Buss and Rev. Richard Munkelt, both of whom have first-hand knowledge of the fact that Deacon Levine knew SSJ priests were sharing their beds with boys. Yet Deacon Levine failed to denounce this immoral behavior, and he even accepted the position of superior general of the SSJ and used his position to defend and protect those priests whom he knew had been sleeping with boys under their spiritual direction. Moreover, as superior general, Deacon Levine deliberately deceived Catholic donors as to the feasibility of the SSJ's proposed city in Shohola, PA, and he defamed those of us who sought to expose this fraud and the immorality of the SSJ priests. No objective investigation of Deacon Levine's actions and words can ignore his culpability in these matters.

'Is it your position, then, that a deacon in a position of authority who defends and protects priests charged with homosexual abuse — when he has prior knowledge of their sleeping in the same bed with minors — is fit to become a Catholic priest himself? I would appreciate a direct answer to this direct question. Or do you contest that these are indeed the facts in this case?'

Mr. Mullaney responded to Dr. Bond on May 22 as follows:

'Dr. Bond, Thank you for your very nasty and vituperative e mail. I don't believe we've ever met. Is there any reason for your venom? You certainly are conducting yourself like a wonderful person. That being said, I'm sorry, but I don't feel compelled to discuss with you, your followers or anyone else for that matter the steps which I am taking to protect this Diocese which is my one and only concern. I continue to strive to achieve that goal.'

Dr. Bond responded that same day as follows:

'Dear Mr. Mullaney,

'For the life of me I cannot find a single nasty or vituperative remark in my email below. Nor can what I have written be fairly characterized as 'venom.' Hence, I will simply repeat the question with which I concluded my previous letter to you: Is it your position that a deacon in a position of authority who defends and protects priests charged with homosexual abuse — when he has prior knowledge of their sleeping in the same bed with minors — is fit to become a Catholic priest himself? I would appreciate a direct answer to this direct question. Or do you contest that these are indeed the facts in this case?

'No, Mr. Mullaney, to my knowledge we have never met, but I offered in my letter to Bishop Serratelli, dated April 14, to substantiate in person the charges I have made against Deacon Joseph Levine, and I repeat that offer now. Let me remind you, as I did in my email below, that you now have testimony from three witnesses — Dr. Russell Buss, Rev. Richard Munkelt, and me — that your candidate for the priesthood of the Diocese of Paterson knew that priests in his society were sharing their beds with boys, yet your candidate, when he was in a position of authoirty, publicly defended and protected those priests after they were credibly accused of homosexual molestation. That is to say, Deacon Levine engaged in a cover up of homosexual abuse of a minor.

'I am gratified to know that your sole desire is to protect the Diocese of Paterson, for if that is truly your sole desire then you cannot fail to take seriously what I have communicated to you.'

To date, I have not received a response to e-mails I sent to Mr. Mullaney and the Paterson diocese communications director regarding this matter.

Contact: mattcabbott@gmail.com

  
 
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.