|
Dear Neil,
I am writing on behalf of those of
us who are profoundly concerned and saddened over your
actions and statements as they pertain to your
self-proclaimed heavenly mission. Unfortunately, you
have calumniated and slandered those who genuinely seek
truth in this matter, and as such, rather than bring my
concerns to you in a more private way, I have chosen to
address you publicly to avoid giving you yet another
opportunity to distort the truth.
For many years I have hoped and
prayed for the truth to be revealed as to the nature of
your purported private revelations. As you well know,
years ago, I asked my husband to leave your group, the
Seeds of Hope, because of my grave concerns and the
substantial evidence I uncovered that suggested your
alleged visions and messages were not of God.
Consequently, I, and others, have
seen firsthand how you react to anyone who questions
your authenticity. You have not responded in a manner
consistent with Church teaching. On the contrary, you
have made it abundantly clear that there is no place in
your mission for healthy skepticism or dissent of any
kind. You have consistently responded to your critics
in a manner that has been both prideful and emotionally
charged. Obviously, this type of response only further
weakens your cause and contributes to the skepticism of
your critics
In all charity I want to encourage
you to examine your conscience as well as the teachings
of the Church with regard to all “private revelation”.
Colin Donovan, STL, Vice President
for Theology at the Eternal Word Television Network,
offers a doctrinally sound template on how one should
respond to private revelation. For your information, I
have provided the following link:
http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/apparitions.htm
In the interest of clarity and
brevity, however, I will refer to some of his more
relevant points. Mr. Donovan writes,
“Private revelations may not
be believed with divine and Catholic Faith. They rest
on the credibility of the evidence in favor of a
supernatural origin. In the case of private revelations
approved by the highest authority of the Church we can
say with Pope Benedict XIV,
“Although an assent of Catholic
faith may not be given to revelations thus
approved, still, an assent of human faith, made
according to the rules of prudence, is due them; for
according to these rules such revelations are probable
and worthy of pious credence.
…it is possible to refuse to accept such revelations
and to turn from them, as long as one does so with
proper modesty, for good reasons, and without the
intention of setting himself up as a superior.”
[De Serv. Dei Beatif.]
Donovan further explains,
“The Pope is saying that a Catholic, seeing that
the Church (and here the Holy See is meant, as only it's
acts can be of universal effect) has investigated and
approved certain revelations, is being prudent to give
them human assent. That acceptance does not rest on the
guarantee of Faith, or the charism of infallibility, but
on the credibility of the evidence as it appeals to
reason.”
EWTN’s doctrinally sound theologian, Colin Donovan
offers sobering caveats for discerning your visionary
claims. You would be both wise and prudent to take heed
of them, as his admonition is illustrative of the red
flags many have raised about you and your ministry.
Donovan warns:
1
Private
revelation, for example, which is doctrinally dangerous
or which manifests hostility to lawful
authority could not come from God. It could even be
demonic…The devil gladly mingles truth and lie to
deceive the faithful, dazzling them with signs and
wonders to give credence to his message. His purpose is
to separate them from the Church, either by getting them
to believe things contrary to the deposit of the faith
or to act contemptuously of Church authority.
2
An attitude
of pride and judgment toward the Church is a clear sign
of diabolical presence.
3
The witness
of prudent priests, especially the spiritual director of
the person, is a key element in determining
credibility. The spiritual director himself must be
competent in mystical theology, credible as a person and
in good standing with the Church.
This list alone should be a sobering-reality-check for
you, the Seeds of Hope, and all who ardently support and
defend your claims!
The trademark virtues of any authentic visionary are
humility and obedience. Humility and obedience should
govern your response to those of us who love the Church
enough to question the authenticity of your claims.
Humility and obedience would lead you to validate, and
even encourage, the grave doubts I, and others, continue
to express. We are merely trying to follow the
teachings of the Church and exercise prudence with
regard to your claims. Why have you not responded to us
with charity, patience, and truth? Why are you bearing
false witness and threatening those who are simply
following Church teaching in trying to discern the
truth?
Your disobedience; dishonesty; and lack of charity
towards those who seek the truth has caused great
scandal and broken the hearts of many of us who love the
Church and want to protect Her.
Your failure to honestly and thoroughly answer the many
questions posed by various media sources leaves us to
wonder what you are hiding. If you truly seek to do
God’s will, then please tell the truth!
As one who was once an inner member of your circle, I
can attest to the fact that you had knowledge of a
partial vocational stricture imposed on Father John
Szantyr by the Bishop of Worcester, MA, Timothy
Harrington in 1988. And, although you may not have been
fully aware of the severity of the restriction, you have
certainly been aware of it since last January 25, 2007
when one of your former members provided you with this
vital information. Proof of this has been documented
and substantiated. So you can imagine my shock and
dismay when I read your response to questions posed by
Springfield’s Diocesan newspaper, the Catholic Observer,
on November 1, 2007 in which you were quoted as saying
“there is no way we at the Seeds of Hope understood this
Father John had his faculties taken away”. Your
duplicity in this regard is confusing and damaging.
Neil, in 2002 you claimed to
receive a private revelation dubbing Fr. John Szantyr
the “heart” of your ministry. This alleged proclamation
from Heaven stands in direct opposition to the
determination, and subsequent restrictions, placed on
John Szantyr by Bishop Timothy Harrington more than ten
years earlier. There are other alleged messages that also
stand in complete opposition to that 1988 determination
by Bishop Harrington , specifically those in which you
claim that St. Francis called Szantyr "falsely accused"
and one “who bears the scars of unjust persecution".
The Diocese of Worcester made its determination on
Szantyr in 1988, taking swift and decisive action
against him. The Diocese of Worcester ruled that
Szantyr was to no longer present himself as a priest in
public and, according to the spokesman for the Diocese
of Worcester, that ruling has never been lifted.
As we recall the major role Father
John Szantyr played in our lives beginning in 1994, it
is clear now that the “heart” of your ministry has been
revealed to be the biggest hurt to your
ministry. Szantyr always dressed as a priest, he prayed
with us, he prayed over us, and he prayed over our
children. He directed us, he frequently heard our
confessions, absolved us, and counseled us. He even
celebrated the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass for us on a
number of occasions. Even if the allegations of sexual
abuse against Szantyr are “false” and the related
persecution “unjust”, there is no doubt that we were all
duped by Fr. John Szantyr and scandalized by his
disobedience to his Bishop, as he falsely presented
himself to us as a priest.
Neil, we were not the only ones
deceived by Fr. John Szantyr, as evidenced in the
November 1, 2007 Catholic Observer news article:
http://www.iobserve.org/rn1101a.htm
“Msgr.
Sullivan, who coordinates clergy misconduct issues for
the Worcester Diocese, told the Observer that Father
Szantyr has been a longtime problem for him. Msgr.
Sullivan said,
“I remember getting phone calls from people in dioceses in the South
where (approved Worcester-based healing minister) Eileen
George was appearing. They asked if this priest who
wanted to say Mass while she was in town was okay. I’ve
always said, ‘Absolutely not.’”
“I don’t know how many more times we can tell this guy what he can’t
do. This will have been going on for 20 years in
January,” Msgr. Sullivan said.
John Szantyr’s, flagrant
disobedience is irrefutable and immediately calls into
question the veracity of any, and all, of your visionary
claims. Although you may sincerely believe that you are
receiving Heavenly messages, this simple fact assures us
all that you are sincerely wrong.
Our Faith teaches us the importance
of obedience, and it is a litmus test for the legitimacy
of any alleged visionary. This simple fact assures us
that neither the Virgin Mary nor St. Francis would
sanction John Szantyr’s disobedience, as this would be a
violation of the Fourth Commandment. In short, no
Heavenly mission would be given to a visionary being
directed by a disobedient member of the clergy. It is
undeniable truth that, for over ten years, Father John
Szantyr served as the spiritual director to you and all
those directly involved in your mission.
We are
waiting for the Church to make a formal declaration as
to the authenticity of your messages. Until then,
we will do all we can to bring Truth to Her. Rest
assured, we who love the Church will not stand silent!
We will use every opportunity –through prayer, word, and
deed – to bring honest resolution to this matter.
Our greatest hope and prayer is that you, and your
supporters, will unite with us in swiftly and obediently
submitting yourselves to the authority of our shepherd,
Bishop Timothy McDonnell.
Your Sister In
Christ,
Tara Kozub
November 13, 2007 |