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." The church is at 2450 NE 27th Street in Bend (541-382-3631). The pastor is Fr. Joe Reinig (jreinig@stfrancisbend.org) and the associate pastor is Fr. Daniel Maxwell (dmaxwell@stfrancisbend.org)
“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.”
In 2005, one of the suits was settled for $455,000.
A former member of the SSJ told Internet columnist Matt C. Abbott (mattcabbott@hotmail.com) that Levine “actively sought to protect those in the SSJ who engaged in these perverse deeds.”
In 2002, a separate lawsuit filed against the society claiming that it raised $5 million from donors to build a Catholic college. But little money was spent on that project, the suit said, which has since been abandoned.
In 2006, another Pennsylvania newspaper reports that the controversial group “has reestablished itself in Paraguay.” Urrutigoity and Ensey are reportedly there too. Two years earlier, in 2004, Ensey filed for personal bankruptcy.
According to the Wilkes-Barre daily newspaper, some 25 Scranton diocesan priests have been accused of molesting children.
“We must caution against ‘guilt by association,’ but at the same time, it’s hard to believe that Levine was in the midst of all these alleged clergy sex crimes and cover ups and financial misdeeds but knew nothing or responded perfectly,” said Clohessy.
-- 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:
-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.
Joined: 14 Feb 2004 Posts: 152 Location: Oregon coast
Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 11:22 pm Post subject:
lightmanFR wrote:
kstewskis wrote:
gasp.
For a moment, by the title, I thought you were talking about Sinskspur.
That was my first thought when I read the title.
I guess we've both been around here a tad longish....
Yup, and me too.
I wonder whatever happened to the "deacon" after his exposure?
Although there were some things that didn't fit, he had me fooled for quite a while.
I am disturbed by this press release by SNAP, which sounds like evidence of a witch hunt. They themselves acknowledge that there was never any allegation that this deacon had abused anyone. He is obviously no longer connected to the original group. He should be allowed to prove his suitability for ministry in the Church without being subject to persecutions orchestrated by groups thousands of miles away. From the press release itself, it sounds as though he has been through enough already. Let's simply entrust his vocation to Our Blessed Lady and not add to his burdens or those of the Bishop with un-informed comments and speculations. _________________ Cor ad cor loquitur
"Let's simply entrust his vocation to Our Blessed Lady and not add to his burdens or those of the Bishop with un-informed comments and speculations."
I add this word also. Calumny is a mortal sin. It is my opinion that "Tom" and others in particular Dr Bond have been spreading Calumny about Deacon Levine. I've seen "Tom's" post here and elsewhere recently on the web (or post suspiciously similar). Enough of that Tom. Frankly I think you Dr Bond and others will have a lot to answer for. You will have to answer for far more than Deacon Levine who is a good and fine man and has been unjustly accused in these matters.
He should be allowed to prove his suitability for ministry in the Church without being subject to persecutions orchestrated by groups thousands of miles away. From the press release itself, it sounds as though he has been through enough already. Let's simply entrust his vocation to Our Blessed Lady and not add to his burdens or those of the Bishop with un-informed comments and speculations.
I don't have a horse in this race either way. But for someone to insist on pursuing a vocation in the Church after such an ugly mess, is something I have personally never heard of. I believe most of us would react in the exact opposite direction, even to the extent of losing the Faith, and probably never stepping a foot inside the Church again.
While a part of me wants to believe in the zeal of this deacon, my lower, more cynical part puts him on par with politicians, actors, and presidents, who go through huge scandals, and always come out smelling like a rose.
You make some interesting points. I do think most of us would loose our resolve after going through such hell.
Answers about where his resolve comes from is beyond our reach. Perhaps its a personal ambition of some kind. The other side of this is that perhaps he has a vocation?
I think its worth considering that in this entire affair one can find on the internet volume upon volume by Dr Bond (his primary accuser). In fact he has an entire website dedicated to it. I have read through the whole thing and it all comes back to Bond. He is the Judge. He is the Jury. He is the witness, He is the executioner. He is the town crier.
On the other hand there is virtually nothing until now from Deacon Levine.
In my opinion he has been falsely accused.
Where does a man go to get his reputation back?
This is why I think his accusers have a lot on their souls.
Somehow I am confident that when all is said and done its not Deacon Levine who's reputation will be ruined but those of his accusers.
Joined: 07 Jul 2005 Posts: 9791 Location: Central Massachusetts
Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 9:56 am Post subject:
Is Deacon Joseph Levine "opportunistic" to seek priestly ordination in the Novus Ordo "structure"?
He has gone from being a member and then superior of a religious order (the Society of Saint John) that claimed to be "Traditionalist" in its theology, spirituality and liturgy--to deacon internships at Novus Ordo parishes first in Pennsylvania and then in New Jersey and now in Oregon, which have modern-style architecture and liturgy, Eucharistic ministers, and altar girls.
A former colleague of his in the "Society," Father Richard Munkelt, came from study at a Novus Ordo seminary, was ordained a priest for the "Society," but left after six months when he realized what was going on there, and has "continued" in Traditionalist "circles"--as a priest of the Diocese of Scranton, Pennsylvania, but in residence at Saint Anthony's "traditional" parish in New Jersey.
You make some interesting points. I do think most of us would loose our resolve after going through such hell.
Answers about where his resolve comes from is beyond our reach. Perhaps its a personal ambition of some kind. The other side of this is that perhaps he has a vocation?
I think its worth considering that in this entire affair one can find on the internet volume upon volume by Dr Bond (his primary accuser). In fact he has an entire website dedicated to it. I have read through the whole thing and it all comes back to Bond. He is the Judge. He is the Jury. He is the witness, He is the executioner. He is the town crier. [If it weren't for Bond, your friends at the SSJ would still be preying on children]
On the other hand there is virtually nothing until now from Deacon Levine.
In my opinion he has been falsely accused.
Where does a man go to get his reputation back? [Where do the children the men he protected go to get their innocence back?]
This is why I think his accusers have a lot on their souls.[Again, your attacks on Dr. Bond say a lot more about you than you probably realize]
Somehow I am confident that when all is said and done its [learn the its, it's rules] not Deacon Levine who's reputation will be ruined but those of his accusers.
One wonders why this accuser wants to shoot the messenger, Dr. Bond or anyone else who looks critically at Levine? He's probably the same poster from an ohio isp who's been making physical threats on a different blog elsewhere.
Quote:
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.
You make some interesting points. I do think most of us would loose our resolve after going through such hell.
Answers about where his resolve comes from is beyond our reach. Perhaps its a personal ambition of some kind. The other side of this is that perhaps he has a vocation?
I think its worth considering that in this entire affair one can find on the internet volume upon volume by Dr Bond (his primary accuser). In fact he has an entire website dedicated to it. I have read through the whole thing and it all comes back to Bond. He is the Judge. He is the Jury. He is the witness, He is the executioner. He is the town crier.
On the other hand there is virtually nothing until now from Deacon Levine.
In my opinion he has been falsely accused.
Where does a man go to get his reputation back?
This is why I think his accusers have a lot on their souls.
Somehow I am confident that when all is said and done its not Deacon Levine who's reputation will be ruined but those of his accusers.
Well, from your lips to God's ears.
I have no apriori about the deacon either way. As a totally disinterested bystander, I am saying that, if, for example, a man with this history came into my Church, I would try to give him the benefit of my doubt. But I would never leave my children alone with the man. Sorry. Trust but verify, is my motto here.
You make some interesting points. I do think most of us would loose our resolve after going through such hell.
Answers about where his resolve comes from is beyond our reach. Perhaps its a personal ambition of some kind. The other side of this is that perhaps he has a vocation?
I think its worth considering that in this entire affair one can find on the internet volume upon volume by Dr Bond (his primary accuser). In fact he has an entire website dedicated to it. I have read through the whole thing and it all comes back to Bond. He is the Judge. He is the Jury. He is the witness, He is the executioner. He is the town crier. [If it weren't for Bond, your friends at the SSJ would still be preying on children]
On the other hand there is virtually nothing until now from Deacon Levine.
In my opinion he has been falsely accused.
Where does a man go to get his reputation back? [Where do the children the men he protected go to get their innocence back?]
This is why I think his accusers have a lot on their souls.[Again, your attacks on Dr. Bond say a lot more about you than you probably realize]
Somehow I am confident that when all is said and done its [learn the its, it's rules] not Deacon Levine who's reputation will be ruined but those of his accusers.
One wonders why this accuser wants to shoot the messenger, Dr. Bond or anyone else who looks critically at Levine? He's probably the same poster from an ohio isp who's been making physical threats on a different blog elsewhere.
Quote:
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.
You make some interesting points. I do think most of us would loose our resolve after going through such hell.
Answers about where his resolve comes from is beyond our reach. Perhaps its a personal ambition of some kind. The other side of this is that perhaps he has a vocation?
I think its worth considering that in this entire affair one can find on the internet volume upon volume by Dr Bond (his primary accuser). In fact he has an entire website dedicated to it. I have read through the whole thing and it all comes back to Bond. He is the Judge. He is the Jury. He is the witness, He is the executioner. He is the town crier. [If it weren't for Bond, your friends at the SSJ would still be preying on children]
On the other hand there is virtually nothing until now from Deacon Levine.
In my opinion he has been falsely accused.
Where does a man go to get his reputation back? [Where do the children the men he protected go to get their innocence back?]
This is why I think his accusers have a lot on their souls.[Again, your attacks on Dr. Bond say a lot more about you than you probably realize]
Somehow I am confident that when all is said and done its [learn the its, it's rules] not Deacon Levine who's reputation will be ruined but those of his accusers.
One wonders why this accuser wants to shoot the messenger, Dr. Bond or anyone else who looks critically at Levine? He's probably the same poster from an ohio isp who's been making physical threats on a different blog elsewhere.
Quote:
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.
There seems to be some forgetfulness here that the SSI was embroiled in 2 scandals: one of clerical sexual abuse and the other financial. The latter same out before the former and involved huge sums of money. _________________ Extra ecclesiam nulla salus!
1. Deacon Levine failed to address the fact that Rev. Andres Morello, the former Rector of the SSPX seminary in La Reja, Argentina, accused then seminarian Carlos Urrutigoity of homosexual behavior.
2. Deacon Levine failed to address the similar accusations made by Bishop Fellay of the SSPX.
3. Deacon Levine did not even attempt to respond to the accusations in the affidavits and letters of Mr. Jude Huntz, Mr. Paul Hornak, Br. Alexis Bugnolo, Mr. Joseph Sciambra, Rev. Richard Munkelt, and Mrs. Diane Toler.
4. Concerning the charges of financial misconduct, Deacon Levine failed to address the resignations of the key members of the SSJ's own Board of Advisors—Mr. Howard Walsh, Mr. John Blewett, and Mr. Matthew Sawyer—all of whom have objected strongly to the SSJ's misuse of donations.
5. Deacon Levine also ignored the long letter by Mr. Vincent Cioci, the SSJ's own developer, who exposed the misrepresentations of the SSJ with respect to the development of the Shohola property.
6. Most important of all, Deacon Levine failed to mention that a federal lawsuit filed by John Doe and his parents has charged Fr. Urrutigoity and Fr. Ensey with homosexual molestation.
1. Deacon Levine failed to address the fact that Rev. Andres Morello, the former Rector of the SSPX seminary in La Reja, Argentina, accused then seminarian Carlos Urrutigoity of homosexual behavior.
2. Deacon Levine failed to address the similar accusations made by Bishop Fellay of the SSPX.
3. Deacon Levine did not even attempt to respond to the accusations in the affidavits and letters of Mr. Jude Huntz, Mr. Paul Hornak, Br. Alexis Bugnolo, Mr. Joseph Sciambra, Rev. Richard Munkelt, and Mrs. Diane Toler.
4. Concerning the charges of financial misconduct, Deacon Levine failed to address the resignations of the key members of the SSJ's own Board of Advisors—Mr. Howard Walsh, Mr. John Blewett, and Mr. Matthew Sawyer—all of whom have objected strongly to the SSJ's misuse of donations.
5. Deacon Levine also ignored the long letter by Mr. Vincent Cioci, the SSJ's own developer, who exposed the misrepresentations of the SSJ with respect to the development of the Shohola property.
6. Most important of all, Deacon Levine failed to mention that a federal lawsuit filed by John Doe and his parents has charged Fr. Urrutigoity and Fr. Ensey with homosexual molestation.
People haven't been angry enough about this inmho, and the attempt to portray this as nerely Dr. Bond's own personal witchhunt makes my blood boil.
People like this who lack consciences should be deprived of human society
"People like this who lack consciences should be deprived of human society"
What???? Where does that come from? "Shold be deprived of human society"?
Wow!!!
Anyway Charles Nazi Farley you need to be corrected on a few things.
In Dr Bonds response which you posted he keeps repeating the mantra that "Deacon Levine failed to address " this and "Deacon Levine failed to address" that.
Now. Just because Dr Bond (the crybaby) did not like Deacon Levines response and just because Deacon Levine did not respond to Dr Bond about certain allegations that Bond made doesnt really mean anything.
Deacon Levine was not bound by any law, moral or otherwise, to even discuss the whole matter with Dr Bond. Dr Bond could make as many allegations as he wanted but his doing so did not put any moral duty on Deacon Levine to respond to Dr Bond.
Deacon Levine did address these matters in another forum with the Bishop and others. That he did not address them with Dr Bond means absolute nothing.
Who does Dr Bond think he is anyway? Who is he that anyone has to respond to him.
Dr Bonds manner of handling this was totally wrong. He chose to take the most hot headed route, the route that was guaranteed to bring most scandal to the Church and look at the damage he has done.
On the one hand you have people like Fr U (who from some evidence appears to be guilty - though the police were not able to prove that) and on the other you have people like Dr Bond who by making this such a public affair increase the damage and scandal to the Church. Basically birds of a feather if you ask me. The perfect combination for those seeking to destroy the church.
Joined: 07 Jul 2005 Posts: 9791 Location: Central Massachusetts
Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 9:30 am Post subject:
I should have spent more time preparing my post on other critics of the Society of Saint John by omitting the Dr. Bond's various mentions of "Deacon Levine failed to address" (or similar language). Nonetheless, there remains quote an impressive list of traditional-minded Catholics who were also critics:
Rev. Andres Morello, the former Rector of the SSPX seminary in La Reja, Argentina
Bishop Fellay of the SSPX.
Mr. Jude Huntz
Mr. Paul Hornak
Br. Alexis Bugnolo
Mr. Joseph Sciambra
Rev. Richard Munkelt
Mrs. Diane Toler.
Mr. Howard Walsh
Mr. John Blewett
Mr. Matthew Sawyer
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
