Voice of the Faithful?

[Fiat]

Dear Katherine2:

I don’t have a lot of time to respond right now, but I would like to address this issue of “change.” You asked whether I think the Council of Trent, Vatican II, etc., changed the Church. Ostensibly, I have to say “no.” They didn’t change the Church because the Church is the sole repository of Truth, and Truth, quite simply, does not change. To say otherwise is to chisle away at the very rock upon which our faith is built. Do customs in the Church change? Yes. Does the Truth change? No. In part, the Truth of the Holy Catholic Church hangs upon the very structure which the Holy Spirit has organized for the Church. Therefore, it’s a very dangerous thing, I think, when we start dismantling or reconfiguring that structure. It is particularly dangerous to do so when there is no clear vision in mind!

VOTF seems to have grown out of a reaction against the sex abuse scandal. Further, it seems to be addressing its concerns regarding these scandals through policy drafting, implementing lay review boards, holding the ordained accountable, subjecting the ordained to approval, etc., etc. Quite frankly, I don’t think these are solutions at all.

As Christians, and in particular, as Catholic Christians, we should be aware that the real struggle is not between the abuser and the nonabuser; it is not between the murderer and the nonmurderer; it is not between the adulterer and the nonalduterer. Instead, the real struggle is a spiritual one. If there’s one evident theme in the Book of Revelation, the real struggle is clearly portrayed as the struggle for the soul. A struggle between goodness and evil; a struggle between darkness and light. The only effective way to combat the murderer, the abuser, the prostitute, the burglar, the adulterer, and so on is by engaging in that spiritual struggle SACRAMENTALLY! Not politically! I’m an attorney, and I see that too often, people use policy writing, committees, review board hearings, and the like as a way of diverting people’s attention from the underlying causes at hand. In my opinion, policy writing, committes, adjudicatory hearings, etc., address only the INCIDENDTALS of the problem. Too often they provide smoke and mirrors to divert people’s attention away from the problem itself.

I assure you, Katherine2, someone does not molest a 10 year old boy because there wasn’t a policy or a review board hearing that prevented him from doing so. People molest because there is darkness and evil. We can ONLY overcome this sacramentally. We overcome this by offering true worship to the Father, which thankfully has been preserved for us in the Holy Catholic Church. Were VOTF to focus ostensibly on SPIRITUAL RENEWAL and SACRAMENTAL LIVING, I think their initial invitations would have been more readily received.

Peace,
Fiat

 

[Annunciata]

Fiat:

Dear Katherine2:

I don’t have a lot of time to respond right now, but I would like to address this issue of “change.” You asked whether I think the Council of Trent, Vatican II, etc., changed the Church. Ostensibly, I have to say “no.” They didn’t change the Church because the Church is the sole repository of Truth, and Truth, quite simply, does not change. To say otherwise is to chisle away at the very rock upon which our faith is built. Do customs in the Church change? Yes. Does the Truth change? No. In part, the Truth of the Holy Catholic Church hangs upon the very structure which the Holy Spirit has organized for the Church. Therefore, it’s a very dangerous thing, I think, when we start dismantling or reconfiguring that structure. It is particularly dangerous to do so when there is no clear vision in mind!..
… someone does not molest a 10 year old boy because there wasn’t a policy or a review board hearing that prevented him from doing so. People molest because there is darkness and evil. We overcome this sacramentally. We overcome this by offering true worship to the Father, which thankfully has been preserved for us in the Holy Catholic Church. Were VOTF to focus ostensibly on SPIRITUAL RENEWAL and SACRAMENTAL LIVING, I think their initial invitations would have been more readily received.

:clapping: Again, Fiat…a fine post!
God Bless You!
Annunciata

 

[patricius]

Do customs in the Church change? Yes. Does the Truth change? No.

Forgive me for butting in again. I feel it’s unfair to assume that the phrase “Change the Church” means to change the Truth, rather than changing the customs. I don’t think the slogan itself is suspect until implicated by other actions of the group. It seems like in some cases at least, that’s happened.

But that said, it’s been pointed out numerous times here that you can’t cleanly separate the Church’s sacramental parts from its administrative parts. To give a relatively non-controversial example, lots of people have left the Church because they like the music or the preaching better in some other faith tradition. Sometimes this is their own problem, but other times it’s the result of really poor standards of taste and orthodoxy within the Catholic Church. If there was better administration (and yes, that might mean diocesan boards) in these areas, those people wouldn’t have removed themselves from the graces of the Sacraments.

My point is that, while the Truth doesn’t change, the Church’s customs play a crucial role in communicated that Truth (along with God’s grace) to the faithful and to the world. If we don’t choose the customs that will work the best for our time, we will be like salt that is losing its flavor and we will lose (in some cases) the all-important sacramental battle.

To extend the military metaphor-- the Truth about how mankind should relate to each other and to God is our overall strategy The Sacraments are our greatest weapons. And the Church’s customs are our battlefield tactics. What VOTF should be pushing for is a reformation of the tactics. If they’re doing otherwise, that’s wrong.

 

[coeyannie]

Fiat, you say that Katherine2 discusses without sarcasm? What about the low blow about Deal Hudson. How sickening. We are all sinners. Fortunately, not everyone has someone sneaking around digging into their past. I wouldn’t want my sins revealed publicly, would you Katherine2?

 

[Fiat]

Patricius:

Thank you for your comments. I think you pointed to the rub that VOTF faces. I agree with you that there is no clean separation between the “administrative parts” of our faith and the “sacramental parts.” But, you also say that change doesn’t necessitate a change in truth. If the sacraments are presented as truth, and the administrative parts are uniquely tied to that truth, then how does VOTF plan to effect change in one with such delicacy that the other remains unaffected?

What I’ve been trying to determine is what “tactics” VOTF is trying to promote, change, restructure, whatever… Until that’s defined, I can’t support it. I guess I also don’t understand what VOTF is waiting for exactly? Are they just waiting to define themselves in terms that they are certain will elicit enough popular support? (pardon the cynicism).

Peace,
Fiat

 

[katherine2]

Fiat:

Patricius:

Thank you for your comments. I think you pointed to the rub that VOTF faces. I agree with you that there is no clean separation between the “administrative parts” of our faith and the “sacramental parts.” But, you also say that change doesn’t necessitate a change in truth. If the sacraments are presented as truth, and the administrative parts are uniquely tied to that truth, then how does VOTF plan to effect change in one with such delicacy that the other remains unaffected?

Since we all agree that such change has happened in the past, we know it can be done. You are right that it needs to be done delicately.

What I’ve been trying to determine is what “tactics” VOTF is trying to promote, change, restructure, whatever… Until that’s defined, I can’t support it. I guess I also don’t understand what VOTF is waiting for exactly? Are they just waiting to define themselves in terms that they are certain will elicit enough popular support? (pardon the cynicism).

Peace,
Fiat

As I said, the “tactics” are JOCist, a methodology that has well served the Church in the past and hoepfully will do so in this situation.

However, Fiat, I would never counsel anyone to go against their gut feelings. If you think this organization is lacking, then you should not support it. I would not suggest otherwise.

 

[katherine2]

Fiat:

Dear Katherine2:

I don’t have a lot of time to respond right now…

I understand. I appreciate even a small amount of your time.

… but I would like to address this issue of “change.” You asked whether I think the Council of Trent, Vatican II, etc., changed the Church. Ostensibly, I have to say “no.” They didn’t change the Church because the Church is the sole repository of Truth, and Truth, quite simply, does not change.

But is the Church solely a repository of truth? Is it not also the Mystical Body of Christ? Is it not also the Pilgrim People of God?

However, I understand you point about unchanging truth. But VOTF would not be the first to employ a more casual use of the words “change the church”. That certainly was used as a common vernacular for the changes brought about by the Council, etc.

Can we maybe agree that the term is acceptable in a kitchen table conversations but questionable in a high academic theological seminar?

Therefore, it’s a very dangerous thing, I think, when we start dismantling or reconfiguring that structure. It is particularly dangerous to do so when there is no clear vision in mind!

Yes. But to be a true Christian is dangerous. Stand Pat-ism is not the highest virtue. And, as we have seen, the status quo has its own dangers to too many children. if we didn’t beleive in the grace present in every baptized Christian, it would seem so risky so to not be worth the trouble. But, you gotta have faith!!!

VOTF seems to have grown out of a reaction against the sex abuse scandal.

True.

Further, it seems to be addressing its concerns regarding these scandals through policy drafting, implementing lay review boards, holding the ordained accountable, subjecting the ordained to approval, etc., etc. Quite frankly, I don’t think these are solutions at all.

Well, I think you have some misunderstandings there. The lay review boards are initiatives of the bishops, not VOTF. Holding the ordained accountable is a initiative of VOTF and a very fine one. Subjecting the ordained to approval? I don’t know what you mean by that. VOTF has not called for lay selection of pastors. They have sugested greater consultation.

As Christians, and in particular, as Catholic Christians, we should be aware that the real struggle is not between the abuser and the nonabuser; it is not between the murderer and the nonmurderer; it is not between the adulterer and the nonalduterer. Instead, the real struggle is a spiritual one. If there’s one evident theme in the Book of Revelation, the real struggle is clearly portrayed as the struggle for the soul. A struggle between goodness and evil; a struggle between darkness and light. The only effective way to combat the murderer, the abuser, the prostitute, the burglar, the adulterer, and so on is by engaging in that spiritual struggle SACRAMENTALLY! Not politically!

Well, I don’t disagree that such is the real struggle. But just as the real struggle is creating a true love of human life, we still need civil protection for the unborn. Such laws will be imperfect and are no substitute for a conversion of soul, but are still important.

 

[Fiat]

Dear Katherine2:

First, you raise a very valid point regarding the necessity of civil laws in spite of the fact that they can’t sufficiently replace the greater need for spiritual attention. The problem with regard to the specific issue of child sex abuse within the Church is that civil law has already existed in state criminal and civil codes for effectively dealing with child molestors, regardless of the molestor’s profession, age, sex, etc. My specific concern not only as a Catholic, but as an American, regarding this specific issue is that VOTF is potentially seeking additional measures of protection and punishment beyond what state criminal and civil codes already provide, risking Federal Constitutional violations or rights of victims and abusers. It would be dangerous and uncharitably meddlesome for VOTF to trample upon the constitutional rights of someone in order to advance their own agenda. The Establishment Clause and the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution pose problems for VOTF from a secular slaant: problems that VOTF creates for itself unnecessarily.

Because secular avenues already exist for addressing abuse problems from criminal and civil perspectives, the Church may properly address the spiritual avenue of the problem. As I indicated previously, I firmly believe that teh sex abuse issue is more properly characterized as a spiritual struggle, and the spiritual struggle is most appropriately addressed within a sacramental context. This being the case, what role does VOTF wish to take, if any, regarding teh sacramental nature of the solution?

Since the civil arena is the only arena in which to address the problem secularly, for what purpose is VOTF expending its efforts within the Church, particularly when the Church only has the constitutional right to function sacramentally within ecclesial jurisdiction. Now, if the additional measures of protection and/or punishment are sought in ecclesial realms only, then I think you have an additional hurdle to overcome in finding authority within Tradition that subjects the Church (by which I means its hierarchy) to a judiciary of laity. There isn’t Biblical authority for that is there? I’ve never seen any Oral Tradition authority for that? The further offense that VOTF raises is that it lacks any sort of external check and balance of itself.

Peace,
Fiat

 

[Annunciata]

coeyannie:

Fiat, you say that Katherine2 discusses without sarcasm? What about the low blow about Deal Hudson. How sickening. We are all sinners. Fortunately, not everyone has someone sneaking around digging into their past. I wouldn’t want my sins revealed publicly, would you Katherine2?

Yes…I caught that one too… I wonder if she would explain just what she meant by that??? Or would that be called calumny ?
Annunciata (Post # 50)

 

[katherine2]

Fiat:

Dear Katherine2:

First, you raise a very valid point regarding the necessity of civil laws in spite of the fact that they can’t sufficiently replace the greater need for spiritual attention… …

Because secular avenues already exist for addressing abuse problems from criminal and civil perspectives, the Church may properly address the spiritual avenue of the problem.

Since the civil arena is the only arena in which to address the problem secularly, for what purpose is VOTF expending its efforts within the Church, particularly when the Church only has the constitutional right to function sacramentally within ecclesial jurisdiction. Now, if the additional measures of protection and/or punishment are sought in ecclesial realms only, then I think you have an additional hurdle to overcome in finding authority within Tradition that subjects the Church (by which I means its hierarchy) to a judiciary of laity. There isn’t Biblical authority for that is there? I’ve never seen any Oral Tradition authority for that? The further offense that VOTF raises is that it lacks any sort of external check and balance of itself.

Peace,
Fiat

Fiat,

Thank you for your response. I agree with you on the importance of both secular civil protections for children and the Church’s spiritual work to protect children. I think those to needs do not preclude a third – that the Church have internal policies and protocols for guarding against child abuse. The Church has long maintained that it is legitimate that she have internal rules and policies and disciplines.

On your last point, of checks and balances, I’m not sure what you are getting at. At present time VOTF has no authority. It has no power other than to offer its views.

But I think your principal point is to the question of the authority within Tradition that subjects the hierarchy to a judiciary of laity. You ask “There isn’t Biblical authority for that is there? I’ve never seen any Oral Tradition authority for that?”

I would disagree. Parents have a natural law right and obligation to raise and protect their children. They also have a right and obligation to see that their children are raised in the faith and have access to the sacraments. These two duties together require parents to have their children at times unsupervised by them. Given the fallen nature of man, we know bad things can happen (certainly the newspapers have let us know). Catholic parents and the hierarchy must colaborate to insure that policies and practices are in place that both allow parents to know that they are fullfilling their duties to protect their children while allowing the church’s pastoral and sacramental functions to go forward.

 

[katherine2]

some sections of canon law pertaining to the laity:

§2 Christ’s faithful are at liberty to make known their needs, especially their spiritual needs, and their wishes to the Pastors of the Church.

§3 They have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church. They have the right also to make their views known to others of Christ’s faithful, but in doing so they must always respect the integrity of faith and morals, show due reverence to the Pastors and take into account both the common good and the dignity of individuals.

Can. 215 Christ’s faithful may freely establish and direct associations which serve charitable or pious purposes or which foster the Christian vocation in the world, and they may hold meetings to pursue these purposes by common effort.

Can. 216 Since they share the Church’s mission, all Christ’s faithful have the right to promote and support apostolic action, by their own initiative, undertaken according to their state and condition.

§2 Because they gave life to their children, parents have the most serious obligation and the right to educate them. It is therefore primarily the responsibility of Christian parents to ensure the Christian education of their children in accordance with the teaching of the Church

Can. 492 §1 In each diocese a finance committee is to be established, presided over by the diocesan Bishop or his delegate. It is to be composed of at least three of the faithful, expert in financial affairs and civil law, of outstanding integrity, and appointed by the Bishop.

§2 The members of the finance committee are appointed for five years but when this period has expired they may be appointed for further terms of five years.

§3 Persons related to the Bishop up to the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity are excluded from the finance committee.

Can. 493 Besides the functions entrusted to it in Book V on ‘The Temporal Goods of the Church’, it is the responsibility of the finance committee to prepare each year a budget of income and expenditure over the coming year for the governance of the whole diocese, in accordance with the direction of the diocesan Bishop. It is also the responsibility of the committee to account at the end of the year for income and expenditure.

 

[katherine2]

§2 Before all others, parents are bound to form their children, by word and example, in faith and in christian living. The same obligation binds godparents and those who take the place of parents

Can. 1277 In carrying out acts of administration which, in the light of the financial situation of the diocese, are of major importance, the diocesan Bishop must consult the finance committee and the college of consultors. For acts of extraordinary administration, except in cases expressly provided for in the universal law or stated in the documents of foundation, the diocesan Bishop needs the consent of the committee and of the college of consultors.

Can. 1287 §1 Where ecclesiastical goods of any kind are not lawfully withdrawn from the power of governance of the diocesan Bishop, their administrators, both clerical and lay, are bound to submit each year to the local Ordinary an account of their administration, which he is to pass on to his finance committee for examination. Any contrary custom is reprobated.

Can. 50 Before issuing a singular decree, the person in authority is to seek the necessary information and proof and, as far as possible, is to consult those whose rights could be harmed.

 

[Fiat]

Dear Katherin2:

I’ve been having some computer problems, so I hope my hard-drive doesn’t crash before I finish this post. I’ll give it a shot…

You stated:

Parents have a natural law right and obligation to raise and protect their children. They also have a right and obligation to see that their children are raised in the faith and have access to the sacraments. These two duties together require parents to have their children at times unsupervised by them. Given the fallen nature of man, we know bad things can happen (certainly the newspapers have let us know). Catholic parents and the hierarchy must colaborate to insure that policies and practices are in place that both allow parents to know that they are fullfilling their duties to protect their children while allowing the church’s pastoral and sacramental functions to go forward

I won’t disagree with you here. There’s no question that parents have the natural right and obligation to raise their children in the faith and in the sacraments and, at the same time, make certain their children are protected. That’s not what is at issue, here. What is at issue is how do we sanctify the priesthood; how do we sanctify the laity; how do we sanctify those in consecrated life, etc. To impose policies and accountability measures is to a large extent fruitless, really. That was my point a few posts back. Look, we Americans cannot even protect our own prisoners from drugs within the prison; from murder within the prison; from rape wihtin the prison; from assault and battery within the prison. No amount of “laity watch protection programs” is going to change the fact that evil and wickedness exist. The solution remains in the sacramental life of the Church. I’m convinced of this.

You indicated that Voice of the Faithful involves the laity expressing their opinions. I have no problem with free debate, although some of my difficulty is with the degree to which they express those opinions and hold others, including the Ordained in contempt when those opinions are disagreed with. (I’m referring to a specific incident here, and I don’t at all mean to impugn all VOTF members. Those of us suspicious of VOTF can also express opinions uncharitably.) But, isn’t it fair to say that VOTF involves much much more than just encouraging the laity to express their opinions. In choosing a motto, organizing chapters, distributing awards, etc., doesn’t VOTF give the impression that opinions are fine as long as they are unified with the VOTF mission, whatever that may be? (we’ve already discussed VOTF’s vagueness ad nauseum).

As for the Canon Law sections. I appreciate you posting that here. I had a conversation with a VOTF member last year, and he also referred me to those sections. The problem is that Canon Law is not authority. Canon law is a PRODUCT of authority. Authority remains in scripture, oral tradition, and magisterium. Canon law may provide a space in which to test procedures and policies, but it can’t grant any right. Forgive the legal analysis, but it’s stimilar to state law. No citizen of any U.S. state can ever know whether any state law is constitutional or not until it’s been tested by the U.S. Supreme Court. What I was interested in is whether there is any AUTHORITY that actually permits a nonordained holding the ordained to formal accountability.

 

[Fiat]

(continued)

Finally, in your last post, you indicated that the Church isn’t simply the repository of Truth, but it is also the Mystical Body of Christ for souls on a pilgrimage. I won’t disagree with you here, either. But, I would clarify that this characterization of the Church doesn’t change Truth. In fact, the very pilgrimage we are on individually and communally is a journey toward that Truth, but the Truth itself is not on a pilgrimage. The Truth already exists and can’t be tampered with. The Church already possesses this Truth fully, unless you believe that public revelation has not ended.

If structure, policy, doctrine, dogma, etc., are all a part of that Truth, or in the very least affect that truth, then what implications will this have for VOTF setting policy when it asserts that the faith will remain the same? It seems to me that VOTF has to create a fiction. It must create the fiction that Truth stands outside of Structure; that Truth stands outside of Policy; that Truth stands outside of Mission.

Your brother,
Fiat

 

[katherine2]

Fiat:

Dear Katherin2:

I’ve been having some computer problems, so I hope my hard-drive doesn’t crash before I finish this post. I’ll give it a shot…

The saints protected you!! Fiat, the more we dialogue I don’t think we have that deep of differences. Let me try to add some light to my views.

There’s no question that parents have the natural right and obligation to raise their children in the faith and in the sacraments and, at the same time, make certain their children are protected. That’s not what is at issue, here. What is at issue is how do we sanctify the priesthood; how do we sanctify the laity; how do we sanctify those in consecrated life, etc. To impose policies and accountability measures is to a large extent fruitless, really. …No amount of “laity watch protection programs” is going to change the fact that evil and wickedness exist. The solution remains in the sacramental life of the Church. I’m convinced of this.

Yes. I would like to see sancifying grace work its will on thieves, but I am still going to bolt my door at night.

You indicated that Voice of the Faithful involves the laity expressing their opinions. I have no problem with free debate,

I think that puts us in at least 50% of agreement.

But, isn’t it fair to say that VOTF involves much much more than just encouraging the laity to express their opinions. In choosing a motto, organizing chapters, distributing awards, etc., doesn’t VOTF give the impression that opinions are fine as long as they are unified with the VOTF mission, whatever that may be?

More, yes. Like any voluntary organization, it comes to conclusions and then acts in support of those conclusions. Its good to be broad and diverse but as a private voluntary organizaion evolves, some members might decide they are best off elsewhere. Such is the nature of things.

Authority remains in scripture, oral tradition, and magisterium.

TEACHING authority (limited to faith and morals) remains there. The actions of the hierachy are not limited exclusively to matters of faith and morals. And in these cases, their authority is not unlimited. Parents have the primary authority to raise their children. Hierarchs do not have the authority over the faithful for the selection of spouses, for example.

 

[katherine2]

quote=Fiat

the Church doesn’t change Truth.
[/quote]

agreed.

If structure, policy, doctrine, dogma, etc., are all a part of that Truth, or in the very least affect that truth, then what implications will this have for VOTF setting policy when it asserts that the faith will remain the same? It seems to me that VOTF has to create a fiction. It must create the fiction that Truth stands outside of Structure; that Truth stands outside of Policy; that Truth stands outside of Mission.

Your brother,
Fiat

You ask “what implications will this have for VOTF setting policy.” This may be the point of your misunderstanding. VOTF is not asking that it be given the authority to set policy. They are looking at models that involve the laity more fully in this.

Now, let take policies which are indireclty related to truth. Let me make up an example. A bishop, not as a dogma of the church or a matter of Catholic Truth, but indirectly relating to the promotion of truth wishes to see that his priests are properly educated in Christian dogma. However, his diocese includes a strongly distinct social subgroup that, maybe even from unjustice reasons, has no members with access to higher education, resulting in not a single priest of their language or culture.

Is it wrong for members of that subgroup to organize to their community and expect the bishop to consult with them on this matter?

 

[Fiat]

Dear Katherine 2:

You stated:

VOTF is not asking that it be given the authority to set policy. They are looking at models that involve the laity more fully in this

You lost me here. You say “they are looking at models that involve the laity more fully in this.” Does the “this” refer to setting policy which you deny VOTF wishes to do?

You provide the following example:

A bishop wishes to see that his priests are properly educated in Christian dogma. However, his diocese includes a strongly distinct social subgroup that, maybe even from unjustice reasons, has no members with access to higher education, resulting in not a single priest of their language or culture.

The problem with your example is that the Holy Spirit is the one that should be calling men into the priesthood. Not some committee through which educational opportunities for members of a social subgroup are advanced. You lost me a little here, too, and also raised another red flag for me.

You stated:

Yes. I would like to see sancifying grace work its will on thieves, but I am still going to bolt my door at night.

Yes, please lock your door, but don’t cry “burglar” at the innocent man walking on the sidewalk in front of your house. Don’t encumber the innocent man with a yoke of evaluations and accountability meetings; don’t falsely imprison him in red tape and whatever else is possible so that he can no longer walk, he’s so burdened. We are, after all, talking about the man who brings us Our Lord in the sacraments.
Jesus’s great commission to the Apostles was to baptize all nations, teaching them to observe all that Jesus commanded. This evangelical witness is the mission of the Church. If VOTF’s philosophy and agenda is not aligned with the Church’s mission, and if VOTF’s philosophy and agenda doesn’t, at the bare minimum, support the Church in Her mission, then something truly wicked is afoot. We both have seen some obvious distaste for VOTF here. I, admittedly, harbor my own disdain for VOTF. It is VOTF’s obligation to deal with that disdain because VOTF has created it for itself: perhaps it’s because it’s still swimming around in the JOCist pool and hasn’t clarified an agenda; perhaps it hasn’t established or convinced us that it truly is interested in supporting the Church in Her mission; perhaps it is seen as misidentifying the problem and solution (this is my personal criticism of VOTF). Whatever the reason for the disdain, the disdain exists.

When it comes to drafting policy or legislating laws, the inevitable concern becomes one of line-drawing. VOTF needs to ask itself what it needs to do in order to convince someone like me that it is able to draw the line appropriately so that the possibilities of the Great Commission are advanced. So far, VOTF has failed many of us in this.

Second, the issue of faith and morals pertains to papal infallibility. The issue of TRUTH exists beyond faith and morals as evidenced by mathematical truths, for example. The truth of two plus two equaling four has nothing to do with faith and morals but it is still Truth nonetheless. Therefore, even though a “policy” may not deal directly with faith and morals from one person’s perspective does not, and in fact, cannot mean it isn’t under the jurisdiction of TRUTH. Again, the proposition that Truth can be separated from any facet of life is a little difficult for me to swallow.

I think what’s clear is that you and I both have the Church’s best interest in mind. Our perspectives are different, though. Perhaps we disagree with how problems are best dealt with, and perhaps we disagree with what those problems even are. Nonetheless, it is my prayer that if, in fact, you are a member of VOTF, that you take my concerns and my position into your chapter meetings. If VOTF isn’t aware of some of these issues and concerns, perhaps they will be now.

Your brother,

Fiat

 

[katherine2]

Fiat:

Dear Katherine 2:

You stated:
You lost me here. You say “they are looking at models that involve the laity more fully in this.” Does the “this” refer to setting policy which you deny VOTF wishes to do?

To illustrate, I think VOTF might propose a system of consultation with a parish regarding its potential dissolution. Or a system of consultation with school parents over polices at the parish school. I don’t think VOTF is proposing that it be given the authority to set policies for parish dissolutions or for schools.

You provide the following example:
The problem with your example is that the Holy Spirit is the one that should be calling men into the priesthood. Not some committee through which educational opportunities for members of a social subgroup are advanced. You lost me a little here, too, and also raised another red flag for me.

So do the current educational requirements for ordiantion (M.Div. from an accredited institution) stand in the way of the Holy Spirit?

When it comes to drafting policy or legislating laws, the inevitable concern becomes one of line-drawing. VOTF needs to ask itself what it needs to do in order to convince someone like me that it is able to draw the line appropriately so that the possibilities of the Great Commission are advanced. So far, VOTF has failed many of us in this.

That is a very valid point. But it seems to acept that the issue here is one of degree, not kind. The initiative (VOTF) is not by its very nature wrong, but it depends on how it navigates some very narrow lines. We have experienced a terrible loss of confidence with those who we thought were taking every precaution to protect our children. I think given this crisis, we do need to welcome every initiative to address this issue.

I understand the reservations you have. I also see that many of VOTF critics started making their attacks on day one, before it had any chance to act. Some of the criticism seems to come from nothing more than a defense of clericalism and a fear that the laity are not God’s Holy People, filled with grace from their baptism, but near criminals on the border of recidivism and who need to be closely supervised and controlled. I think such an additude is harmful to the well being of the community of faith.

Second, the issue of faith and morals pertains to papal infallibility. The issue of TRUTH exists beyond faith and morals as evidenced by mathematical truths, for example. The truth of two plus two equaling four has nothing to do with faith and morals but it is still Truth nonetheless. Therefore, even though a “policy” may not deal directly with faith and morals from one person’s perspective does not, and in fact, cannot mean it isn’t under the jurisdiction of TRUTH. Again, the proposition that Truth can be separated from any facet of life is a little difficult for me to swallow.

I totally agree with you. I also hold that the hierachy has no special access to mathematical truths. In fact, on such matters, the counsel of the laity, particularly those members of the laity training in mathematical sciences, can be of serve to thir ministry.

I think what’s clear is that you and I both have the Church’s best interest in mind. Our perspectives are different, though. Perhaps we disagree with how problems are best dealt with, and perhaps we disagree with what those problems even are. Nonetheless, it is my prayer that if, in fact, you are a member of VOTF, that you take my concerns and my position into your chapter meetings. If VOTF isn’t aware of some of these issues and concerns, perhaps they will be now.

Your brother,

Fiat

Thank you for your kind words. I too believe we both have the church’s best interests in us. I think you have some valid concerns. I intend to take them to heart.

 

[Coder]

katherine2:

Some of the criticism seems to come from nothing more than a defense of clericalism and a fear that the laity are not God’s Holy People, filled with grace from their baptism, but near criminals on the border of recidivism and who need to be closely supervised and controlled.

Not at all. VOTF does not represent truly Catholic laity. I’m all for laity and I trust them. I just don’t trust the laity in VOTF. I trust the laity that run Catholic Answers. I trust that laity that run the Couple to Couple League. I trust the laity that run many other truly faithful Catholic groups.

I do not trust the laity and clergy that run VOTF. Another one of VOTFs lies is that they represent the laity. They dont represent me and other laity - I’ll tell you that much.

 

[Nate]

Coder:

Not at all. VOTF does not represent truly Catholic laity. I’m all for laity and I trust them. I just don’t trust the laity in VOTF. I trust the laity that run Catholic Answers. I trust that laity that run the Couple to Couple League. I trust the laity that run many other truly faithful Catholic groups.

I do not trust the laity and clergy that run VOTF. Another one of VOTFs lies is that they represent the laity. They dont represent me and other laity - I’ll tell you that much.

Hi Coder,
I dont really know beans about VOF, except what I have read, but I do believe the current structure of the Church can be improved. A lay oversight board may not have prevented some priest from molesting a ten year old, but it might have prevented a bishop from ignoring complaints about him, or just tranferring him to another parish where he could do the same thing.

I have heard of parishes that were closed even though its people were willing and able to support it. I have experienced a thriving school being sold to obtain funds to pay off sex abuse bills. I have experienced parishes being expensively renovated without the need, consultation or agreement of the people expected to pay for it.

You may not trust VOF, but what other lay organization do you know of, that is trying to address these problems rather than just ignore them? Please give me the name of it. There is certainly a danger that VOF will be coopted by dissenters and fail to correct any of these abuses, or generate even worse ones, but is the best way to avoid that, for good people to shun it, or to join it to keep that from happening? It seems that by bad mouthing it we insure what we fear.