Posted on 05/04/2005 8:48:33 PM PDT by Akron Al
Following years of vocal protests all the way to Rome concerning the existence of the heretical group Futurechurch's national headquarters on property owned by the Diocese of Cleveland, Bishop Anthony Pilla issued a phony statement condemning Futurechurch just days before his final ad limina visit with Pope John Paul II.
Sadly, Pilla had no intent of enforcing the phony statement which was never enforced and the national headquarters of Futurechurch remains on diocese of Cleveland property
From http://www.futurechurch.org/ :
FutureChurch 15800 Montrose Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44111 USA Phone: 216.228.0869 | Fax: 216.228.4872 E-mail: info@futurechurch.org
_______________________________
From http://www.cleveland.catholicnet.com/parish/stmark/
St. Mark Church 15800 Montrose Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44111 E-mail: doughk@aol.com Rev. Doug Koesel, Pastor
---
The following statement in bold appeared on the Diocese of Cleveland website in March of 2003:
Please remember that the Futurechurch headquarters has been located on Diocese of Cleveland property for years before this statement and remains on Diocese of Cleveland property after this statement.
http://www.dioceseofcleveland.org/memo/april2004/chancellor_april2004.htm
"The statement below has been used verbally by the Chancery for the past several years. Increased inquiries indicate that distribution of the statement in writing would help to clarify the situation:"
13 March 2003
STATEMENT OF THE DIOCESE OF CLEVELAND REGARDING AN ORGANIZATION KNOWN AS "FUTURE CHURCH"
"Future Church" (a.k.a. "FutureChurch" ) is not an organization affiliated with the Catholic Diocese of Cleveland nor does it have the support or approval of the Bishop of the Diocese. "Future Church" is an independent organization of individuals who promote an agenda that is not consistent with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, and who are fully responsible for the arrangement of their own programs and activities.
Based on the preceding statement, it is not appropriate for the activities and meetings of "Future Church" to be held in church related institutions and/or parish facilities.
_______________________________________________________
But wait....
There are several lies contained in this statement issued for Vatican consumption as Pilla prepared to go to Rome.
Note the prelude that claims: The statement below has been used verbally by the Chancery for the past several years.
The Diocese of Cleveland is falsely trying to backdate its phony condemnation of Futurechurch.
For starters if the Diocese had been saying for "the past several years" that "it is not appropriate for the activities and meetings of "Future Church" to be held in church related institutions and/or parish facilities," then why has the national headquarters of Futurechurch been located (and remains located even today) at St. Marks Catholic Church in Cleveland!!!
Want more evidence that Pilla was lying, take note of Futurechurch's reaction to Pilla's last minute condemnation. The leaders of Futurechuirch were surprised and shocked. But wait a minute, the Diocese was claiming that they have been saying for years that Futurechurch is not Catholic, why then would Futurechurch be shocked. Perhaps because the Diocese had never before made such a statement and was merely trying to deceive the Holy Father. Note that even the left wing Plain Dealer describes the Pilla phony statement as a "New Edict:"
Catholic reformers contest new edict
04/26/04 James F. McCarty
Plain Dealer Reporter
An influential group of liberal-minded Catholic reformers is debating a response to Bishop Anthony Pilla, who recently banned the organization from meeting on Diocese of Cleveland property.
Future Church, which claims more than 800 members locally, advocates allowing priests to marry and women to be ordained as the best ways to alleviate clergy shortages.
The group had operated unrestricted in the Cleveland diocese for more than a decade. But the truce ended unexpectedly April 1 after Pilla issued an edict to all pastors.
"Future Church is not an organization affiliated with the Catholic Diocese of Cleveland, nor does it have the support or approval of the bishop of the diocese," Pilla's warning read.
"Future Church is an independent organization of individuals who promote an agenda that is not consistent with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church," the statement continued, and the group's activities are "not appropriate" at church institutions or facilities.
An internal debate over how to respond has been raging ever since via e-mail exchanges among Future Church leaders. Some members are urging the group's executive director, Sister Christine Schenk, to appeal directly to the Vatican's ambassador, the Papal Nuncio, in Washington, D.C. Others recommend a more deliberate approach, hoping to preserve some semblance of the status quo.
"We're puzzled and saddened by the description of us as not being in line with Catholic teaching," Schenk said recently. "We have some of the best Catholics in the diocese as members."
If the Diocese had been saying these things for several years, why was the restatment "unexpected," "puzzling," and why does the Plain Dealer state that "The group had operated unrestricted in the Cleveland diocese for more than a decade. But the truce ended unexpectedly April 1 after Pilla issued an edict to all pastors."
It is obvious that:
1) The Diocese has not been "for several years" that Futrechurch was not Catholic and that its "activities are "not appropriate" at church institutions or facilities."
2) The Diocese had no intent of banning Futurechurch from Diocese of Cleveland property with whom (the Plain Dealer notes) it had at least a ten year truce. In fact, two years after Pilla's phony statemnt on the eve of his ad limina visit, the national headquarters for Futurechurch remains at St. Mark's Catholic Church.
3) Pilla deliberately sought to deceive Pope John Paul the Great by issuing a phony statement to make it appear as if he had been cracking down on Futurechurch for "several years."
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The following report was made shortly afer this incident:
Futurechurch and Pilla - Pilla and Future Church
Fearful Pilla flips-flops on Futurechurch days before Ad Limina visit with Pope
Over two years ago, Futurechurch leaders were urging its supporters to support Bishop Pilla:
Were Bishop Pilla to be forced out, we would be leaving ourselves open to a new bishop who would most likely be much more conservative and legalistic given the Bishop appointments that have been made in this papacy. The well-known litmus test for being appointed a bishop under John Paul II is that the person must be opposed to birth control, optional celibacy and women priests. I have this information directly from several bishops who are in positions to know. Bishop Pilla is one of the few remaining "pastoral" bishops who were appointed under Archbishop Jean Jadot. If he doesn't outlast the Pope we can expect to have our next Bishop be less open to lay participation in decision making than Bishop Pilla. It will be a given...and something we need to prepare for, IMHO.
In fact, the relationship between Futurechurch and Bishop Pilla appeared to be one of mutual admiration. Teachers at the bishop's seminary are active supporters of Futurechurch. The national headquarters for Futurechurch resides on diocesan property. In March of 2004, a Futurechurch event was even advertised in the parish bulletin of St. John's Cathedral:
http://www.saveourchurch.org/cathbishotten.pdf
---
(Note the shared address below:)
From http://www.futurechurch.org/ :
FutureChurch 15800 Montrose Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44111 USA Phone: 216.228.0869 | Fax: 216.228.4872 E-mail: info@futurechurch.org
_______________________________
From http://www.cleveland.catholicnet.com/parish/stmark/
St. Mark Church 15800 Montrose Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44111 E-mail: doughk@aol.com Rev. Doug Koesel, Pastor
---
So why the sudden announcement from the diocese that Futurechurch "promote(s) an agenda that is not consistent with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church," and that the group's activities are "not appropriate" at church institutions or facilities?
Afterall, Catholic bloggers like Domenico Bettinelli, Mark Shea, and Kevin Miller have been very outspoken about Pilla's failure to act on the Futurechurch issue as have been the so-called Freepers at freerepublic.com. The organization "Save our Church" was formed in Cleveland for the sole purpose of exposing Futurechurch.
So why did Bishop Pilla finally take action?
The answer appeared on the Diocese of Cleveland website , less than two weeks after the stunning Futurechurch announcement. Pilla put out a phony condemnation of Futurechurch as he prepared to visit with the Pope in Rome! Bishop Pilla certainly knew that for several years folks had been writing Rome and influential Cardinals about the state of the Cleveland Diocese. Bishop Pilla's last second acknowledgment of the heritcal ways of Futurechurch was a "Hail Mary" pass attempt. Was Pope John Paul II fooled by this belated attempt by Bishop Pilla to paint himself as an orthodox Catholic Bishop?
Let us hope not. After all, the Rainbow Gay Pride Flag still flies on Bishop Pilla's website.
http://www.dioceseofcleveland.org/gayandlesbianfamilyministry/contact_us/index.htm
Here was the announcement by the Diocese of Cleveland just days after Pilla condemned Futurechurch:
http://www.dioceseofcleveland.org/news/bishopstovatican.htm
IT’S THAT TIME AGAIN …
Bishops from Ohio and Michigan are traveling to Rome for
“ad limina” meetings with Vatican officials and with the Pope
It’s a trip they make every five years and it’s that time again for the bishops that oversee the dioceses in what’s known as U.S. Region 6 (Michigan and Ohio) to meet with Pope John Paul II and various Vatican officials for ad limina meetings. The Most Reverend Anthony M. Pilla, Bishop of Cleveland and his brother bishops from Ohio and Michigan will visit Rome from May 1-8 to make themselves available to the offices of the Holy See to report on the state of their respective dioceses. This will be the fifth time that Bishop Pilla has participated in these meetings each time representing the Cleveland diocese.
These regularly scheduled meetings follow the submission of detailed statistical information from each diocese that the Holy See requires in what is known as the diocesan Quinquennial Report. The visits give Vatican officials the opportunity to dialogue with bishops directly regarding information appearing within the reports. It also allows the bishops the opportunity to explain to Vatican officials about the major activities going on within their dioceses.
Often during these visits, Vatican officials will raise specific issues with the visiting bishops. Recently, Australian bishops were asked to stress to the faithful the importance of keeping Sunday (the Lord’s Day) holy. Their concern is that Australian Catholics are putting sports events, recreational activities, and work ahead of weekly Mass attendance and resting on the Lord’s Day.
The visit will also be a time for the bishops to celebrate liturgy at all of the major basilicas for the people of their dioceses. Highlighting the trip, the bishops will have the opportunity to meeting directly with Pope John Paul II. In recent years these opportunities for meetings with the Holy Father have become more limited in frequency and duration because of the Pope’s declining health.
Is it just me or does anyone else have a problem with "the Great" being appended to a Pope who appointed the likes of Bernardin and Mahoney, "taken in" by Pilla's promises or sanctioning (per "five-year plan") the likes of cultist secret societies like the Neo-Catechumenical way?
Link's busted.
It smacks of sentimentality and enthusiasm -- dangers even greater than secularism IMO, since they attack from inside.
I'm tempted to attend some meetings.
The claim to greatness comes from the length, penetration and scope of John Paul's pontificate, as he defeated communism, traveled the globe as a celebrity ecumenist, and left his mark on every stone in the edifice of the post-conciliar Church.
But there is a paradox that would probably prevent the epithet from taking hold. We are convinced, aren't we, that Pope Benedict was meant by John Paul to be his successor. Then John Paul's legacy is forever linked to Benedict's. If Pope Benedict succeeds in his mission to save the Western Civilization, then he, and not John Paul will be remembered as Great, even though John Paul's hesitation in confronting the faithless bishops will be thereby vindicated. And if Benedict fails, then John Paul's lasting legacy will be his indecision.
And that is why these contrived, on-the-spot acclamations are wrong. Chesterton has spoken of Tradition as the democracy of the dead. There's a democracy of the unborn as well: we have no right to pre-empt the judgments of history.
Taken in?
JPII was an enthusiastic supporter of such novelties. Why? Could it have been his attraction to theatrics? He was taken in by the allurement of stage presence? Is that what made him "great?"
The Great Performer, or, the Great Fan of Performances?
5 more years of +Pilarczyk
The link was not working at first, then it was, then it was not again. Here is the content for anyone who is likewise frustrated:
http://amywelborn.typepad.com/openbook/2005/01/index.html
The Way?
The Neocatechumenal Way comes up here from time to time. It is popular here and there in the US - I understand that it has grown, in particular among Hispanics. The Pope has praised it, as he has many of the "New Movements" in the Church, but questions about it abound. The secrecy of its catechism and the shape of its liturgy being foremost.
An article from an Italian paper about the Way
The statutes of the Neocatechumenal Way were approved by the Holy See in 2002 on an "ad experimentum" basis for five years. The bishops are entrusted with the task of watching over their application.
Various bishops have expressed reservations, even recently: for example, that of Brescia, Giulio Sanguineti. In 2004, he wrote in a letter that "we must avoid that the eucharist celebrated in the Neocatechumenal communities be perceived as the 'true' eucharist in comparison with the one celebrated for all the faithful."
Other bishops are instead, and in growing numbers, enthusiasts of the Way. They admire its power of propagation and the flowering of vocations.
John Paul II is one of their most convicted admirers. In the Vatican, they receive strong support from Cardinal Crescenzio Sepe, prefect of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples.
///end///
Note the line, "The bishops are entrusted with the task of watching over their application." The bishops, of course, would do a great job of keeping the Faith safe from any signs of corrosion? Would that be because they are so good at "pastoral care?" They would protect against dogmatic corruption by being good pastors instead??
The usual argument about Vatican II and its horrific aftermath is, that the council was pastoral rather than dogmatic. After 40 years of this delusion, however, one has to doubt whether the council was even pastoral! Its agents (of the "New Springtime," or whatever silly name they want to call it now) exhibit a decidedly anti-pastoral hatred toward traditional Catholics.
While such nonsense as "the Way" gets full backing inasmuch as it has no restrictions placed upon its operation, traditional Catholics have patiently looked toward Ecclesia Dei for scraps off the rich man's table like so many Lazaruses. And what good does Ecclesia Dei do?
At the Una Voce 1999 General Assembly in Rome, Msgr. Perl, Secretary of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, made a public speech denouncing traditional Catholics. When it came to question time, he refused to answer politely-formulated questions and just walked out in a huff. Michael Davies said that he once mentioned to Perl the distress Una Voce members felt at the fact that the Commission that is supposed to represent the interests of traditional Catholics did virtually nothing to help them. Perl's reply was that the Commission in no way represents traditional Catholics, but only the Conciliar Holy See (of Vatican II). Just goes to show who's side the Commission is really on!
Wait a minute. Did I really see that? Let me read it again: Perl's reply was that the Commission in no way represents traditional Catholics, but only the Conciliar Holy See. The Commission in no way represents traditional Catholics? Well, then what kind of Catholics ARE represented? Not the faithful but the Conciliar Holy See? Why, are the men who work in that office not Catholics?
This sort of thing was no "con job" on JPII. He saw it in all its glory. And he let it continue, even while he supported such termites as "the Way" and Focolore and Renew 2000. Who's conning who here??
Jadot sure did get some young "pastoral" bishops to take the helm- Pilla and Pilarczyk will be bishops for over 25 years. Not to mention Hubbard, Clark, Mahony- the list goes on.
Bishop Pilla: Nov 12, 2007
Thanks, I'll start planning the party.
Wow!!! Over 2,000 views of this thread. Someone has been looking at it. I'll be sure to get it up on the blog. Sorry for the delay, I was in Alaska for a couple of weeks.
From the Call to action website:
http://www.cta-usa.org/watch2004-06%20/boston.html
FutureChurch resists Cleveland diocese ban
Shortly before Cleveland Bishop Anthony Pilla’s ad limina visit to Rome, his diocese published a memo saying it is “inappropriate” for FutureChurch (FC) to continue having programs on church premises because the group is “promoting an agenda not consistent with Church teaching.” FC and its director, Chris Schenk, have been the target of escalating attacks by right-wing groups because of successful national programs in partnership with CTA, such as Optional Celibacy and Mary of Magdala celebrations. An article last fall by Donna Steichen in The Latin Mass magazine called FutureChurch part of “a pagan goddess movement.”
There is a silver lining. FC has lost no members, and even picked up a lot of new ones in Northeast Ohio. Several Catholic organizations offered to host FC programs. FC has about 800 members in the diocese and 5,000 nationally. Its leaders still hope to find a way to peacefully coexist in a diocese that until now has permitted a broad diversity of discussion on church premises.
word
Have you heard any rumors about Pilla's early retirement.
Check the last post on the thread. It mentions the Cleveland rumor.
Hey, that was me. But I really haven't heard anything since last spring. I am going to contact a few folks in the know to see if there was any truth to last year's speculation.
There were two widespread rumors last spring, both coming out of the diocese of Cleveland chancery. One was that Bishop Pilla had submitted his resignation early and that it had NOT been accepted, and the other rumor was that a coadjutor would soon be named in Cleveland.
If his resignation letter is sitting in Pope Benedict’s drawer, it would not be surprising if he pulled it back out and stamped it appoved.
Afterall Pilla, as President of the National Bishop’s Council, twice supressed letters from the Vatican - - once for 2 1/2 years. Pilla flies a rainbow gay pride banner on the diocesan website and the National headquarters for Futurechurch still resides on diocesan property.
And this is just the beginning of what is wrong in Cleveland - - Pilla also invented his own rite for the Mass and his diocese was perhaps the worst when it comes to priests homosexually assaulting teen age boys.
Pope Benedict XVI, if you by chance read Dom’s blog, PLEASE check the old papal files for Bishop Pilla’s resignation letter!!!
Oh great. I'm telling you about your rumors. lol.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.