Bishop Pilla Visits Hindu Temple

http://www.shivavishnutemple.org/events/PillaVisit.htm ^

[Diago]

From a news story reported the day after April fool's Day almost three years ago:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/677689/posts


Bishop Pilla Offers To Resign His Post


Furthermore, Pilla added that he has failed -- that he has not brought enough aid and comfort to the victims of his sexually abusive priests. He also said that he would resign his post as bishop if it would help.



Pilla: "Well, Ted, if I am ever convinced that it is better for the church for someone else to be bishop of the diocese, I would do that," he said.

[Diago]

CANT FROM THE CLEVELAND CHANCERY? ACTION NEEDED! [Kevin Miller]
	2/26/2004
	Please read this narrative, then send the email and make the phone call suggested at the end. The other week, a reader emailed me an item from CWN about the Diocese of Cleveland's respective reactions to Passion and The V Monologues. The reader added some further information about the latter, and suggested emailing various folks at JCU and the Cleveland Diocese to complain. I blogged his note. The first two sentences of the CWN item were as follows: The Diocese of Cleveland issues a warning to Catholic parishes that seeing a movie, The Passion of the Christ, which illustrates the events of the Gospels, may lead to the rise of anti-Semitism in churchgoing Catholics. Meanwhile, a local Catholic university allows the production of the "Monologues" on campus with proceeds going to a pro-abortion group. The other day, I linked back to that earlier post from another one about another apparent abomination at JCU. Enter another reader, a priest from the state of Washington. Yesterday, he emailed the various Cleveland chancery officials noted in the original post, citing the above-quoted sentences, and asking, "is this true?" He received a reply from Father Lawrence Jurcak, who appears from the diocese's web site to be the recently-named Secretary and Vicar for Clergy and Religious. He forwarded the correspondence to me. Fr. Jurcak's reply read: You details are not true at all. There is no "warning issued by the Diocese" about not seeing The Passion of the Christ." My first thought was that this seemed to be somewhat of an evasion. The claim, quoted above, had been that there was a warning not that one shouldn't see the movie but rather that doing so might lead to anti-Semitism - i.e., that one should be cautious about what conclusions one draws from the movie if one does see it. I then followed the links from my original post, as provided by the reader who'd sent it. The CWN item links to a Cleveland newspaper article, "'Passion' movie raises religious fervor, fears," which describes the diocese's warning/"memo." Paragraph 4 of that article reads: "The Diocese of Cleveland sent a February memo to all its parishes asking Catholics to be aware of the potential for anti-Semitism." The CWN item struck me as containing a reasonable paraphrase of that description - a call for awareness for the potential for anti-Semitism surely reflects concern that anti-Semitism might be one of the movie's effects and could therefore reasonably be described as a "warning" that the movie might lead to anti-Semitism. The article goes into somewhat more detail about the memo further down. Of course, a newspaper account may well be inaccurate. So I poked around the diocesean web site a bit more until I found what appears to be the "memo" in question. It's headed, "Movies About the Passion of Jesus Christ." It begins, "In the next few months there are at least two movies to be released about the passion and death of Jesus Christ." Now, those two would be Gibson's Passion and, I gather, The Gospel of John. Since no one that I know of has expressed concerns that the latter might stir up anti-Semitism - presumably at least partly because of the translation it uses - it's obvious, I think, that the warnings about anti-Semitic accounts of responsiblity for Christ's suffering and death that make up the bulk of the memo reflect concern about Passion. In short, I think that the newspaper account of the memo is accurate, and that the CWN description of it is, too. (When I bounced these thoughts off my Washington priest reader, he replied, "Your interpretation seems correct to me.") So, when we've dealt with the diocese's evasion and quibbling, we're left with the question: Why were they more concerned about the effects that Passion might have than about the effects that JCU's presentation of Monologues might have? Why haven't we seen at least a "memo" about the possibly bad effects of the latter? (Never mind whether the warning about Passion is the best way to deal with that movie to begin with.) My Washington reader forwarded my comments to Fr. Jurcak and told me he'd keep me posted if he gets a reply. I suggest you contact Fr. Jurcak also. As well as Bishop Pilla - (216) 696-6525 ext. 2030. Ask them why Fr. Jurcak is being evasive about what the diocese said about Passion - and why they're expressing concerns about it, but not, apparently, about Monologues.
	E-Mail Author

---

TOPICS:

[dangus]

Thanks for the ping. I'm gonna really get flamed, but here goes:

Look, I share in the disgust at the things Bishop Pilla has done in the past: the oliteration of the faith, the embrace of homosexuals, the heresies, the winking at pedophiles. So, when he goes to a Hindu temple, I have zero confidence in him properly representing the Catholic faith and avoiding scandal.

However, I don't see anything in the article -- and I may be ignorant on a few points -- that is objectively wrong of Bp. Pilla.

Now, if any non-Christian religious leader enters into any interreligious meeting with Catholics that I've witnessed or been able to discuss with witnesses, they never pass up a chance to explain their religion to the Catholics present. I'm not talking (necessarily) being bad guests by pushing their religion aggressively (although I have witnessed that in a Catholic church!!!), but at least explaining their religion. I would like to know what Bp. Pilla did.

[Land of the Irish]

[gbcdoj]

However, I don't see anything in the article -- and I may be ignorant on a few points -- that is objectively wrong of Bp. Pilla.

He encouraged them in the practice of a false religion.

The Bishop gave a short but important speech directly addressing the children and encouraging them to learn and maintain our tradition and values.

[Robert Drobot]

October 7, 1975 - Picture one, in Calcutta, Mother Teresa
worships Buddha in a ceremony of thanksgiving
for the 25th anniversary of the Missionaries of Charity.
She is the first on the left, recollected in profound prayer.

Picture two, another close-up from the same ceremony.

Perhaps Bishop Anthony M. Pilla believes his presence in the temple of a false god is a springboard to sainthood; given Mother Teresa's similar public display before a false idol.

Did you know Karol Wojtyla, in his leading role as a pope, has sainted more men and women than all of the popes combined, not that I rise to question his actions, mind you. However, IMHO an accounting from him on his failure to reprimand Pilla's blasphemy and so many other matters awaits him.

[netmilsmom]

Hi FRiend,
Thank you for your work when it comes to The Cleveland Diocese.
I cannot move back home until things change there (or go to an Eastern rite Parish - I found one in Brunswick!)

Do you know how to pronounce "orans"? I'm sure I will be arguing this with my relatives back home.

God Bless,
Stacie

[dangus]

OK, good catch, gbcdoj. But if I'm playing devil's advocate:

Suppose he instructed the children to obey their parents, to uphold mutual sexual mores such as chastity, to be generous, and to seek truth. If he elsewhere made clear (and yeah, this is Pilla we're talking about; I can't imagine him actually doing this) that he's not a syncretist or pantheist, that he does NOT equate the two religions, is it wrong to have said such things?

The faithful, spiritual observance of other religions, and the temporal justice which their ethical adherence creates is prevening grace, so long as the pathway towards Christianity is not blocked by false beliefs about Christianity, such as that it is at its center simply another expression of the same "truth" that is Hindu. Or Gandhi's ethno-religious belief (i.e., Hindi is India's Christianity.)

Essentially, he could praise what in Hinduism is a product of Man's longing for God, encourage the behaviors which sustain that longing, and make clear that Hindusim and Christianity are seperate, so if his audience ever longed for something beyond what they found in Hinduism, they would habe a curiosity about Christianity.
Of course, actually succeeding in doing that would take an intellectual rigor and faithfulness to Christianity which Pilla has demonstrated time and time again he lacks.

As for the shawl: Again, since it is Pilla, I have concerns. He should be areful to discern the distinction between what is merely cultural in a culture which does not divide religion from the rest of its culture, and what constitutes communicating a statement or worship in Hinduism.

For instance: If a Hindu wore a Yarmulke, that would not communicate Jewish worship; if he wore a Crucifix, however, that would communicate Christian worship.

[dangus]

statement or worship = statement of worship
should be areful = should be careful