July 15, 2002

Response to Deacon Joseph Levine,
Superior General of the Society of St. John

Dear Friends,

In a desperate gamble to forestall the demise of the Society of St. John, Deacon Joseph Levine, the SSJ's new Superior General, has recently circulated a six-page appeal for money that places all the blame for their financial troubles on me.

I have summarized Deacon Levine's letter in the four points below:

1.  The SSJ is in danger of folding because Dr. Bond's accusations of immorality have hurt the SSJ financially.

2.  The SSJ and its priests are innocent of the charges that Dr. Bond has made against them.

3.  Dr. Bond's attack on the SSJ resulted from the frustrations of an unsuccessful fundraising effort.

4.  Overcome by bitterness, discouragement, and anger, Dr. Bond fabricated scandalous stories about SSJ priests in order to satisfy his desire for vengeance for an imagined wrong.

Before I expose Deacon Levine's lies, I must first point out that there are two glaring omissions in his long letter. First, Deacon Levine never once states the specific charges made against the SSJ, namely, that Fr. Carlos Urrutigoity and Fr. Eric Ensey have been accused of homosexual molestation, and that other SSJ priests have lied to cover up for them. Second, Deacon Levine never mentions any of the many other individuals who have accused the SSJ of immorality.

Deacon Levine's omissions indicate that he and the SSJ are caught between the horns of a dilemma. On the one hand, they want to appear as if they have forthrightly confronted the accusations against them; but on the other hand, they want to censor the information given to their donors. Deacon Levine obviously realized that his letter would only further damage the SSJ if he specified the charges and acknowledged that there were many accusers. Thus, Deacon Levine composed a letter suggesting that all the accusations against the SSJ were merely the wild fabrications of one bitter, angry, and vengeful man.

Deacon Levine's approach is typical of the arrogance that characterizes the SSJ's attitude towards its donors. He has so little respect for them that he attempts to leave them in the dark in the very letter that purports to shed light on the SSJ's financial troubles.

Clearly Deacon Levine's two omissions are connected. Had he responded to the specific charges in a forthright and systematic way, Deacon Levine would have been compelled to make clear that these accusations have come not from one man, but from a number of individuals of quite divergent backgrounds. Indeed, many of the accusations against the SSJ priests originated long before I had any association with the SSJ.

Anyone who has even casually perused the College of St. Justin Martyr web site (http://www.SaintJustinMartyr.org/news/notices.html) can see that Deacon Levine left out virtually all of the key accusers of the SSJ:

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.

In his only comment on this lawsuit, Deacon Levine attempts to dismiss the gravity of these charges by claiming that this lawsuit was filed under my influence, as if I could magically produce a victim of molestation out of thin air. Deacon Levine gives no justification for this libelous claim, nor for the many other libelous statements he makes in his letter. In fact, throughout his letter, Deacon Levine offers no evidence to support the accusations he makes against me. Having accused me of "wild fabrications," you would think Deacon Levine would offer at least one concrete example. He does not. And yet Deacon Levine has the audacity to state that the accusations I have made against the SSJ, which are well documented on our College web site, are unsubstantiated.

In addition to ignoring the fact that grave accusations have been made and sworn to by many others, Deacon Levine has concocted a story about my prior relationship with the SSJ, as well as my motivations for accusing the SSJ. The purpose of this story is to explain to the SSJ's donors why I would expend so much energy in my campaign against the SSJ.

Casting himself in the role of psychiatrist, Deacon Levine proposes a theory of which modern psychology would be proud: Dr. Bond's accusations are the result of "frustrations." In other words, Deacon Levine hopes to persuade the SSJ's donors that my accusations are purely subjective, the products of a frustrated psyche.

To make his theory more plausible to Catholic donors, Deacon Levine dons the cassock of false humility and blames himself and the SSJ for asking me, the father of eight children, to make the kinds of sacrifices required for the SSJ's daring project. Deacon Levine's self-serving "mea culpa" is a not-so-subtle suggestion that only the heroic members of the SSJ could be expected to make genuine sacrifices for the Church. Poor Dr. Bond just didn't have the mettle.

The main problem with Deacon Levine's theory is that it bears no relation to the truth.

Let us consider first the supposed "unsuccessful fundraising effort" that Deacon Levine claims was the cause of my "frustrations." In truth, there are two reasons why we never even initiated a comprehensive fundraising effort for the College of St. Justin Martyr. The first reason is that Fr. Urrutigoity would not permit us to use the SSJ's list of donors to raise money. The second reason is that, in spite of Fr. Urrutigoity's attempts to persuade us to fundraise for the SSJ, both Fr. Richard Munkelt and I declined to be drawn into the SSJ's smoke and mirrors techniques for raising money.

Fr. Munkelt and I resisted involvement in SSJ fundraising because it had become increasingly clear to us that the SSJ was using the College to raise money, but was unwilling to use that money to establish the College. In addition, we strongly suspected that the Shohola property would never be developed without tens of millions of dollars. (Mr. Vincent Cioci's studies later confirmed our suspicion.) As we told Fr. Urrutigoity at the time, we believed that the SSJ's donors would soon tire of hearing lavish promises that were not being fulfilled. Hence, it was our plan—to which Fr. Urrutigoity consented—to establish a workable location for the College first before we initiated a full-scale fundraising effort. We did not want the College to continue to be part of the SSJ's pattern of approaching donors with empty promises.

It is absurd, then, for Deacon Levine to say that the fundraising effort for the College was unsuccessful, because there never was a fundraising effort in any meaningful sense of those words. Rather than focus our efforts on raising money (as Fr. Urrutigoity tried to persuade us to do), Fr. Munkelt and I worked full-time to piece together the necessary elements of a college campus in Milford, Pennsylvania, a charming town fifteen miles from the SSJ's Shohola property. By August 2001, we had basic approval and support for each of those elements—the Latin Mass, classrooms, living quarters, and a house to serve as a college center—which would have allowed us to begin our planned fundraising campaign in September. Indeed, we had a financial backer who was prepared to pay for the first two mailings that would have launched the College of St. Justin Martyr for the academic year 2002-2003.

All of our plans were disrupted, however, when Mr. Alan Hicks visited me on August 19, 2001 and informed me that Fr. Urrutigoity had a habit of sleeping with young men. On that same day Mr. Hicks also informed Deacon Levine of this grave problem, but Deacon Levine chose to leave that crucial fact out of his fundraising letter because it does not fit his theory about the origins of my accusations against the SSJ.

I will not repeat here the events that followed upon Mr. Hicks' visit, for Rev. Munkelt has already described these in detail in his statement concerning the SSJ scandal. (Rev. Munkelt's statement can be found on our College web site.) Suffice it to say that the College was seriously harmed not by an "unsuccessful fundraising effort," as Deacon Levine has falsely claimed, but by the SSJ's unwillingness to fund the College despite their use of the College as a banner to raise money, and by Bishop Timlin's decision to protect rather than discipline the sexual predator priests in the SSJ.

I must also respond to the accusation in Deacon Levine's letter that I violated the "trust and friendship" of the SSJ when I dissociated the College from the SSJ. This charge is laughable given the fact that priests in the SSJ were sleeping in the same bed with young men. Once I learned of this immoral practice, and the other priests' unwillingness to denounce it, the only reasonable path was complete dissociation. Does Deacon Levine think one must countenance serious sin for "fellowship's sake"? It was the priests of the SSJ who violated the trust and friendship of the many Catholic families, including my own, that made huge sacrifices for their project.

Deacon Levine also misrepresents my dealings with Bishop Timlin. It was not I who sought the support of Bishop Timlin, but rather Bishop Timlin who intervened to try to prevent me from separating the College from the SSJ. It is ironic that Bishop Timlin turns a blind eye to the heretics and dissenters who inhabit the so-called Catholic colleges and universities in his diocese, yet Bishop Timlin suddenly discovered his episcopal backbone when it came to trying to pressure and manipulate the fledgling College of St. Justin Martyr.

Indeed, Bishop Timlin was so desperate to keep us united with the SSJ that he called my house five minutes before our Board of Directors was to meet to remove Deacon Levine from that Board. And Bishop Timlin did this despite his prior knowledge of Fr. Urrutigoity's habit of sleeping in the same bed with boys, and his prior knowledge of the fact that Fr. Urrutigoity had already been accused of homosexual molestation by Bishop Fellay in February 1999.

The Board of Directors of our College did not succumb to Bishop Timlin's pressure because we had already decided that we would rather let the College die than remain associated with priests who were practicing and even defending Fr. Urrutigoity's immoral habit. Thus, when Bishop Timlin subsequently offered (through two different intermediaries) to support the separated College in exchange for my silence about the sexual misconduct of the SSJ, I rejected his immoral quid pro quo.

Deacon Levine, on the other hand, who equates success with Bishop Timlin's personal favor, states in his letter that the College "for all practical purposes, failed when it failed to receive episcopal approval." If it is a failure to uphold Catholic morality, even against a wayward bishop, then the College has indeed failed. May God preserve us from the kind of success that Deacon Levine worships. In point of fact, the College has not failed, for we have not failed to expose the wicked deeds of those who have abused the Roman collar to satisfy their perverse desires. And this was our first duty. Moreover, the College of St. Justin Martyr may yet open its doors if justice is done.

As for the issue of episcopal approval, a private college, like a private individual, can be Catholic in character without the favor of a wayward bishop. Does Deacon Levine think—contrary to canon law—that lay associations of the faithful, which require no episcopal approval, cannot be Catholic?

I must also address once more Bishop Timlin's blatant lie, quoted by Deacon Levine in his letter, that I never complained of the SSJ's immorality until after he denied me permission to found a Catholic college. Bishop Timlin knows full well that Fr. Munkelt and I presented him and Bishop Dougherty with hours of oral testimony against the SSJ, as well as many pages of written testimony, long before Bishop Timlin announced on October 15, 2001 that he was withdrawing his support for the College. This is a matter of record, and it flies in the face of Bishop Timlin's attempt to make it appear as if my accusations against the SSJ were the result of "sour grapes." Bishop Timlin's malicious lie, as well as his other lies (which I have documented in my letters), will be easily exposed when our case comes to trial.

THE FACTS ARE CLEAR:

I DID NOT ACCUSE THE SSJ AS A RESULT OF BISHOP TIMLIN'S ATTEMPT TO SUPPRESS THE COLLEGE. RATHER, BISHOP TIMLIN ATTEMPTED TO SUPPRESS THE COLLEGE BECAUSE I HAD ALREADY ACCUSED THE SSJ OF GRAVE IMMORALITY AND HAD REFUSED TO REMAIN ASSOCIATED WITH THEM.

Finally, I want to denounce once again the SSJ's habit of hiding behind young men who are enamored of their charismatic cult leader, Fr. Urrutigoity. Deacon Levine follows this same perverse practice of beginning and ending his fundraising letter with quotations from Michael Miller and Gareth Hudson, both of whom are alumni of St. Gregory's Academy. These two young men know full well that Fr. Urrutigoity sleeps with boys and plies them with alcohol, yet they have followed the SSJ's lead in proclaiming the innocence of Fr. Urrutigoity and the holiness of the SSJ. Deacon Levine's exploitation of these young men, who desperately long for a pat on the back from their false heroes, is heinous and despicable. One need not be a prophet to know that this shameless manipulation of young men will bear much bad fruit once the SSJ's party is over.

Sincerely,