VOTF

[katherine2]

aridite:

Its just that VOTF’s stated goal and objectives are so vacuous and thin, that they don’t bear discussion. Have they made proposals? Pray, present one for discussion. The only concrete relevant proposal on this thread (besides an oath of fidelity) was Weeorphan’s proposal that Pastoral/Finance committee have veto power over the expenditures of a parish’s pastor. I think I showed that that would effectively entail control over doctrinal/pastoral issues, which would change Church structure to such an extent that it we no longer kept the same faith.

Let’s put this forward – the frist thing to be done is to start enforcing EXISTING law. I don’'t know how anti-VOTF can claim people are dissenters and heretics because they ask that matters that are currently in canon law simply be rigourosuly enforced (isn’t that what conservatives generally want?).

So let’s have some teeth in the following laws:

1. The canonical requirement that each Catholic parish have a Finance Council and a Pastoral Council be strictly enforced in the United States. Let’s require that communities that do not have both within 12 months shall loose their status as parishes.
2. Canon law requires the pastor to consult with these committees on certain matters. Later we can have a discussion if the subjects of mandatory consultation be expanded. But for now, let enforce the current law. If a pastor makes an expenditure he is required to consult with the parish finance council and does not consult, he be deemed guilty of fraud and subject to appropriate civil and church penalties. The same for the pastoral council. If he fails to consult on a matter he is required to, the pastor’s action is null and void.
3. The names of the members of the Pastoral and Finance Councils be published on the front page of the Church bulletin.
4. Meaningful consultation means informed consultation. Both councils should have full access to any and all parish documents neccesary for their work.
5. The minutes of the pastoral and finance council shall be available to any member of the parish upon request.

 

[Fiat]

Dear Katherine:

You stated:

I would welcome a critical discussion on VOTF’s stated goals, objectives and proposals. I have had a hard time getting anyone to that point of the discussion. Certainly baseless acusations don’t do anything but cause a distraction from a meaningful discussion

If you recall from my previous discussion with you on the thread entitled “Voice of the Faithful?”, I tried having a discussion with you about the stated goals, objectives, and proposals of VOTF. You sidestepped the issue in your post #48 by saying that “VOTF’s agenda is a work in progress”. Has VOTF now, within the past month, clarified their bizarre mission statement and agenda?

Also, I personally have no problem with seeking enforcement of lay finance councils, but isn’t it fair to say that VOTF’s agenda (does one exist or not) goes beyond creating parish finance councils? Or, can you now go on the record that VOTF is only concerned with Parish Finance Councils?

If VOTF has a public relations problem with “conservative” Catholics, it is because VOTF has projected an image of itself. Whether the image projected was intentional or not is still VOTF’s problem to deal with, and anyone and everyone ought to have the right to question VOTF however pointedly they like.

Fiat

 

[aridite]

katherine2:

the chronicling of the critics of VOTF has been somewhere between flimsy to non-existant.

Not one critic of VOTF has the guts to defend the McCarthyistic rant Exporter posted. Every accusation against VOTF when examined thurns out to be untrue, unprincipled or opinion.

This seems excessively strong. The evidence of collusion with dissenters is enough to convince me not to trust VOTF, but of course this is just where we disagree.

katherine2:

Some of its critics have expressed heresy in their claim that VOTF is heretical.

This is just silly. Even if VOTF’s critics are sinful liars, where is even the basis for the suggestion that there is heresy. I expect you would say that there is as much evidence of VOTF’s heresy as there is for VOTF’s critics. But what you are thereby saying is that you yourself have no basis to be calling VOTF’s critics heretics (since you believe VOTF is not either). Again, you of all people should be sensitive to careless accusations of heresy.

Honestly, why do you take the bait of every challange to VOTF’s orthodoxy? For some time now, you have not been saying anything more or less in defense of VOTF than there is not explicit evidence by the leadership of VOTF that they are heterodox. That’s your story, and you’re sticking to it. Fine. You want to move on, move on. But, really, it does seem like a case of “methinks she doth protest too much.”

 

[aridite]

What follows are honest questions, and I have no preconceived ideas about the implimentation of existing laws.

katherine2:

1. The canonical requirement that each Catholic parish have a Finance Council and a Pastoral Council be strictly enforced in the United States. Let’s require that communities that do not have both within 12 months shall loose their status as parishes.

Are there not valid pastoral/practical reasons for a parish not having said councils?

2. Canon law requires the pastor to consult with these committees on certain matters. Later we can have a discussion if the subjects of mandatory consultation be expanded. But for now, let enforce the current law. If a pastor makes an expenditure he is required to consult with the parish finance council and does not consult, he be deemed guilty of fraud and subject to appropriate civil and church penalties. The same for the pastoral council. If he fails to consult on a matter he is required to, the pastor’s action is null and void.

Tying the pastors hands in this way seems to infringe on his canonical and legal right as pastor. Shouldn’t there be a manditory review by the bishop or chancery instead. How is your system different than veto power for the councils, on the one hand, or have the danger of being mere empty formalism/rubberstamp? Is it possible to create a system that precludes sin and vice, and guarantees virtue?

3. The names of the members of the Pastoral and Finance Councils be published on the front page of the Church bulletin.

1. Meaningful consultation means informed consultation. Both councils should have full access to any and all parish documents neccesary for their work.
2. The minutes of the pastoral and finance council shall be available to any member of the parish upon request.

Are these real problems in a lot of parishes?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Hmmmm… Whatever their agenda, the VOTF seems to me to not have their poop in a group.

I’ll stick with the Knights of Columbus.

 

[katherine2]

Fiat:

Dear Katherine:

Also, I personally have no problem with seeking enforcement of lay finance councils, but isn’t it fair to say that VOTF’s agenda (does one exist or not) goes beyond creating parish finance councils? Or, can you now go on the record that VOTF is only concerned with Parish Finance Councils?

well, I think that is wonderful. see, we can come with common goals and objectives. wouldn’t it be best to take it one step at a time and see how far we get?

If VOTF has a public relations problem with “conservative” Catholics, it is because VOTF has projected an image of itself. Whether the image projected was intentional or not is still VOTF’s problem to deal with, and anyone and everyone ought to have the right to question VOTF however pointedly they like.

Fiat

Actually, when the general public has been survey, a good number of self-described conservative catholics are quite sympathetic with VOTF. It seems to be a handful of extremists who are the objectors.

 

[katherine2]

aridite:

This seems excessively strong. The evidence of collusion with dissenters is enough to convince me not to trust VOTF, but of course this is just where we disagree.

you are convinced not to trust because of some degree of evidence of collusion. fine. go with your gut feelings.

Even if VOTF’s critics are sinful liars, where is even the basis for the suggestion that there is heresy. I expect you would say that there is as much evidence of VOTF’s heresy as there is for VOTF’s critics. But what you are thereby saying is that you yourself have no basis to be calling VOTF’s critics heretics (since you believe VOTF is not either). Again, you of all people should be sensitive to careless accusations of heresy.

The heresy I had in mind was the assertion that clerical celibacy is an article of the Catholic faith.

 

[katherine2]

aridite:

What follows are honest questions, and I have no preconceived ideas about the implimentation of existing laws.

Are there not valid pastoral/practical reasons for a parish not having said councils?

I cant’ think of any. Does anyone else have any thoughts? (of course, this would be the practice of discussion and discernment some find troubling).

Tying the pastors hands in this way seems to infringe on his canonical and legal right as pastor.

How is it a violation of the pastor’s canonical rights when he violates the laity’s canonical rights? The suggestion was not to expand or contract anyone’s canonical rights. it was simply to impose a penality (or really a nullity of the action) when rights were violated.

How is your system different than veto power for the councils, on the one hand, or have the danger of being mere empty formalism/rubberstamp?

The suggestion was that the pastor should consult with the council. Once he has consulted, he might accept the advice or follow a different course, so I don’t see how this is a veto. It is possible a pastor would go through the motions of consultation and not take the laity seriously, i.e. empty formalism? Yes, that is a real concern. So, this proposal assumes good faith on the pastor’s part and procedes with a moderation that may prove to be too modest for what’s required. But don’t these suggest that the proponets of such an initiative are just a type of moderate/conservative Catholics – presuming the good faith of their pastor and proceding cautiously and mildly in any reform?

Is it possible to create a system that precludes sin and vice, and guarantees virtue?

Precludes? I don’ think so. But you know the old saying – sunlight is the greatest disinfectnent.

Are these real problems in a lot of parishes?

In various degrees, yes.

 

[aridite]

katherine2:

I cant’ think of any. Does anyone else have any thoughts? (of course, this would be the practice of discussion and discernment some find troubling).

Do you want to have a discussion, or do you want to pick a fight? (I know, that question is kind of moot, but maybe we can get beyond bickering.)

I’m all for following Canon Law. I’m no canonist, though. Doesn’t it already impose a penalty for its violation? Wouldn’t review by the bishop/presbyteral council of transgrations be more prudent – taylored to particular circumstances instead of an axe falling and removing parish status? Wouldn’t removing the parish status hurt the faithful?

But to the broader point. Are you saying that VOTF only wants the Church’s pastors to follow existing Canon Law, or to begin by following Canon Law, and if problems still exist, to enact new regulations? Or perhaps they want some other, as yet unspecified reforms? I’m just asking.

 

[Theodred]

katherine2:

She can be. But if she is not Catholic, she is hardly fullfilling her vocation as a faithful lay Catholic.

Katherine, if you are still holding to “many of these people were not Catholic”, its bunk, Katherine. Every non-clerical person involved in various diocesian administrative or consulting roles were Catholic in my own extensive eight year experience with the seminary and two dioceses. Can you show me these “many” non-Catholics associated with the consultation received by Bernard Cardinal Law?

You are depending on a red herring in order to avoid treating the challenge to your position.

 

[Riley259]

Coder:

Does VOTF generally represent your faith and beliefs?

Welcome fellow Mass. resident!

I agree with you completely - VOTF is a wolf in sheep’s clothing and consists of a bunch of dissenters (many of them either confused or duped by more sinister influences) who are tearing at the unity of the Church. Thanks for the thread.

 

[Fiat]

Dear Katherine2:

You stated:

It seems to be a handful of extremists who are the objectors

Do I correctly understand you to say that those Catholics who object or are even suspicious of VOTF are “extremists” within the Church? Do you really think this is a fair and accurate caricature given the fact that most of the objectors I know are simply trying to figure out what VOTF is all about and walk away even more confused when we can’t get clear answers? What exactly is VOTF Faithful to? They certainly aren’t faithful to those of us in the laity who are trying to determine what VOTF’s agenda is? Of course, I have now learned from you that this is a futile task because according to your own admission, VOTF either (1) has no agenda or (2) its agenda is as of yet unknown since it is still a “work in progress”?

You may be assured that in my own diocese not only do we “extremist” Catholics object to VOTF, but so do we “conservative” Catholics. Also, so do we “moderate” Catholics. And finally, so do we “progressive” Catholics!

Fiat

 

[katherine2]

aridite:

Do you want to have a discussion, or do you want to pick a fight? (I know, that question is kind of moot, but maybe we can get beyond bickering.)

I’m all for following Canon Law. I’m no canonist, though. Doesn’t it already impose a penalty for its violation?

I don’t beleive so. Canon law requires pastoral and parish councils, but does not name a penalty if there is a violation.

Wouldn’t review by the bishop/presbyteral council of transgrations be more prudent – taylored to particular circumstances instead of an axe falling and removing parish status? Wouldn’t removing the parish status hurt the faithful?

That’s a legitimate point. If we can agree with goal of enforcing the canonical requirement for pastoral and finance councils is desirable, certainly we could tinker around with what is the most effective means of reaching this goal.

But to the broader point. Are you saying that VOTF only wants the Church’s pastors to follow existing Canon Law, or to begin by following Canon Law, and if problems still exist, to enact new regulations? Or perhaps they want some other, as yet unspecified reforms? I’m just asking.

It seems self-evident to me that you adopt a proposal and its effective, your job is done. If not, you need to either go farther or in a different direction. Until you know if “Plan A” works, it doesn’t seem productive to either start developing all the finer details of “Plan B” nor closing the door to a “Plan B.”

 

[katherine2]

Théodred:

Katherine, if you are still holding to “many of these people were not Catholic”, its bunk, Katherine. Every non-clerical person involved in various diocesian administrative or consulting roles were Catholic in my own extensive eight year experience with the seminary…

Previously you posted: “On the contrary the vast majority of lay people employed by bishops for various administrative and consulting positions are and were Catholic”

The two crafts originally mentioned in this were lawyers and mental heath professionals. The hiring was frequently law firms not individual lawyers. Can you explain hwo a firm is “Catholic”?

 

[katherine2]

Fiat:

Dear Katherine2:

You stated:

Do I correctly understand you to say that those Catholics who object or are even suspicious of VOTF are “extremists” within the Church?

I didn’t say those who are suspcious are extremists. Nor those who are “trying to figure [it] out” nor those who are “confused” nor have questions.

We do have posts on this board such as the one Exporter posted any no one here even want to defend where McCarthyistic tactics are used to damn VOTF.

I think McCarthyism is extremism and I am happy to stand by that.

 

[Theodred]

katherine2:

Previously you posted: “On the contrary the vast majority of lay people employed by bishops for various administrative and consulting positions are and were Catholic”

The two crafts originally mentioned in this were lawyers and mental heath professionals. The hiring was frequently law firms not individual lawyers. Can you explain hwo a firm is “Catholic”?

Katherine, cut it out. If you can’t prove your point (I asked you to substantiate your claim that “many” of these hired professionals that consulted Cardinal Law were not Catholic), then please just move on and address the more relevant points I have made.

 

[Fiat]

Dear Katherine:

You stated:

The hiring was frequently law firms not individual lawyers. Can you explain hwo a firm is “Catholic”?

As an attorney, I will clarify that law firms are never hired, although this is the language media or clients may use. Individual lawyers represent clients, even though sometimes individual lawyers work corporately. Therefore, it is correct to assert that dioceses hire Catholic lawyers.

Fiat

 

[katherine2]

Théodred:

Katherine, …please just move on and address the more relevant points I have made.

Well, answering your irrelevant points is becoming tiresome.

 

[aridite]

katherine2:

It seems self-evident to me that you adopt a proposal and its effective, your job is done. If not, you need to either go farther or in a different direction. Until you know if “Plan A” works, it doesn’t seem productive to either start developing all the finer details of “Plan B” nor closing the door to a “Plan B.”

Ok katherine2, so you’re saying VOTF’s short term goal is the enforcement of Canon Law. That may or not be enough, but they don’t want to close options permaturely. So, they’re NOT calling for structural change, (as opposed to doctrinal change, which you continue to maintain they’re not interested in either), just structural integrity (for now). Is this the only change are they calling for? (And theological conferences help this agenda, how?)

Also, I don’t see how enforsing the canonical requirements for Pastoral Councils and Finance Councils would have prevented the sex abuse scandal. If VOTF has a legitimate aim of canonical reform, isn’t at least opportunistic to link it with the sex abuse scandal?

Even if they get their canonical integrity or canonical reforms, how does this address the spiritual malaise and dissent that is the real source of the sex abuse scandal?

 

[fix]

katherine2:

Actually, when the general public has been survey, a good number of self-described conservative catholics are quite sympathetic with VOTF. It seems to be a handful of extremists who are the objectors.

Self described are the operative words. Can you list any authentically orthodox Catholics who support VOTF? I would be referring to those who have researched the founders and higher- ups in VOTF.

We see no shortage of heterodox, dissenters in that group and in its supporters.