As you may recall, the recently discovered to be a fraud 'Anne the Lay-Apostle' came to Steubenville back in October to give a talk. Since the discovery of her fraudulent claims, I wrote E-mails to Steubenville asking for a retraction of that talk to the student body. I wrote the E-mail to the Editor-in-Chief of the school's newspaper, the Troubadour and CC'ed it to the two heads of the Theology Department, as well as Dr. Miravalle (the resident Mariologist) and Fr. Terence Henry (the President).
First E-mail:
Dear Miss Hughes,
-Hello, this is Kevin Symonds. A few months ago, I submitted an article for the "Letters to the Editor" section of the Troubadour concerning the visit of 'Anne the Lay-Apostle.' While I understood its rejection, I do not believe what I have to say further should be rejected.
-In short, 'Anne's' true identity has been discovered. She is a complete, total and utter fraud. I would like to write an exclusive article for the Troubadour that exposes her using the evidence at hand.
-I understand that this is big news and I assure you that it will be published on the web by this coming Monday, no later than Tuesday. I tell you that in case you want to check the facts for yourself. It is my firm belief that the University community needs to be made aware of 'Anne's' fraud and I hope that the Troubadour will uphold the moral code of the University of living, "The Way, the Truth and the Life."
Peace!
-Kevin J. Symonds '06
P.S. I may be reached at this E-mail address or by phone at *-***-***-****.
CC:
Dr. Mark I. Miravalle, S.T.D.
Dr. Alan Schreck, Ph.D.
Fr. Daniel Pattee, Ph.D.
Fr. Terence Henry, T.O.R.
Dr. Schreck, the Head of the Theology Department responded in turn:
Dear Mr. Symonds et. al.,
Even though the Theology Department was not involved with 'Anne' coming to campus, it was my understanding that she was approved by Fr. Francis Martin and Fr. Michael Scanlan, T.O.R, Chancellor of Franciscan University of Steubenville. Is this is the case, I think the better course of action, out of respect for those who invited her to campus, would be to submit your information for them to review for accuracy before anything is printed in The Troubadour.
This is just my opinion, however. I will leave it to those with
jurisdiction over the invitation to 'Anne' to determine the most appropriate course of action.
I might add that among the faculty and students who went to hear
'Anne' and who have read her writings that I have heard nothing but
positive things said about her message. Can a rotten tree bear good fruit?
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Alan Schreck, Ph.D.
Chair, Department of Theology
Franciscan University of Steubenville
My first response:
Dear Dr. Schreck,
-Thank you for your reply. I was under the impression that the Theology Department was involved in the sponsoring of 'Anne.' I will go back to my files and look that up to be sure of what was printed in the written record.
-What I do not understand is why Fr. Francis Martin's 'approval' would have any dealing with Franciscan when he is not on the faculty or even the Board of Trustees? Perhaps I am wrong again on his precise involvement with Franciscan other than being your good friend and colleague, Dr. Schreck. If I am wrong, I would be glad to be corrected for the sake of the truth.
-Once the story breaks, I will be glad to submit the information to the University--particularly those who invited 'Anne.' Once the information has been released to the general public and then to the University, it is my hope that the information will be passed along to the general student body in a quick and precise fashion. The best medium for this being the Troubadour, the Gadfly (be it still around) or perhaps a homily. Souls have been exposed to materials harmful to the Faith and this requires immediate action.
-As regards the writings of 'Anne,' there is a lot more to discernment of a (alleged) locutionist or visionary than the literal words of supposed 'messages.' For instance, no one found it suspicious that 'Anne' keeps her identity a secret simply because heaven allegedly requests it? It is a blatant contradiction to keep such a public profile with speeches and promotions and keep such a 'directive' from heaven. Someone, somewhere along the line was bound to recognize 'Anne' and they did.
Respectively,
-Kevin J. Symonds '06
CC:
Fr. Daniel Pattee, T.O.R.
Dr. Mark I. Miravalle
Fr. Terence Henry, T.O.R.
Fr. Michael Scanlan, T.O.R.
The Troubadour
Dr. Schreck responded back (in bold text):
Dear Kevin,
My responses are below:
Dr. Alan Schreck
Dear Dr. Schreck,
-Thank you for your reply. I was under the impression that the Theology Department was involved in the sponsoring of 'Anne.' I will go back to my files and look that up to be sure of what was printed in the written record.
There is really no need to go back to your files. As chair of the Theology Department you can take my word that the Theology department neither sponsored nor monetarily supported this speaker.
-What I do not understand is why Fr. Francis Martin's 'approval' would have any dealing with Franciscan when he is not on the faculty or even the Board of Trustees? Perhaps I am wrong again on his precise involvement with Franciscan other than being your good friend and colleague, Dr. Schreck. If I am wrong, I would be glad to be corrected for the sake of the truth.
My only point is that I understand that Anne's message is supported by an eminent Biblical scholar who is on the staff of the John Paul II Center in D.C. as well teaching for Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit (currently) and for many years at the Dominican House of Studies. I was not claiming that he had any official relationship with Franciscan University of Steubenville, but simply that he is a person who could be relied upon to discern the validity of a spiritual message. (My personal association with Fr. Martin is totally irrelevant-- I understood that Fr. Martin accompanied Anne in her visit to Franciscan University, which is why I mentioned him and his approval.)
-Once the story breaks, I will be glad to submit the information to the
University--particularly those who invited 'Anne.' Once the information has been released to the general public and then to the University, it is my hope that the information will be passed along to the general student body in a quick and precise fashion. The best medium for this being the Troubadour, the Gadfly (be it still around) or perhaps a homily. Souls have been exposed to materials harmful to the Faith and this requires immediate action.
I don't understand what you mean by "once the story breaks...."
I you have something to tell us about 'Anne' why don't you simply do so?
Why this secrecy? If the information you have is reliable, it will withstand
scrutiny. If it unreliable, those pastorally responsible for the University,
(whose interest is also only in the truth and fidelity to the Catholic Church), will certainly not wish something unreliable or untrue propagated in student publications without comment. All that I am suggesting is that you submit your claim that 'Anne' says something harmful to souls and to the Faith to those who would be in a position (through training, authority, or experience)to verify or deny that claim.
-As regards the writings of 'Anne,' there is a lot more to discernment of a (alleged) locutionist or visionary than the literal words of supposed
'messages.' For instance, no one found it suspicious that 'Anne' keeps her identity a secret simply because heaven allegedly requests it? It is a blatant contradiction to keep such a public profile with speeches and promotions and keep such a 'directive' from heaven. Someone, somewhere along the line was bound to recognize 'Anne' and they did.
Respectively,
(I presume you mean "respectfully", but I'm not sure.
Are you approaching me in a respectful manner, open to dialogue?
I sense more an attitude of distrust, as if you are conducting
some sort of private investigation of the affairs of your alma mater.
I hope I am wrong about that! Let's talk! If you respect the University,
put what you know 'out on the table' so that those who invited 'Anne'
to speak here have a chance to respond to your concerns!)
Dr. Alan Schreck
I then wrote in response, but without CC'ing to to anyone else but Dr. Schreck:
Dr. Schreck,
-The reason for waiting is not about secrecy, was because it wasn't my story to break. I was asked by the author to wait before describing the details. Strange how you would go after me for being 'secret' (when I'm not) yet Franciscan University failed to show similar face with 'Anne.'
http://www.unitypublishing.com/Appariti ... a'name.htm
I trust you will do with the information what I mentioned.
-If there's a question of the validity to this, the information comes from the ex-husband of DFOT's C.E.O. Franciscan students are also being shown the picture available at the above site and identifying her as the same woman who came and spoke. Take a look for yourself.
Peace!
-Kevin J. Symonds '06
P.S. Of course I'm open to dialogue.
The Conversation goes on........
One little Nota Bene though, Dr. Schreck upholds the discernment capabilities of Fr. Francis Martin. I know something of Fr. Martin (presuming we are speaking of the same person) from my time in Steubenville. Out of charity, all I will say is I was always suspicious of this man.
Correspondence with Steubenville on "Anne"
-
KevinSymonds
- Posts: 887
- Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 8:38 am
-
KevinSymonds
- Posts: 887
- Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 8:38 am
The plot thickens. I knew that there was something funny in Dr. Schreck's statement, so I checked the documentation as I said and came up with the following.
-KJS
Dr. Schreck,
-This morning, I went back to my files to check with the written documentation of how Kathryn Clarke's talk was marketed to the University community. What I found makes me question your previous statement that the Theology department did not sponsor Kathryn. Before I get into that, there are two issues that needs to be stated for the record.
-To begin, I would like to address the dialogue comment you made in a previous E-mail. Let me explain why I have alerted the Department to Mrs. Clarke's fraudulent claims. Part of the college experience is matriculation, particularly in the area of one's field of study. As each student goes further into his or her respective discipline, they begin to see facets or areas of the discipline that they like and perhaps excel in. In a word--areas that they do well in.
-During my theological studies at Franciscan University, one area that I particularly enjoyed was the subject of Marian apparitions or claims thereof. Over time, I discovered that I did fairly well in this branch of Mariology. My grades in Dr. Miravalle's Mariology courses would be indicative of an overall interest in Mariology.
-As I delved further into the area of 'apparitions' through private research using the overall tools given me from the Department, I began to see much corruption. Not just within the confines of Franciscan University but in Catholicism at large. Think of people claiming to see Our Lady on a pizza pan to understand what I'm saying. These things never sat well with me. Care and concern arose in me for my brothers and sisters in Christ who were corrupting their Faith and Morals through exposure to false 'messages from heaven.' This to say nothing of a personal sense of indignation and offense.
-By the above, I do not mean to be 'sweet' or 'wearing my heart on my sleeve.' I am meaning to explain my love and concern for Franciscan University. I believe very strongly in its mission and I love it very much. While I will admit that my tone and tenor may come off as non-loving, my motivation is not so. I'll demonstrate the point by the following: If I didn't care and love, I would let error persist and go unnoticed.
-On the flip side, it is also my belief that in subjects such as this, I need to be stern to communicate the deadly seriousness of the fact. I come across as relentless because we can't leave any stone unturned. If people are unwilling to accept that, then dialogue will not be as fruitful. Remember, the point is about the truth and our service to it as we do God who is Truth.
-Let me now move to the second issue. From our previous correspondence, there were two ways that were brought up on how Mrs. Clarke was said to not be 'supported' by the Theology Department. These two ways are personally and financially. I was not clear in my original E-mail on what I meant by 'sponsoring.' Let me be clear that I meant the Theology Department helped to put on Mrs. Clarke's talk. I did not specify how. In a later E-mail, you stood on your office as Head of the Theology Department to state that Mrs. Clarke was not supported by the Department, "neither sponsored nor monetarily supported this speaker." You made this distinction and so I will act accordingly.
-That said, I have here the official FUS Grad/Non-Trad business E-mail signed and dated by Miss Rianna Meinert (the University-paid Grad/Non-Trad student representative) regarding Mrs. Clarke's talk. She advertised it in the following way:
Begin Citation
Evening of Eucharistic Renewal
Thursday, Oct. 12, 8-10 pm (in the Chapel)
Franciscan University of Steubenville
1235 University Blvd.
Sponsored by the Theology Dept.
Call DFOT for details: (708) 496-9300
End Citation
Miss Meinert then proceeds to give Mrs. Clarke's alleged October 1st 2006 message.
-Let me cut right to the chase. The text mentions nothing of the Theology Department supporting Mrs. Clarke financially but it does say the Evening itself WAS sponsored by the Department. Mrs. Clarke's talk was an integral part (the whole?) of that night. That leaves the impression that the talk was and is supported by the Theology Department ipso facto. I would further add that the fact of Dr. Miravalle's recorded opening speech to Mrs. Clarke's talk further consternates your statement.
-This is not about finances. It is about how the Theology Department failed to properly investigate an alleged locutionist and exposed the student body to materials that could have (and have now been discovered to be) harmed Faith and Morals. The evidence can not be circumscribed to say that the Theology Department didn't sponsor Mrs. Clarke's appearance. By sponsoring the Evening and having Mrs. Clarke's talk being the center or even a part of the Evening, the Department sponsored Mrs. Clarke. It's a simple syllogism.
-If I am wrong in any of the above, I would be glad to be corrected. Perhaps Miss Meinert was mistaken? That is the only thing I can think of to verify your statement. If that's the case, then I would recommend it be explained in the article for the Troubadour.
Peace!
-Kevin J. Symonds '06
P.S. If you happen to know who financially sponsored Mrs. Clarke, I would be glad to have that information.
-KJS
Dr. Schreck,
-This morning, I went back to my files to check with the written documentation of how Kathryn Clarke's talk was marketed to the University community. What I found makes me question your previous statement that the Theology department did not sponsor Kathryn. Before I get into that, there are two issues that needs to be stated for the record.
-To begin, I would like to address the dialogue comment you made in a previous E-mail. Let me explain why I have alerted the Department to Mrs. Clarke's fraudulent claims. Part of the college experience is matriculation, particularly in the area of one's field of study. As each student goes further into his or her respective discipline, they begin to see facets or areas of the discipline that they like and perhaps excel in. In a word--areas that they do well in.
-During my theological studies at Franciscan University, one area that I particularly enjoyed was the subject of Marian apparitions or claims thereof. Over time, I discovered that I did fairly well in this branch of Mariology. My grades in Dr. Miravalle's Mariology courses would be indicative of an overall interest in Mariology.
-As I delved further into the area of 'apparitions' through private research using the overall tools given me from the Department, I began to see much corruption. Not just within the confines of Franciscan University but in Catholicism at large. Think of people claiming to see Our Lady on a pizza pan to understand what I'm saying. These things never sat well with me. Care and concern arose in me for my brothers and sisters in Christ who were corrupting their Faith and Morals through exposure to false 'messages from heaven.' This to say nothing of a personal sense of indignation and offense.
-By the above, I do not mean to be 'sweet' or 'wearing my heart on my sleeve.' I am meaning to explain my love and concern for Franciscan University. I believe very strongly in its mission and I love it very much. While I will admit that my tone and tenor may come off as non-loving, my motivation is not so. I'll demonstrate the point by the following: If I didn't care and love, I would let error persist and go unnoticed.
-On the flip side, it is also my belief that in subjects such as this, I need to be stern to communicate the deadly seriousness of the fact. I come across as relentless because we can't leave any stone unturned. If people are unwilling to accept that, then dialogue will not be as fruitful. Remember, the point is about the truth and our service to it as we do God who is Truth.
-Let me now move to the second issue. From our previous correspondence, there were two ways that were brought up on how Mrs. Clarke was said to not be 'supported' by the Theology Department. These two ways are personally and financially. I was not clear in my original E-mail on what I meant by 'sponsoring.' Let me be clear that I meant the Theology Department helped to put on Mrs. Clarke's talk. I did not specify how. In a later E-mail, you stood on your office as Head of the Theology Department to state that Mrs. Clarke was not supported by the Department, "neither sponsored nor monetarily supported this speaker." You made this distinction and so I will act accordingly.
-That said, I have here the official FUS Grad/Non-Trad business E-mail signed and dated by Miss Rianna Meinert (the University-paid Grad/Non-Trad student representative) regarding Mrs. Clarke's talk. She advertised it in the following way:
Begin Citation
Evening of Eucharistic Renewal
Thursday, Oct. 12, 8-10 pm (in the Chapel)
Franciscan University of Steubenville
1235 University Blvd.
Sponsored by the Theology Dept.
Call DFOT for details: (708) 496-9300
End Citation
Miss Meinert then proceeds to give Mrs. Clarke's alleged October 1st 2006 message.
-Let me cut right to the chase. The text mentions nothing of the Theology Department supporting Mrs. Clarke financially but it does say the Evening itself WAS sponsored by the Department. Mrs. Clarke's talk was an integral part (the whole?) of that night. That leaves the impression that the talk was and is supported by the Theology Department ipso facto. I would further add that the fact of Dr. Miravalle's recorded opening speech to Mrs. Clarke's talk further consternates your statement.
-This is not about finances. It is about how the Theology Department failed to properly investigate an alleged locutionist and exposed the student body to materials that could have (and have now been discovered to be) harmed Faith and Morals. The evidence can not be circumscribed to say that the Theology Department didn't sponsor Mrs. Clarke's appearance. By sponsoring the Evening and having Mrs. Clarke's talk being the center or even a part of the Evening, the Department sponsored Mrs. Clarke. It's a simple syllogism.
-If I am wrong in any of the above, I would be glad to be corrected. Perhaps Miss Meinert was mistaken? That is the only thing I can think of to verify your statement. If that's the case, then I would recommend it be explained in the article for the Troubadour.
Peace!
-Kevin J. Symonds '06
P.S. If you happen to know who financially sponsored Mrs. Clarke, I would be glad to have that information.
-
KevinSymonds
- Posts: 887
- Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 8:38 am