Okay. So this is a matter of yoru personal negative judgement and distrust of a group of people from whom I take it you have limited or no interaction. Fine. You don’t trust them. I got a list of people I don’t trust. Go and be well.
Again, not true. I know about some of the people who are involved (some are even from the parish in my town). I also know that many of the leaders of VOTF are dissenters. Their documents that I have spelled out right here show clearly that they are a dissenting group.
No, it is a matter of my love for Jesus. There is a glory and transcendent power of the true faith that has been obscured. Anyone who has tasted this knows God who I speak of.
Catholic Answers. By teaching the true faith without compromise.
You own posts on this matter have already been proven to be fabrications on your part.
Certainly God calls upon you to use the reasoning and judgement you have been given. I understand you find VOTF problematic. I respect your private judgement on this.
Yes, their is doubt. The documents you earlier referenced were not documents of VOTF nor authored by VOTF’s leadership. Their is no evidence that VOTF is pushing for contraception or women’s ordination. But there is evidence that others unjustly raise this mistruth as a way discrediting VOTF.
I’m sorry I don’t merit the presumption of faithfulness in your mind.
Very likely. We know for a fact that James misrepresented Fr. Doyle and I’ve not found anything other than the claims of a proven misrepresenter as to Fr. Doyle’s lecture.
Annunciata
Who are “we” and how do “we know for a fact”? If one cannot trust the many eyewitnesses to dissenting statements uttered by VOTF representatives, how can we trust you, katherine2?
What has anyone said that shows that they do not in fact love orthodoxy, but rather fears “tough questions” (presumably about administration – for that is all we can agree is a legitimate aim of VOTF). If by “tough questions” you mean attacks on doctrine, I recoil, not out of fear, but from a distain for falsehood. Are you saying, that ipso facto, opposition to VOTF is to fear reform, and be disingenous in one’s call for orthodoxy?
You are part of a public debate. Those opposed to VOTF raise tough questions, and get answers (it is for the reader to judge the adequacy of the answers). VOTF continues to make presentations. This is hardly censorship. Simply because I disagree with you, does not mean I want to deny you your rights and dignity. As has been said before, some rank-and-file members of VOTF are well-intentioned, but that is not enough IMHO to legitimate the organization. Not all movements of reform in the Church progress well or end happily.
Right. That’s why I said I would charitably and patiently discuss Holy Orders, etc. as a spiritual work of mercy: instuction for the ignorant, counselling for the doubtful or admonishment of the sinner. The (glaringly) ignorant, doubtful or sinful should not be the ones forming the agenda for lay representation. [Yes, I realize we are all to greater and lesser degrees ignorant, in doubt and sinful, and some of our bishops have been egregiously so. This is just what needs to be reformed. But it is counter-productive, to say the least, to ask the (glaringly) ignorant, doubtful and sinful to overcome ignorance, doubt and sin.]
As I have acknowledged others the right to have their suspicions I will state now that yes, that is my suspicion.
Yes. Not timid. Clear and without reservation. I don’t notice you making a profession of faith before every post.
And that the rub. They have affirmed their faithfulness. But to you that’s not good enough. They have to make Herculean, extraordinary, detailed, repetitive, verified proofs of faithfulness. The simple People of God are not theologians. They have every right to associate for the purpose of bringing their concerns to their pastors. If they can affirm the Nicene Creed, (amybe even less) their pastors should listen to them. What garbage that good simple Catholics should have their human dignity ignored because they don’t humor the Spanish Inquistition.
No disagreement if you position is you don’t fidn VOTF pleasing. Others have gone further. They demand censoring it, shutting it down, etc.
I affirm, hold and believe all that the Roman Catholic Church affirms, holds and believes. Just to be clear, that includes the belief that only males are able to be ordained to the ministerial priesthood and that the use of contraception merely to regulate births is gravely immoral. I apologize if anything I have said has led anyone to come to the conclusion that I do not fully support the Magisterium. Care to join me in this profession?
I’ll take you at your word, and accept that you really believe that VOTF fully, unconditionally and without reservation supports everything proposed for belief and enjoined as a rule of behavior by the teaching authority of the Church. So far all you’ve ever claimed is that there is no proof of dissent among VOTF leadership – I’ll accept, for the sake of argument, that that is proof of fidelity. But, honestly, are you really confused as to why people have their reservations? You really believe it is unfounded for people to look at the speakers VOTF chooses to have address them, and wonder about the orthodoxy of VOTF. As I said before, I’m not looking for an extraordinary declaration of orthodoxy, but an ordinary censure of heterodoxy. Has VOTF decried the heterodox positions posted on their website? Would you care to admit that some of them are heterodox?
Which is precisely why it is confusing why they should sponsor a conference at which theologians presented theological papers.
Whoa, I wasn’t expecting the Spanish Inquisition! (NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!)
Dissenters are people, too, and they have their legitimate rights. We should love them, pray for their conversion. Instruct, console, admonish. But, for the life of me, I cannot understand why you think we should consider their dissent when determining how best to protect children. Mothers (even those who have questions about women priests) do have something to contribute about how to protect children. I’m just saying that the questions don’t. Entertaining the questions only serves to undermine the authority they claim to support, and confuse the rest of us about their true motives.
I think I missed those posts.
You may have set me up to perfectly explain my position.
No, I’m not confused. I have a pretty good idea why some people have reservations about VOTF.
No need to apologize. I was deliberately setting you up for that
No. But to weed through a webpage finding something that I couldn’t find to save my life from their home page which werea few out of dozens of responses to an open forum and to make those the dominant characterization of an association over and above their stated principles does seem to g beyond noting a position is inconsistent with Church teaching and certainly misrepresenting who is taking that position.
We have a couple people on this board would get me nervous if I saw them coming towards me with a book of matches and a bundle of sticks. But not you, dear. I would assume you were just having a smoke.
I never said we should consider their dissent. But we might consider dissenters. I am not ashamed to say a mother who might dissent on whatever issue does not lose her natural law and canonical right to protect her children, nor does the hierarchy lose its obligation to respect her rights.
I didn’t think I was skipping over anything, but including everything. I’ll profess to any part or to a complete enumeration of all that Roman Catholic Church affirms, hold and believes. Nicene Creed, fine. Opposition to capital punishment, fine. Economic justice for workers, fine. Rights of parents to educate their children, fine. This our faith, this is the faith of the Church. I am proud to profess it.
Its the latre not the former, and this is not insignificant.
They have made a general statement of faithfulness. They choose not to respond and investigate every utterance for this perfect orthodoxy. That not the proper role of a lay organization, anyway.
How so?
.
Fr. Doyle was given the opportunity to speak. Worthiness is in the ear of the listener.
I certainly don’t recoil at any speaker. Any questions that Fr. Doyle may have posed have not been noted. What are problematic are his statements, which were derogatory about the Catholic hierarchy and Pope John Paul II. He also voiced his support for positions that are contrary to Catholic teaching and discipline. Fr. Doyle was not making his thoughts known to his bishop or to the bishops collectively; he was speaking to laity in an attempt to persuade them of the rectitude of his ideas. In so doing, he betrayed his dissidence. Unless you question the hearing of those present, there has been no misrepresentation of Fr. Doyle.
Again, there has been no call for censorship. Fr. Doyle was allowed to speak. Perhaps you confuse criticism of ideas with censorship.