Loading ...
I received an email from Mr. Jeffrey Bond last night with the following details:
Dear Friends,
Thanks be to God, Deacon Joseph Levine will not be ordained this Saturday. In the event you did not receive the good news from the Diocese of Paterson, please see the memorandum below from Rev. Msgr. James Mahoney, Vicar General.
I cannot adequately express my gratitude to all of you who emailed and/or called the Diocese of Paterson to protest Levine’s ordination. Please now consider writing a follow-up note to Bishop Serratelli to thank him for his decision. While we have no way of knowing Bishop Serratelli’s reasons for not ordaining Levine this Saturday, we can nevertheless be grateful for the outcome.
Please also ask Bishop Serratelli for clarification with respect to Deacon Levine’s status in the Diocese of Paterson, for we do not know at this point if Levine will never be ordained a priest, or whether his ordination has simply been postponed. Needless to say, it is important that the Diocese of Paterson knows that our concern extends beyond this coming weekend.
Again I thank you for your efforts on behalf of our beloved Church, especially those of you who doubted the value of writing or calling the Diocese, and yet wrote or called anyway.
Please forward this email on to those to whom you forwarded my original request for urgent action concerning Levine’s ordination.
Pax vobiscum,
Jeffrey Bond
From: Arline Perro [mailto:aperro - at - patersondiocese.org]
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 10:00 AM
To: aperro@patersondiocese.org
Subject: Message from the Diocese of PatersonMEMORANDUM
FROM: REV. MSGR. JAMES T. MAHONEY, Ph.D.
Vicar General and Moderator of the Curia
Diocese of PatersonThis is to acknowledge and thank all those who have sent emails 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.
It is curious, I think, that the email from the diocese should be phrased in that way: he will not be ordained on May 26. Generally, I would take that manner of speaking to indicate that he will be ordained on some other date; however, the first statement is usually not a cliffhanger, but is immediately followed by the new date. At any rate, it does appear that some in the diocese noticed that Levine had a question past and is reconsidering, for now at least, the wisdom of ordaining him to the priesthood.
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,
No. Not “thanks be to God” but “sadly”. Whatever the probity or otherwise of this deacon - which should not be discussed in public - it is a sad event that a scheduled ordination should be postponed or cancelled. Our response should be one of prayer and sacrifice for all concerned and, if there is cause for concern, for the intention of an increase in grace and holiness in all involved.
I don’t know a thing about this whole incident, so this is an entirely impartial comment, but I just wanted to observe: it is possible to say “thanks be to God” for something that is at the same time sad. When a diseased person who has been in a lot of pain finally dies, you can be sad and still say “thanks be to God.” When a terrible, pernicious priest is defrocked or removed from office, thanks can be warranted even though the occasion is also sad. As I say, it’s just a logical point… I don’t know anything about the case of Deacon Levine per se.
BOND’S JIHAD - IS IT CALUMNY OR DETRACTION?
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??
Should you, then, be participating in this apparent calumny or detraction by even publishing his missives?
I’d first like to note that reporter Tom Kane of the River Reporter thoroughly covers much of the issues pertaining to this matter in an article found at River Reporer’s website:
http://www.riverreporter.com/issues/02-03-21/stjohn.htm
I’ve followed this matter for a while;
this article does a good job of delving into the complex story and giving both sides a say & I highly recommend reading it to get the big picture. I’d like to quote an excerpt from the article, which quotes a statement from Bishop Timlin, dealing with the matter of Jeffrey Bond distancing himself from the Society of Saint John:
“Timlin strongly denied that the reason for Bond’s rejection of the society was the alleged sexual improprieties. “It was all about money,” Timlin said. “He wanted access to the rich Catholic donors who abandoned the society because of the society’s liturgical practices. It was about liturgy, not sexual improprieties.” Further, “it was the society’s call,” said the bishop. “When they refused to agree to the separation, I had to deny it.””
End quote.
This matter was thoroughly investigated & the matter closed years ago. If Mr. Bond is so concerned with Right and Justice, why did he wait such a time to suddenly reopen the case, apparently with no new evidence or witnesses, just re-hashing everything that had been settled before? If his evidence and case were in the right, would he not have triumphed years ago, or at the least carried his case on unceasingly until justice was done? In a day and age when the Clergy are guilty until proven innocent, it was quite a clever tactic to wait until just before Deacon Levine’s Ordination to suddenly trigger an investigation, which would naturally postpone the Ordination. Quite an easy way to get revenge for a financial deal that did not work out the way he had planned. Also, when one is putting forth a case where legalities and serious matters are at hand, I always thought it proper decorum that such matters are communicated through proper channels, such as Diocesan Officials, the Bishop, Attorneys, Secretaries and so forth. Yet, for years, letters & communications from Jeffrey Bond concerning this matter, have been spread all over the internet. Mr. Bond is relying on shock tactics & mudslinging to generate a negative public reaction to support his case, instead of just relying on legitimate evidence as per proper decorum.
Miguel, I have heard from a reliable source that Mr. Bond is working as a Catholic High School teacher in New Jersey for the Diocese of Patterson.
Hopefully Mr. Bond will move beyond his bitterness so everyone can get on with their lives.
Thanks for the update, and some greatly needed balance on this matter. Bond is now a high school teacher? That is an important job, no doubt, but why does Bond still refer to himself as the President of St. Justin Martyr?
Let us pray for Deacon Levine, the latest victim of Bond’s vengeance.
I knew enough about the SSJ to know that they were very very sick people. A general rule of life is that like seeks like.
From the story by Tom Kane:
“Both Timlin and O’Connor deny that the sexual allegations had anything to do with Bond’s alienation. However, Bond stated that the bishop knew of the allegations of sexual improprieties and is calling for his resignation.”
END QUOTE
Oh really?
Let’s try to use even a bit of common sense:
First, how would these Bishops know the personal motivations of Bond so well to make such a claim, that , outright, he was not alienated by sexual abuse allegations. And why would a journalist let the ink dry on a statement like that?
Come on people use your common sense!
Second, who in their orthodox Catholic mind would not be alienated by goings on such as these?
“He who condones the wicked, he who condemns the just, are both an abomination to the LORD.” (Proverbs 17:15)
The bottomline: sin hurts everybody, and this is plainly seen in Shohola.
I think it is more selfless of Bond (and his family) than anything else–his personal life, career, and family, tied to this thing so closely–who would go after something like that unless it was a moral imperative.
I, admittedly, like the Bishops don’t completely know Bond’s motivations either, but it looks like Bond saw the worst of it (the sexual abuse) and from what I have seen, he was then most vocal about that–not the financial impact on him, the school, or his own livelihood. And not so much holding these people to account “vengence is mine sayeth the Lord,” but correctly, doing all he can to prevent it (Take no part in the fruitless works of darkness; rather expose them,… Eph5:11) and informing those who would take these people in. If without Bond’s help a Diocese did so unknowingly without any disclosure of what happened previously, then Bond would be culpable as would others who had knowledge and opportunity to warn. Such a diocese would certainly want to have been warned, especially if abuses were to happen again. These should be made fully aware of the situation, according to Bond, according to those in the SSJ involved, and most importantly the little ones–the victims.