L
- Status
S
SaltySirena
Guest
A group that constantly goes against Church teaching and defies Church authority is withering on the vine? What a tragedy… 
A
allenthorn
Guest
I’ve known some of the members of that group. My observation is that negativity begets negative giving.
M
Michael_C
Guest
Good riddance. I was in ministry classes that ws infected by this intolerant group.
P
peregrinus_WA
Guest
:extrahappy: :yyeess: :whackadoo: :jrbirdman: :choocho: :takeoff: :egyptian: :bluelite:
C
Colin_LaVergne
Guest
Voice of the Faithful does include many liberal Catholics. However, not all of them are liberal. I have been active on the Steering Council of the Minneapolis-St. Paul affiliate for six years. We have focused on helping victims of abuse. We have held a number of services of ‘apology’ where priests and sisters and others would represent the Church. Victims would receive a personal apology and the opportunity to be prayed with. May victims have found this to be a very healing process and it has helped restore some of them to the Catholic Church.
We have run a support group for victims. We have presented educational sessions about the abuse issue along with a number of other actions.
No other group in the Catholic Church is doing much on this front and it is still a significant need. After Pope Benedict’s heartfelt apology during his visit to the U.S. last year, many more victims came out of the woodwork and sought healing and reconciliation. Most are traumatized by their abuse and wracked by guilt and shame. Some have been away from the Church for years because of it.
Our group has also honored priests and we work closely with several priests of the Archdiocese.
Do some of these brothers and sisters in Christ hold views with which I disagree? Of course. But if I used that criteria to choose with whom to work, I probably would not be able to work with most of the organized groups in my parish or Archdiocese and they with me!
On the other hand, I have been able to represent well (according to them) a conservative Catholic approach to this issue. I have helped (not alone) to keep the group from going off on doctrinal tangents.
Our local group has not always agreed with the actions of the National leadership, but we still feel that there is a need for a national organization to keep this issue in front of the Catholic bishops, priests and lay people until there has been more significant change, healing and justice.
Colin LaVergne
colinlavergne@gmail.com
Minneapolis MN
We have run a support group for victims. We have presented educational sessions about the abuse issue along with a number of other actions.
No other group in the Catholic Church is doing much on this front and it is still a significant need. After Pope Benedict’s heartfelt apology during his visit to the U.S. last year, many more victims came out of the woodwork and sought healing and reconciliation. Most are traumatized by their abuse and wracked by guilt and shame. Some have been away from the Church for years because of it.
Our group has also honored priests and we work closely with several priests of the Archdiocese.
Do some of these brothers and sisters in Christ hold views with which I disagree? Of course. But if I used that criteria to choose with whom to work, I probably would not be able to work with most of the organized groups in my parish or Archdiocese and they with me!
On the other hand, I have been able to represent well (according to them) a conservative Catholic approach to this issue. I have helped (not alone) to keep the group from going off on doctrinal tangents.
Our local group has not always agreed with the actions of the National leadership, but we still feel that there is a need for a national organization to keep this issue in front of the Catholic bishops, priests and lay people until there has been more significant change, healing and justice.
Colin LaVergne
colinlavergne@gmail.com
Minneapolis MN
T
TwoDachshunds
Guest
They would not be missed in my Cathedral parish, that’s for sure.
S
SaltySirena
Guest
Colin, I am sorry to tell you that that just is not the image that faithful, practicing, serious Catholics have of VOTF. And that is the fault of your own members. Much the same way as quiet, peaceful Muslims pay the price for the ones who screech about jihad.
However, once it became clear that your image was being damaged by people with a different agenda than healing the abused, you and people like you should have forced the rabble-rousers out. By not doing so, you (collective, not personal) have let the good work you do, and might have done in the future, be destroyed by anti-Church loudmouths. You failed to maintain the purity of your mission and message.
Most of us regard the death of VOTF as good for the Church. It’s basically become a symbol of the disobedience and disrespect toward the Vatican that is one of the biggest problems with the American Church.
And Bishop Olmstead sure didn’t need any help from VOTF to be serious about healing the breach with abuse victims: catholicsun.org/2009/april2/local/healing-mass.html He’s been offering these Masses yearly, since he became our bishop in 2005. GOOD shepherds don’t need to be prodded to their duty.
Having looked at the VOTF website, supporting sexual abuse victims is NOT the only agenda stated. It looks to me like they want to turn the Catholic Church into some democratically run Protestant church. No thanks. I’ve seen the chaos. Some of the churches out there are now six, or eight, or ten schisms removed from the Catholic Church… all thanks to democracy. I believe in government by the people for political systems. In churches, it seems to work very badly.
However, once it became clear that your image was being damaged by people with a different agenda than healing the abused, you and people like you should have forced the rabble-rousers out. By not doing so, you (collective, not personal) have let the good work you do, and might have done in the future, be destroyed by anti-Church loudmouths. You failed to maintain the purity of your mission and message.
Most of us regard the death of VOTF as good for the Church. It’s basically become a symbol of the disobedience and disrespect toward the Vatican that is one of the biggest problems with the American Church.
And Bishop Olmstead sure didn’t need any help from VOTF to be serious about healing the breach with abuse victims: catholicsun.org/2009/april2/local/healing-mass.html He’s been offering these Masses yearly, since he became our bishop in 2005. GOOD shepherds don’t need to be prodded to their duty.
Having looked at the VOTF website, supporting sexual abuse victims is NOT the only agenda stated. It looks to me like they want to turn the Catholic Church into some democratically run Protestant church. No thanks. I’ve seen the chaos. Some of the churches out there are now six, or eight, or ten schisms removed from the Catholic Church… all thanks to democracy. I believe in government by the people for political systems. In churches, it seems to work very badly.
H
Holly3278
Guest
If it’s a group full of cafeteria Catholics then I also celebrate their potential demise. 
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
The Catholic Church is a group full of cafeteria Catholics, Holly. Do you celebrate its potential demise?If it’s a group full of cafeteria Catholics then I also celebrate their potential demise.
H
Holly3278
Guest
Of course not! What would ever make you think that???
However, I do think that a good deal of excommunications of these cafeteria Catholics would be a good thing.
S
SaltySirena
Guest
You are obviously SO ignorant of what is required to earn excommunication. If Nancy Pelosi ain’t there yet, your run-of-the-mill contracepting Catholic sure isn’t!Of course not! What would ever make you think that???
And boy, are you elitist and uncaring, too. People aren’t perfect, so just throw them out of any chance at salvation? Heaven is gonna be a lonely and echoing place if you get your way!
Many of those “cafeteria Catholics” are just struggling people who are not as far along in their faith journey as others. They need the truth, but not from people like you. Jesus went after the lost sheep, he didn’t chuck them out for being lost! Sheesh.
S
SaltySirena
Guest
P.S. Holly, are you aware that the purpose of excommunication is to eventually get the person to reform and RECONCILE with the Church? We’ve gotten quite an education about excommunication out here in Phoenix, as our Bishop Olmstead has had to do some house cleaning with respect to some rebellious priests.
Here is a quote and a link: catholicsun.org/2009/may7/local/excommunication-carpenter.html
Thankfully, the Church is just and does not impose this penalty lightly.
Here is a quote and a link: catholicsun.org/2009/may7/local/excommunication-carpenter.html
So if you get all those excommunications you want, and they have the effect they are supposed to, then all those Catholics will be sitting right next to you in the pews again someday.
Thankfully, the Church is just and does not impose this penalty lightly.
C
Colin_LaVergne
Guest
Sirena,
Most of the controversy surrounding Voice of the Faithful comes from one of the following:
a. Their call for a review of the role of women in the Church.
b. Their call for a review of mandatory celibacy in the Latin rite.
c. Having liberal Catholic speakers at their events and conferences.
d. Their call for more democratic processes in the selection of bishops and pastors.
VOTF, as an organization, has not advocated for a change in any doctrine of the Catholic Church. VOTF has not advocated for a change in the church’s teaching on abortion, the deity of Christ, the salvific nature of the death and resurrection of Jesus, the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, the fact that only ordained clergy can consecrate the Eucharist, or any of a number of beliefs that come out of the early creeds.
With regard to the above controversies, let me comment briefly.
a. Pope John Paul II publicly repented for the ways in which the Catholic Church has mistreated women throughout the centuries. If we really believe this, it should not be a surprise that there are lingering effects of this treatment of women as 2nd class citizens in the life and practice of the Church today. Consider the huge flap that allowing female altar servers caused and still does. Because of the polarization and politics in the Church, any call for review of the state of women is immediately assumed to be a call for the ordination of women to the priesthood. But there are a lot of issues that could be looked at more closely besides priesthood. Some liberals will not be content until there are female priests and some conservatives are not even willing to touch the issue of women because they are so afraid that it will lead to female priests, a position the church says won’t happen. But VOTF was NOT calling for women to be ordained priests. Many individuals in VOTF might like to see that, but the organization as a whole was not calling for that. It was calling for something more modest.
b. VOTF is not alone in calling for a review of mandatory celibacy. A number of bishops around the world have raised the issue. Since this is an issue of church discipline, it is something that can be changed. It is pretty clear that Benedict will not change this. But the next pope might or the one after him. Or not. The early church flourished and it had married priests. So there is nothing unorthodox about holding to the view that the church might be better off with giving priests the option. Of course, there are a lot of pastoral problems that would require a lot of attention if we allowed married priests. I don’t want to get into a discussion of that right here. My only point is to say that thinking that priests could be married is part of the tradition of the Church and is not a ‘dissenting’ position.
c. I was involved in recording the first national VOTF conference (my company is called Resurrection Communications) and I asked the organizer why most of the speakers came from the more liberal wing of the Church. She told me that she had invited quite a few conservative speakers but they had all declined. I thought that was unfortunate. It made it seem like conservatives did not really care about the abuse crisis. Conservatives could then sit back and say that liberals were using the victims of abuse as a smoke screen to radically change the Church. But I have not seen any conservative alternative group that was really focused on helping victims of clerical abuse. Like a Courage vs. Dignity.
d. It is rather odd that conservative Catholics seem to fear democracy in the Church. The pope is an elected office. Most parish council members are elected. The heads of most religious orders are elected. There does not seem to be much in the history of the church that indicates that pastors have been elected. I think that is because their role is primarily as a representative of the bishop. However, there is a fair amount of church history that supports the election of bishops. Actually, there are a whole range of ways in which bishops have been selected, including being appointed by kings and emperors. Since in Catholic theology, the bishop is not the representative of the pope but of Christ, election of bishops as an option make more sense than electing pastors. Throughout most of church history, the pope has approved the selection of the bishop, but not until the last couple of hundred years did the pope actually do the selecting himself of the majority of the bishops. Archbishop Quinn states that as recently as 1820, a slight majority of the world’s bishops had not been selected by the pope, but only approved. With the centralization of power in the Vatican over the last 200 years, almost all bishops are now selected by the pope. This has some good reasons. But they are not the whole story and advocating for a return to one of the earlier practices is not being disloyal to the Church.
Personally, I thought that the national VOTF’s choice to pursue the review of women and optional celibacy were not prudent decisions in that they had little likelihood for success and I didn’t want VOTF to waste its energy on things that might bear little fruit.
Colin LaVergne
Minneapolis
colinlavergne@gmail.com
Most of the controversy surrounding Voice of the Faithful comes from one of the following:
a. Their call for a review of the role of women in the Church.
b. Their call for a review of mandatory celibacy in the Latin rite.
c. Having liberal Catholic speakers at their events and conferences.
d. Their call for more democratic processes in the selection of bishops and pastors.
VOTF, as an organization, has not advocated for a change in any doctrine of the Catholic Church. VOTF has not advocated for a change in the church’s teaching on abortion, the deity of Christ, the salvific nature of the death and resurrection of Jesus, the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, the fact that only ordained clergy can consecrate the Eucharist, or any of a number of beliefs that come out of the early creeds.
With regard to the above controversies, let me comment briefly.
a. Pope John Paul II publicly repented for the ways in which the Catholic Church has mistreated women throughout the centuries. If we really believe this, it should not be a surprise that there are lingering effects of this treatment of women as 2nd class citizens in the life and practice of the Church today. Consider the huge flap that allowing female altar servers caused and still does. Because of the polarization and politics in the Church, any call for review of the state of women is immediately assumed to be a call for the ordination of women to the priesthood. But there are a lot of issues that could be looked at more closely besides priesthood. Some liberals will not be content until there are female priests and some conservatives are not even willing to touch the issue of women because they are so afraid that it will lead to female priests, a position the church says won’t happen. But VOTF was NOT calling for women to be ordained priests. Many individuals in VOTF might like to see that, but the organization as a whole was not calling for that. It was calling for something more modest.
b. VOTF is not alone in calling for a review of mandatory celibacy. A number of bishops around the world have raised the issue. Since this is an issue of church discipline, it is something that can be changed. It is pretty clear that Benedict will not change this. But the next pope might or the one after him. Or not. The early church flourished and it had married priests. So there is nothing unorthodox about holding to the view that the church might be better off with giving priests the option. Of course, there are a lot of pastoral problems that would require a lot of attention if we allowed married priests. I don’t want to get into a discussion of that right here. My only point is to say that thinking that priests could be married is part of the tradition of the Church and is not a ‘dissenting’ position.
c. I was involved in recording the first national VOTF conference (my company is called Resurrection Communications) and I asked the organizer why most of the speakers came from the more liberal wing of the Church. She told me that she had invited quite a few conservative speakers but they had all declined. I thought that was unfortunate. It made it seem like conservatives did not really care about the abuse crisis. Conservatives could then sit back and say that liberals were using the victims of abuse as a smoke screen to radically change the Church. But I have not seen any conservative alternative group that was really focused on helping victims of clerical abuse. Like a Courage vs. Dignity.
d. It is rather odd that conservative Catholics seem to fear democracy in the Church. The pope is an elected office. Most parish council members are elected. The heads of most religious orders are elected. There does not seem to be much in the history of the church that indicates that pastors have been elected. I think that is because their role is primarily as a representative of the bishop. However, there is a fair amount of church history that supports the election of bishops. Actually, there are a whole range of ways in which bishops have been selected, including being appointed by kings and emperors. Since in Catholic theology, the bishop is not the representative of the pope but of Christ, election of bishops as an option make more sense than electing pastors. Throughout most of church history, the pope has approved the selection of the bishop, but not until the last couple of hundred years did the pope actually do the selecting himself of the majority of the bishops. Archbishop Quinn states that as recently as 1820, a slight majority of the world’s bishops had not been selected by the pope, but only approved. With the centralization of power in the Vatican over the last 200 years, almost all bishops are now selected by the pope. This has some good reasons. But they are not the whole story and advocating for a return to one of the earlier practices is not being disloyal to the Church.
Personally, I thought that the national VOTF’s choice to pursue the review of women and optional celibacy were not prudent decisions in that they had little likelihood for success and I didn’t want VOTF to waste its energy on things that might bear little fruit.
Colin LaVergne
Minneapolis
colinlavergne@gmail.com
S
Sabda
Guest
From the article:
Sounds to me like Jesus is trimming a branch that has strayed too far from vine.
And that’s the way it should be.
Sounds to me like Jesus is trimming a branch that has strayed too far from vine.
S
Soutane
Guest
It’s about time that this whinging,ultra liberal,and disloyal bunch of complainers who refuse to acknowledge that the Church is NOT a democracy and refuse to submit to the magisterium on the issues of women “priests”,abortion etc. was shrived off of the Body of Christ.Don’t let the door hit you in the ***.From the article:
And that’s the way it should be.
Sounds to me like Jesus is trimming a branch that has strayed too far from vine.
S
sidonius
Guest
VOTF takes no position on gay marriage, will not stand for the right of the unborn to live, and infects the Church with an intolerant democratism. No group has done more for the victims of abuse? Nonsense! VOTF does not speak for the laity, in fact, speaks for no one but its members. It is white, on the upper side of middle class, suburban and elderly. If lack of donations does not do them in then the passage of time - and not that much - surely will.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
So there really is a silver lining to every dark cloud. 
Seriously, though, thank you Colin for coming and giving us a bit of insight into the group. If nothing else, it forced me to look beyond my usual knee-jerk reaction. It’s good to hear that they have done some good, at least in your locale. Helping the victims of abuse is certainly something that needs to take place. It is unfortunate that VotF includes so much extra baggage, though.
Personally, a group that feels the need to draft a statement on their “right to exist” raises all sorts of red flags for me. Although, I have found their list of supporting theologians to be quite helpful in determining from whose books to steer clear.
Seriously, though, thank you Colin for coming and giving us a bit of insight into the group. If nothing else, it forced me to look beyond my usual knee-jerk reaction. It’s good to hear that they have done some good, at least in your locale. Helping the victims of abuse is certainly something that needs to take place. It is unfortunate that VotF includes so much extra baggage, though.
Personally, a group that feels the need to draft a statement on their “right to exist” raises all sorts of red flags for me. Although, I have found their list of supporting theologians to be quite helpful in determining from whose books to steer clear.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
On a serious note, it is easy for us to sit here and celebrate the possibility of VotF’s demise, but we should keep in mind that they are likely not the only Catholic non-profit apostolate that is hurting in our current economic climate. I’m sure donations are down in all sorts of worthy apostolates. Don’t neglect those groups that count on our support!
A
andrewagill
Guest
Hrm.
I know what you’re trying to say, but I wonder if there might be a more felicitous turn of phrase for that. Tyranny of the Majority might be a good start, but I don’t think these people are the majority anyway.
Turning matters of the eternally divine into an opinion poll?
- Status