Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Diocese head of schools on leave | The Times Leader, Wilkes-Barre, PA

This time it was a married layman. Considered that married folks are more likely to abuse, perhaps having a married clergy isn't such a grand idea after all, but you people, most of you, were probably smart enough to see through the hype.

Diocese head of schools on leave | The Times Leader, Wilkes-Barre, PA

But wait, there's another one, this time a Canadian, Anglican "priest" facing charges as well. Maybe it isn't just Christian clergypersons we should be hunting down, but the white male?

But we almost forgot to mention that strange case of Deacon Levine, who is currently on hold from becoming a priest, who is also under a pal of supsicion owning to his relationship witht he mostly discredited Society of Saint John.

Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 9:06 am Post subject:


On a related matter, Deacon Joseph Levine, originally superior of the disgraced Society of Saint John and unsuccessful candidate for the priesthood first for the Diocese of Scranton and then Paterson, New Jersey (see below), has resurfaced as a "patoral year seminarian/deacon" on the staff of St. Francis of Assisi Parish in Bend, Oregon, in the Diocese of Baker ( If at first you don't suceed ...?

Ordination Permanently out for Former Local Deacon

A Deacon Formerly Associated with the Controversial Society of St. John Will Not Be a Priest in the Catholic Diocese of Paterson, N.J.

By David Singleton
The Times-Tribune [Scranton PA]
May 30, 2007

Deacon Joseph Levine is still a deacon in the diocese, but will not be ordained to the priesthood, Marianna Thompson, the diocesan communications director, said Tuesday.

The diocese announced late last week that Deacon Levine would not be ordained Saturday in Paterson as previously scheduled, but released no other details. Four other men were ordained.

Ms. Thompson confirmed Deacon Levine's ordination is off permanently, a result of the "discernment" process during which the deacon and church officials examined his call to the priesthood.

"As we deepened and widened our discernment process, we discerned not to ordain Mr. Levine," she said. "He will not serve as a priest in the Paterson diocese."

Deacon Levine is the former superior general of the Society of St. John, a clerical association once headquartered at a rural compound at Shohola in Pike County. Recognized by the Diocese of Scranton in 1998, the society was suppressed by Bishop Joseph F. Martino in 2004.

At the time of the group's suppression, two of the society's priests were the subject of a sexual abuse lawsuit filed by a former St. Gregory Academy student. The Diocese of Scranton settled the suit in 2005.

Diocese of Paterson officials acknowledged receiving questions about Deacon Levine's suitability for the priesthood. In an e-mail to the diocese last month, Society of St. John critic Jeffrey Bond, Ph.D., accused the deacon of covering up alleged sex abuse by society priests while superior general.

The Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, which asked the diocese not to ordain Deacon Levine, applauded the decision.

"SNAP is very pleased that the Diocese of Paterson is taking a proactive stance in screening its candidates," said Father John P. Bambrick, outreach coordinator for the organization's New Jersey chapter.

David Clohessy, SNAP national director, said colleagues and supervisors who have knowledge of abuse by clergymen have a moral obligation to speak up, and there should be consequences for "secrecy and duplicity."

"We think the bishop should trumpet this far and wide," Mr. Clohessy said. [We think Clohessy should be hung along with the perps for being, at best, a Soviet patsy]

And don't forget another one-time inhabitant of Oregon who has since moved to good old Chicago, Cormac Brissett, for whom consent is the only criterion, as Mark Shea puts it so nicely, of the good whose own pederastic intrigues will no doubt earn him his spurs at the gay parnassus alongside names such as +Weakland, Shanley, Geoghan, +O'Brien, +Mahony, +Gumbleton, +Eidschenk, Liuzi and the once great but now failing Jesuit Order to which he now proudly belongs.

Here's the letter written to Mr. Levine from Dr. Bond's website in its entirety, which shows amply that Mr. Levine didn't do anything to correct the problems and simply hoped to stonewall till the thing blew over. It's amazing that there are still people like "Pat" writing in the comments below who want to defend these types:

An Open Letter to Deacon Joseph Levine, Superior General of the Society of St. John
Dear Deacon Levine,

When I first saw your picture on the front page of the Society of St. John's May 2002 Epistle, I thought for a brief moment that there might still be some hope for the SSJ with you as the new Superior General. I wondered if you might honestly address the former Superior General's betrayal of the SSJ's vision, and thus seek to make a new beginning. That faint hope was quickly dashed, however, when I read your unqualified and dishonest praise of Fr. Carlos Urrutigoity.

Fr. Urrutigoity, as you know well, has been accused of homosexual molestation by three different people from three different places: first, by Fr. Andres Morello, the former rector of the SSPX seminary in La Reja, Argentina, where Fr. Urrutigoity was a seminarian; second, by Bishop Fellay on behalf of a young seminarian who had left with Fr. Urrutigoity when he was expelled by Bishop Williamson from the SSPX seminary in Winona, Minnesota, where Fr. Urrutigoity was a professor; and third, by a graduate of St. Gregory's Academy in Elmhurst, Pennsylvania, where Fr. Urrutigoity was a chaplain. This most recent accusation was made in a federal lawsuit filed by the St. Gregory's graduate and his parents.

In addition to these three accusations, there is abundant testimony, including affidavits, establishing Fr. Urrutigoity's habit of sleeping in the same bed with young men and boys.

Despite the overwhelming evidence of the SSJ's sexual and financial misconduct, you boldly state in the May 2002 Epistle that the SSJ has "advanced under Fr. Urrutigoity's leadership from being a mere group of friends with a common idea to becoming a close-knit and disciplined religious community." While I am prepared to believe that the SSJ is "close-knit," I balk at the suggestion that it is a "disciplined religious community."

First and foremost it must be said that the SSJ is not, and never was, a "religious community." The portrayal of the SSJ as Benedictine has been part of the fraud initiated by Fr. Urrutigoity and now, sadly, perpetuated by you. As both Bishop Timlin and Bishop Dougherty made clear to Fr. Richard Munkelt and me, the SSJ is nothing more than a group of diocesan priests with permission to live together. Nevertheless, the SSJ literature has continually suggested otherwise to the detriment of many unsuspecting Catholic donors.

Bishop Dougherty was particularly insistent on this point, and he reported to Fr. Munkelt and me that he had stressed this when he reprimanded Fr. Urrutigoity, Fr. Eric Ensey, Fr. Daniel Fullerton, and Fr. Dominic O'Connor at a meeting on the Shohola property in September 2001. Bishop Dougherty was deeply concerned because, as he explained to Fr. Munkelt and me, the misuse of the trappings and titles of religious life is, more often than not, a cover for serious sin. How right he was! It should also be noted that Bishop Dougherty, troubled by the SSJ's excessive use of novenas for fundraising purposes, quipped to Fr. Munkelt and me that he was going to become a Lutheran if he saw any more advertisements for Society of St. John novenas.

How sad that Bishop Dougherty has not found the courage to stand for the truth he well knows. Instead, Bishop Dougherty is hiding behind a false notion of obedience to his superior, Bishop Timlin, who refuses to protect young souls from the sexual predations of Fr. Urrutigoity and Fr. Ensey. And you, Deacon Levine, appear to have chosen the same path as Bishop Dougherty. You are reputed to be one of the finest minds ever to graduate from Thomas Aquinas College—undoubtedly the best Catholic college in the country—and yet you refuse to face the truth. What is the value of being able to cite chapter and verse of St. Thomas' Treatise on Law if you cannot, or will not, recognize lawlessness when it is staring you in the face? Do you still believe, as you told me last summer, Fr. Urrutigoity is like St. Ignatius of Loyola insofar as he operates on a plane "above the realm of human reason and prudence"? Is this how you have justified to yourself Fr. Urrutigoity's habit of sleeping in the same bed with boys?

I would suggest you re-read St. Benedict's Rule, especially chapter 22 entitled "How the monks are to sleep." The first line of this chapter reads as follows: "All the monks shall sleep in separate beds." St. Benedict adds that all the monks are to sleep in one room, if possible. If not, then the monks are to be grouped in tens or twenties with a senior in charge of each group. A candle is to burn throughout the night. Finally, the younger brothers are not to sleep in beds next to each other, but interspersed with those of their elders. Now compare these balanced and prudent rules of St. Benedict with Fr. Fullerton's defense of Fr. Urrutigoity's habit of inviting young men to sleep with him in his private quarters. Fr. Fullerton had the audacity to argue that this was done because the SSJ wanted to follow the "Benedictine spirituality" of receiving all guests as Christ.

Read also chapter 35 of St. Benedict's Rule entitled "Weekly kitchen service." You will find nothing there about catered meals from gourmet restaurants.

While it is an outright deception to call the SSJ a "religious community," it is simply absurd to call it "disciplined." Even the SSJ's most loyal supporters, in moments of candor and frustration, have admitted that the SSJ priests, quite frankly, live and often behave like spoiled children. They expect nothing but the best—be it furniture, food, drink, or cigars—yet they squander and waste what they are given. Perhaps this explains why you, though only a deacon, were chosen to be Superior General rather than any of the SSJ priests.

If the SSJ is really the disciplined group you say it is, then please explain how the SSJ—just this past month—has been kicked out of yet another house where some of its members were living rent-free. This is the third house that the SSJ has been ordered to vacate after abusing the generous hospitality of the owner. I am amazed that even now, while the SSJ is under close scrutiny, your members could not at least pretend to be concerned about the property of others. Even naughty children know how to behave well under the threat of punishment, but not so the SSJ. Your "disciplined" group just expects that new living quarters and more money will be provided for them.

Furthermore, where is the discipline in allowing priests under your authority to continue to lie to Catholic donors about the scandal surrounding the SSJ? As the new Superior General, you are now responsible for the lies being told by your telemarketing priests, especially Fr. Dominic Carey who has been shameless in his willingness to deceive donors.

Finally, Deacon Levine, you yourself have not been honest and forthright in your letter about the status of the Catholic city the SSJ has proposed to build. You conclude your letter by exhorting your supporters to "persevere in charity" with respect to this "ambitious project" (that is, give more money), yet you are as silent as your predecessor in the face of the hard questions that must be answered: Is there really any hope of building on the Shohola property? Have you acquired a legitimate public access route yet? Or are you still secretly trying to sell the property? And how has the SSJ spent the five million dollars donated to build its city and the College of St. Justin Martyr?

As you exhort Catholic donors to trust you with even more money, I exhort you to put aside the purple prose of your first official letter and, instead, speak the plain truth about these weighty matters.


Dr. Jeffrey M. Bond
The College of St. Justin Martyr
142 Market Road
Greeley, PA 18425


Pat said...

Knowing Deacon Levine and accepting him as a good man who made some errors in judgement. Jesus forgives and welcomes sinners. He is in reality a good man and I hope he suceeds in his vocation with us in our diosese. May God open your minds hearts and souls to other possibitlites beyond what humans can do to other humans I remind you that God in his mercy and his Son by his death have won for us forgiveness.

Tancred said...

We don't need any more homosexual enablers. Doesn't Oregon have a bad enough record as it is? It might explain why he's finally been accepted there, of all places.

Pat said...


This is a sad occasion, and it appears that Bond had many aiders and abetters in his personal jihad to torture Deacon Levine for the rest of his life.

Mr. Bond appears to be either committing the sin of calumny or detraction. He still seems pretty upset about the failure of Justin Martyr College that he was supposed to head up some years ago. Also, Bond seems upset about Levine extricating himself as a defendant from some lawsuit Bond is occupying himself with nowadays. As Bond may admit, neither Deacon Levine nor Bond were responsible for the alleged actions of the former SSPX priests, Carlos Urrutigoity and Eric Ensey. Although Mr. Bond paints with quite a broad brush, Mr. Bond himself has stated in the past that there was no evidence that neither Bond nor Deacon Levine was involved with the alleged molestation of boys or young men. Deacon Levine may be guilty of giving support for too long (as defined by the calumnordetractor Bond) of a man that Levine believed to be other than said man apparently was. I think that in today’s atmosphere, where priest are considered guilty until proven innocent, the local Bishop would have investigated this matter very thoroughly (especially since Bond has been there every step of the way), and found that there was no impediment to Deacon Levine becoming a priest.

Levine has never been accused of abuse, even by the rabid Bond, who knows better than to step over that line (one hopes).

So the question is, will Bond repent of his apparent sins, and what does Bond actually do for a living since the College of St. Justin Martyr does not appear to exist? Why is Bond still referred to as the president of a college that has never existed? This is all very suspicious in the “Bondian” worldview.

I believe that Bond himself once had an association with the SSJ. Should this also be held against Bond for the rest of his life? Will Bond not rest until any and all in some way associated with the SSJ, after the point in time Bond has deemed too long, are prevented from doing anything useful in their lives??

Tancred said...


No, I see, shoot the messenger and spread Calumny and Detraction against Dr. Bond on your part.

Dr. Bond was courageous and saw things as they were but Deacon Levine was surrounded by the stuff and turned a blind eye at the very least, if you'll excuse the details, of things like Basil Sarweh running through the halls with g-string bikini underwear in the middle of the night, and Urrutigoity and Ensey's misdeeds. Moreover, if you bother to read the report, you'll see that Matt C. Abbott reports that Mr. Levine was well aware of the things that were going on,

'A former member of the SSJ told Internet columnist Matt C. Abbott ( that Levine “actively sought to protect those in the SSJ who engaged in these perverse deeds.”
There were also allegations of financial irregularities leveled at the Society, leading Scranton Bishop Joseph Martino to say it caused "grievous financial burdens for the diocese" that could amount to several million dollars, according to the Catholic News Service. '

We also note that you are from the discredited and homosexual/child abuser area of Oregon. Hasn't the ordinary Catholic in Oregon paid out enough money to legal sharks already, without men like you advocating for lowlifes like Levine?

How about having a little sympathy for the victims? How about apologizing to Dr. Bond and thanking him for protecting innocent children from these monsters?

Anonymous said...

Controversial deacon defends himself
He puts long statement in Sunday’s parish bulletin
Church official acknowledges relocating here due to allegations
His “reputation” was “destroyed” in two other dioceses, he admits

Jan. 26, 2010

A Catholic deacon who was refused ordination two years ago by a New Jersey bishop and was ousted by a Pennsylvania bishop now works at a Bend Oregon church and is defending himself in Sunday in St. Francis parish bulletins.

Leaders of SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, are unmoved by Deacon Joseph Levine’s missive.

“It’s deceitful and wrong for Levine to basically blame one individual for his own recklessness and cowardice,” said David Clohessy of SNAP. “And he did tremendous hardship by publicly and repeatedly defending pedophile priests. If he’s made peace with one former colleague, that’s wonderful. But he’s evidently done little or nothing to ‘un-do’ the real damage he’s done to Catholic families, Pennsylvania citizens and clergy sex abuse victims.”

Below is a copy of 1) Levine’s defense, 2) SNAP’s recent news release about Levine and 3) SNAP’s letter to Baker’s Catholic bishop about Levine. SNAP has not heard back from the bishop.

Anonymous said...

1) The following will appear by way of a bulletin insert:

When a man has been subject to vicious calumnies and been forced to relocate on account of them, he does not want to introduce himself to his new acquaintances by saying something like, “Hello, my name is John Doe and these are all the nasty things people are saying about me.” Anyone who reflects for a moment on the embarrassing events of his own life will, I think, agree that he would prefer not to have to introduce himself by making reference to those incidents.

I came to the Baker Diocese after my reputation had been destroyed in two other dioceses where I had worked despite the fact that in those dioceses the Bishops were very pleased with my faithfulness and dedication. In fact, both of them would have very willingly ordained me. Bishop Vasa and Fr. Joseph Reinig were fully informed of the circumstances. Now, however, it has come to my attention that half-truths are circulating in the parish and so it has become necessary to address the matter publicly. I am grateful that I have been allowed to work among you for the past five months without having to explain my past association. I hope that you now have some personal experience of me which will allow you to consider more objectively the worth or value of that which is now being said about me. You have the living man before you.

It is now more than six years since I was a member of a community called the Society of St. John that was established in the Diocese of Scranton, Pennsylvania in 1998. I joined the community the same year because I thought the purpose was good and, to my knowledge, the men involved were good. Nevertheless, a scandal arose in which the priest-founder, Fr. Carlos Urrutigoity, another priest, Fr. Eric Ensey, were accused of sexual abuse. Though I was only a deacon I was placed in a position for which I was little prepared and succeeded the priest-founder as Superior of the community, even though the priest-founder’s charismatic influence remained dominant. I mistakenly believed that the priest-founder was innocent and defended him as such. In retrospect, I now know I was very naïve in my judgment. That naïve judgment has plagued me ever since. I have been repeatedly accused of having knowingly participated in a ‘cover-up’. That is the most serious allegation that has ever been made against me.

One man in particular, Dr. Jeffrey Bond, made an issue of these things and succeeded first in pressuring the Bishop of Scranton not to ordain me to the priesthood and then he succeeded in pressuring the Bishop of Paterson, New Jersey. Dr. Bond is highly credible because he had both firsthand knowledge and had made a diligent investigation. In the end, I have come to admit that he was substantially correct in his assessment of Fr. Urrutigoity. Before I came to Bend, Bishop Vasa acted as mediator between myself and Dr. Bond. The Bishop made reconciliation with him a condition for my acceptance into the Diocese. As a result of that mediation I wrote a lengthy explanatory letter and apology to Dr. Bond. That explanation and apology was accepted and Dr. Bond, who was almost singlehandedly responsible for the previous cancellation of priestly ordination plans, withdrew his objections to my ordination. My letter and Dr. Bond’s reply will be available in PDF format to any who wish to read it. Dr. Bond has the fullest knowledge of the serious problems with the Society of Saint John and they were extensive. Thus his withdrawal of objections speaks to the sincerity and seriousness of my apology and acknowledgment of error. Unfortunately, it is much easier to focus on events at the Society than the very significant journey I have been on since my departure from and the subsequent collapse of that community.

Deacon Joseph Levine

Anonymous said...

2) Ousted deacon resurfaces here
Two other bishops rejected him
In 2007, one diocese refused to ordain him
Two clerics he supervised were sued for abuse
The group he headed also faced financial allegations
It may cost church “several million dollars,” PA bishop says
Still, Oregon prelate now lets him quietly work at Bend parish
SNAP discloses an e mail from local bishop defending his actions
Support group asks Vasa to reconsider and warn church members about him

A Catholic deacon who was refused ordination two years ago by a New Jersey bishop and was ousted by a Pennsylvania bishop now works at a parish in Oregon. A support group for clergy sex abuse victims is urging an Oregon bishop to publicly explain why he’s given a job to the controversial deacon and to reconsider that decision.

Deacon Joseph Levine is the former head of a troubled group called the Society of St. John, which was shut down by Scranton’s bishop in 2004 after charges of financial misdealing and after two of the group’s priests were sued for alleged child sexual abuse. Levine was accused by Jeffrey Bond, Ph.D., of concealing clergy sex crimes.

In 2007, Levine was within a week of becoming a priest in the Paterson NJ diocese. But the diocese suddenly announced that it was refusing to ordain him and admit it had received “questions about Levine's suitability for the priesthood,” according to the Scranton Times-Leader.

He now works at St. Francis of Assisi Catholic Church in the Baker Diocese, and is listed on the parish website as a "pastoral year seminarian/deacon."

“Levine’s never been charged or convicted in any criminal, civil or church proceeding,” admits David Clohessy, national director of a self help group called SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. “But two bishops have rejected Levine, both of whom no doubt know him better than Oregon church officials do. And the public and parishioners in Oregon have been told little, if anything, about the disturbing allegations that he concealed child sex crimes and that his group essentially committed financial fraud.”

“At worse, Baker Catholic officials are being reckless and at best, they’re being secretive,” said Barbara Dorris of St. Louis. She’s SNAP’s outreach director.

“We see no evidence that the Oregon church hierarchy has warned anyone about Levine’s troubling past,” Dorris said. “We hope that’s been done, but it sure doesn’t look like it. And that kind of honesty is what bishops have repeatedly promised since 2002 regarding clergy sex crimes and cover ups. It’s the kind of honesty that Catholics deserve and families need.”

SNAP is sending a letter today by fax and e mail to Baker Bishop Robert Vasa with their concerns about Levine.

But in a Jan. 7 email to a local Catholic obtained by SNAP, Vasa defends his actions, referring to Levine’s “good reputation.”

Levine “was aware of (one accused predator priest’s) eccentricities but whether he was in fact an abuser of teenagers has never been proven though (we) certainly have our grave suspicions,” Vasa wrote. “Levine was never implicated in the abuse matters. . .and even now (the priest) has not been charged with any crimes. Levine was caught up in a scandal, not of his making, which he was quite ill-equipped to deal with and he now admits that he did not deal with it well.”

“Corresponding with an accused wrong-doer isn’t the best way to get accurate information,” countered Dorris.

According to one Pennsylvania news account, in 2002,“Levine became (head) of the Society of St. John, the same year a former student filed a sexual abuse lawsuit against two society priests, Carlos Urrutigoity and Eric Ensey, and the Scranton Diocese.” A second, similar lawsuit was also filed later.

According to the Catholic News Service, “three other former students (gave depositions in 2004) testifying that Father Urrutigoity sexually fondled them or slept with them when they were minors.”

Anonymous said...

3) Dear Bishop Vasa:

For years, Catholic bishops have
-- accepted ordination candidates rejected by other bishops,
-- believed accused clerics when those clerics professed their innocence,
-- quietly moved alleged, proven, and admitted wrong-doers to new dioceses, and
-- warned no one (or few people) about their troublesome pasts.

Supposedly, in 2002, all that stopped. America’s bishops pledged to put the safety of kids first and to be “open and transparent” with their flocks.

So then why have you quietly accepted Deacon Joseph Levine into your diocese, and apparently warned no one or few people of his past? That past includes allegations
- that he helped conceal those abuse accusations involving priests he supervised, and
- that his group engaged in serious financial improprieties, and
- that his group didn’t cooperate with their local bishop.

Beyond these accusations, there are a number of disturbing and undisputed facts:
- a New Jersey bishop suddenly refused to ordain Levine as a priest,
- a Pennsylvania bishop ousted Levine’s group from his diocese,
- that two members of his group, whom he alleged supervised, were sued for child sex abuse,
- at least one child sex abuse lawsuit involving two priests under his supervision was settled,
- that settlement was substantial (which enhances the credibility of the accusers),
- both accused predator priests have now left the country, and
- Levine’s group has also left the US.

All of this is very worrisome to us, especially in light of your similar secrecy and recklessness in other recent situations:
-Fr. Jose Joaquin Estrada Arango, who pled guilty to molesting a teenager. (As you know, you hid his entire criminal process – being charged, admitting guilt and being deported – from your flock.)
-Fr. Richard Edelin, who was accused of sexually abusing a teenage girl in Texas in the 1980s. (As you know, church officials there paid her a settlement and gave her an apology.)
-Last year, you were one of only two US bishops (out of nearly 200) to refuse to “participate in a nationwide audit of child safety practices” (according to the Bend Bulletin).
-In 2003, a Portland attorney accused you of a “calculated, transparent, unlawful and devious" transfer of church property so clergy sex victims would get smaller settlements.

Given these facts and charges, you can surely understand our dismay about your honesty and our doubts about the Levine matter. In a nutshell, we are worried about the well-being of your flock and of eastern Oregon citizens.

Here’s something to ponder: if Levine did, in fact, conceal child sex crimes, and yet is welcomed into your diocese, there’s certainly a chance that he’ll do it again. And if he, in fact, was involved in any financial impropriety, there’s a chance that he’ll do that again as well.

Frankly, we’re not comforted by your claim that you’ve written several letters over the past few months to two individuals about Levine, one of whom is Levine himself, the alleged wrong-doer. That doesn’t seem like a very thorough investigation.

In light of all this, we have three simple requests, Bishop.

First, we ask you to publicly explain why you’ve given a job to this controversial deacon.

Second, we ask you to reconsider your decision. (Ministry is a privilege, not a right.)

Third, we ask you to hold an open public meeting at Levine’s parish, and give citizens and Catholics a chance to directly ask you questions about your troubling move.

These actions would be small steps toward the caution, compassion and openness that you and your colleagues have promised your flock and toward a more prudent stewardship.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Tancred said...

We'll write up a new article, thanks for the bulletin insert. I'm sure it will prove useful.

Anonymous said...

I know Deacon Levine and Dr Bond as well most of the parties involved in this contreversy.

Deacon Levin may be guilty of an error in judgement but no one has and no one ever will accuse him of being involved in sexual abuse.

The most serious charge is that he was engaged in a cover up. This charge was made in anger and is totally unfair and over the top.

Essentially the argument goes something like this. "Joe Levine doesnt agree 100% with Dr Bond therefor he is covering things up".

Deacon Levine is a fine man. I would trust him with my children, my childrens children and their children.

That this blog continues the calumny against him is outrageous and frankly you should appologize to him.

In addition, SNAPS recounting events is totally inaccurate. Deacon Levine has been "rejected" by two bishops because they were hounded to hell by SNAP and other scandal mongers.

Does this blog think that SNAP is the pure and only arbiter of truth? There are some terrible Priests and SNAP feeds of this fact to go after the good as well as the bad.

Joe Levine - your welcome in my home any day any time.

God Bless

I am not dismayed at all that Deacon Levine was given a position in Oregon. I would love if he were given a position in our own parish.

In fact maybe Ill move to Oregon just to be in his parish.

For those sanctimonious bastards among you - dont forget hundreds of donors and many good people were duped by Fr. Urrutigoity.

Tancred said...

Hmm, some defenders of SSJ won't admit any wrongdoing on the part of anyone, insisting that no criminal charges were filed. We think Father Marshall Roberts is among them.

Secondly, I don't think anyone is objecting to Deacon Levine finding a job suited to him outside of the Church.

Frankly, I don't blame anyone for not wanting someone around who'd engaged in coverups and steadfastly made the kinds of confabulated and dishonest apologias for the predatory homosexuals of the SSJ.

Perhaps you should move to Oregon if you like sex abusing leftist clergy, they've got some of the worst problems with sex abuse in the country, and is it any wonder since they have one of the highest concentration of leftists in the country?

Anonymous said...

Hmm - some attackers of SSJ are indiscriminate and reckless in their accusations.

Secondly - For you Catholics - remember calumny is a mortal sin . You might want to keep that in mind as you make false allegations against Deacon Levine.

Frankly, I don't blame anyone for not wanting people/bloggers around who engage in calumny and steadfastly make all kins of confabulated and dishonest allegations about good people. There may have been wicked men at the SSJ - Joe Levine is not one of them and just because he is not the blabbering type like some of you gossipers doesnt mean he covered up anything.

Perhaps you calumnists should move to Washington DC where you can hone your skill of destroying the reputations of others.

Right now the real coverup that is taking place is the cover up of the truth which is that Deacon Levin is a fine man who's reputation was besmearched by the rabid Dr Bond.

Tancred said...

As it turns out, Dr. Bond's allegations were accurate, at least according to Deacon Levine, and who's engaging in calumny now? You? But you're probably not even Catholic, so no big deal, right?

You can't have it both ways. Either Dr. Bond is "rabid" and "indiscriminate" or he's right about the allegations he made.

Maybe all of you SSJ enablers should get your stories straight before you make your snotty and simpering allegations against good and truly brave men like Dr. Bond.

I don't want Levine in holy orders. Why is that so hard to understand? He might have the integrity and moral backbone for other jobs, but not for Holy Priesthood.

With all the chaff you and your homosexual enabler friends have been throwing around over the last few years, you can't seem to get past the fact that Levine made some pretty flimsy excuses for his homosexual predator friends.

Deacon Levine is a lot like those sorority girls who hold the cell phones while their rapist boyfriends do their stuff. We've got enough guys like Levine in the priesthood, and we don't need any more.

Hasn't Oregon paid out enough in damage claims already?

Anonymous said...

Once again you get the facts wrong. Did you read Deacon Levine's apology? Have you spoken with Dr Bond.

By the way - I can have it both ways. In theory Dr Bond could be rabid and indiscriminate and could also be correct in his allegations. Perhaps you dont understand that though so let me put it this way - a rabid monkey could throw a dart and happen to hit the bullseye.

As it happens though Dr Bond was just rabid and indiscriminate.

When you speak of Dr Bond's allegations which one of the several hundred do you mean?

Furthermore if you actually knew Joe Levine you'd know that he certainly does have the moral backbone for the Priesthood. Ultimately its not you a frantic lunatic who only knows what SNAP tells you, who is going to make the decision about Joe's Priesthood.

Oh - but I see -everone is wrong including the good Bishop Vasa.. Your better than Bishop Vasa right? You know more than him dont you?

Tancred - your remarks seem to reveal a lack of self control and reason so I am beginning to suspect that you yourself might have deep seeded homosexual tendencies.

Perhaps you should see a therapist and learn to deal with your own problems instead of spreading false rumors about Deacon Levine - a man to whom you couldn't hold a candle.

Tancred said...

Look, I'm not going to entertain your outburst here, but I will address your flacid special pleading.

You accuse Dr. Bond of Calumny and then admit that his accusations might be correct. I don't detect that he is, therefore, wild in his accusations or on a witch-hunt as you with your Orwellian language attempt to portray him as doing.

And one more point, Deacon Levine's integrity is in question here. We've already got admission from him and one other SSJ member that he was basically covering for Ensey and Urrutigoity. Once again, had it not been for Dr. Bond -- whom you sin against by calumnating -- he most likely wouldn't have been held accountable.

So, until you can make your statements square with reality, you should shut your simpering lips.

Anonymous said...

Look - you dont know how to read.

I did not admit that his accusations might be correct. I correct and error in logic that you made by pointing out to the contrary that a person could be rabid and indiscriminate and come up with a correct answer. I then went on to say that Dr Bond was "just rabid and indiscriminate" - as opposed to being correct.

So for the record you once again have proven yourself incabable of understanding.

So - to go on. Since Dr Bond is incorrect in many of his most outlandish allegations he is guilty of calumny.

Secondly. It is not Deacon Levin's integrity that is really in question but your own and that of Dr Bond.

I love your logic by the way. It is manifestly self serving. Basically you are saying Dr Bond and SNAP question Deacon Levine's integrity therefor his integrity is in question.

Well following your same silly logic I hereby question your integrity and that of Dr Bond so now your own integrity is in question - how do you like that.

Both of you really owe us all an accounting for your gross mishandling of the truth.

Tancred said...

So then, it's not only our integrity that's on the line, but Deacon Levine's as well, since he now agrees with Dr. Bond that Carlito and Ensey were preying on the boys whom they were entrusted but he missed the "little tell-tale signs" like the bunking up and the nocturnal flights of Fr. Sarweh through the halls in his g-string.

But we already know according to Matt C. Abbot's contact with the SSJ that Deacon Levine was covering up for these Sodomites.

Really, your dishonesty is astounding.

Well, we're just a few over here who believe that your friends at the SSJ are snakes, we've got Dr. Bond's testimony and the testimony of some of the former students of SSJ, others who knew SSJ well, not to mention a former member.

You've had an opportunity to make your point, but 90% of what you've done is calumnate ourselves, Dr. Bond and now Deacon Mr. Levine who now, finally, admits there was a problem.

Calumny's a sin, btw, especially the way you do it, to defend wicked men who were preying on the boys entrusted to their care.

Anonymous said...

What is astounding is your inchorence and misrepresentation of the facts. Are you drunk?

The only testimony you have comes second, third and fourth hand to you and just about all of it goes back to Dr Bond in one way or another.

Why dont you make it easy on yourself and just contact Dr Bond?

So I am dishonest am I? Ok - Ill come clean and give you my honest opinion.

Your an absolute fool and a bafoon who wouldnt know the truth if you were run over by it.

So not only did I have an opprotunity to make my point as you say, but I did make my point.

BTW Tancred you idiot. I am not a defender of the SSJ or Fr Urrutigoity. Thats just another misrepresentation on your part. Apparently you cannot read.

Anyway How dare you you slob go around attempting to ruin a good mans reputation. You deserve to have your #ss kicked frankly.

Thats not being unreasonable either. Its really the best response to blockheads like you. I was just trying to be nice before but now I see its no use.

Tancred said...

Yes, you don't want to address Deacon Levine's coverup and defense of Carlito and you don't want to admit that you're accusing Bond of Calumny.

Since you've tired of attacking Bond's reputation, a good man, now you're threatening me with bodily harm. Good, good...

"Anyway How dare you you slob go around attempting to ruin a good mans reputation. You deserve to have your #ss kicked frankly.

Thats not being unreasonable either. Its really the best response to blockheads like you. I was just trying to be nice before but now I see its no use."

You can't even address a simple point, you're all over the map and now you want to come across the line.

Anonymous said...

Deacon Levine never covered up anything so there is no cover up to address.

Ill repeat what I said before

"you don't know how to read".

After reading what I wrote you conclude that I am threatening you "with bodily harm".

What I wrote was "You deserve to have your #ss kicked".

Now - that is not a threat but an observation. A threat would be "I am going to kick your #ss".

I stand by the opinion that you deserve to have you #ss kicked. Its not a threat.

The point this makes nicely though is that your not really trustworthy. I mean here we have what I wrote in ordinary english and yet you misrepresent it.

Luckily everyone who can read understands that "you deserve to have your #ss kicked" is not the same as "I am going to kick your #ss".

Now - just to make the point clear though I really do think you deserve to have your #ss kicked.

The damage you do to a mans reputation via your untrue and unjust allegations is a far greater sin than mine would be were I to kick your #ss.

God Bless. I hope you repent someday of the evil you have done.

Tancred said...

We hope you repent of your habitual dishonesty.

Your comments are not intelligent, either from a legal or a christian point of view.

I'd suggest you apologize and save your taking of the Lord's name in vain for others who are cowed by false piety.

Finally, you just can't address the fact that your boy Levine, despite being warned by people other than Dr. Bond about Carlito's pederasty, insisted on praising the man in public and continuing to accept an beg for donations for their "Catholic village".

People like you make me sick.

Anonymous said...

I am happy to make you sick if it prevents you from spreading lies.

Also it is sad that you think me asking the Lord to bless you is in vain. Are you that far gone that you are beyond his blessing? Despair, like calumny is also a sin dont you know.

Tancred said...

You've had an opportunity to defend the SSJ here and elsewhere as Neri-P. We've even gone so far as to publish Deacon Levine's defense of himself where he still implies that he was calumnated against. We're just going to have to wait till Doctor Bond's letter to come for that, but it won't matter much to me either way.

Deacon Levine has basically, finally, belatedly admitted that there were some terrible things going on with the SSJ that involved the victimization of children. That's a huge step.

As far as his suitabillity for the priesthood, it's just one man's opinion that he's not. I think the evidence is strongly against Levine's vocation, and that was the opinion of two other Diocese as well. Anyhow, there are lots of suckers out there willing to believe, so even Carlito and Ensey can find new patrons for their ecclesiastical carreers.

We've been good enough to let you fail to address the basic question, but you've responded by the general nastiness of your confreres.

No, I don't credit your pious sentiments with any sincerity.

May you be in heaven as soon as I finish posting this note.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for your prayer. Were that I was in heaven upon the completion of your note.

In anycase unfortunately I am not.

Regarding your first point i.e that I've had the opportunity to defend SSJ here and elsewhere. Im not exactly sure what you mean but also what have I ever said that was in defense of SSJ?

I am happy to defend Deacon Levine but I dont know what gave you the impression that I was defending SSJ. I think this is just another example of you not being able to read and jumping to conclusions.

How many examples does that make now anyway? Your going for some kind of record.

Secondly - I am glad that you grant in your opinion Deacon Levin has at least made a "hugh step" in the right direction.

Thirdly - you misrepresent the position of two Diocese. Your position is two "other" diocese are of opinion that the evidence is strongly against Deacon Levine having a vocation.

Wow - you really missed the mark on that one. You are wrong about the opinion of these two diocese. Again you are misreading/misinterpreting the evidence available to you.

You may not understand what I mean but let me ask you this.

Were you privy to the decision making processes of these two diocese? Neither of them weighed in on the question of whether Deacon Levine had a vocation. You must be very well connected with the hierarchy of these diocese because nothing in the public records supporst your conclusions.

Just to make the point clear to you. One cannot conclude that just because a bishop refuses to ordain someone does not mean that person does not have a vocation. The history of the Saints is replete with examples of this.

Since you have made the claim is incumbent upon you to show us where these two Bishops have said Deacon Levine does not have a vocation.

Since you will be unable to do this I expect your next post will include a retraction of this point.

Thirdly.... Why do you keep on bringing up "Carlito and Ensey". No one cares about them. I dont care about them. Were you one of their followers at one time or something? They seem very attached to their memories. Why do you keep on bringing them up?

Tancred said...

Lots of people care about Carlito, Ensey and say, Sarweh and Roberts, who Levine covered for when there were(SSPX)allegations. It was the subject of a number of lawsuits, and was the result of them leaving the SSPX and St. Gregory's Academy in the first place and the financial malfeasance they engaged in.

It's my opinion that you're party to the SSJ and your dissembling replies fail every time to address that Doctor Bond had the goods on Levine.

Do not reply further as I will erase any further posts, annonymous.

The following indicates that this wasn't just Dr. Bond, as you or your alter-ego/doppelganger on other forums suggest, that Doctor Bond was waging a one man Crusade and that the whole thing was his creation alone. Others were indeed concered with the sociopathic behavior of the SSJ, like Fr. Munkelt, a former FSSP priest at St. Gregory's for example, so again, you won't address the problem of Levine's coverup and lack of integrity because you can't and you wont, but must resort to personal insults: