VOTF

[aridite]

katherine2,

I realize I might be putting you in an awkward position of speaking on behalf of VOTF, since as I think you said, you are not their representative, and I don’t even think you’ve claimed to be a member. Can you provide any documentation that what you say VOTF is after in the way of canonical reforms really is their agenda. I’m sure you wouldn’t want us just to take your word for VOTF’s agenda, just as you don’t want us to take the word of others who allege to have heard dissent issuing from the mouths of VOTF representatives.

Thanks,

aridite

 

[katherine2]

aridite:

katherine2,

I realize I might be putting you in an awkward position of speaking on behalf of VOTF, since as I think you said, you are not their representative, and I don’t even think you’ve claimed to be a member. Can you provide any documentation that what you say VOTF is after in the way of canonical reforms really is their agenda. I’m sure you wouldn’t want us just to take your word for VOTF’s agenda, just as you don’t want us to take the word of others who allege to have heard dissent issuing from the mouths of VOTF representatives.

Thanks,

aridite

thank you. I am in a difficult position as I am not a spokesperson for VOTF. Some posters here seem to want very specific details as what would be the changes VOTF might bring about. I can only give my perspective. I’ve heard about people’s reservations concerning tone, suspcitions, feelings, degrees of separation, “hidden agendas”, etc. etc. Those are their feelings and I am at a loss to respond much to them as well.

The options seem to be we can have a discussion based on VOTF’s public and stated agenda, taking them at their word. Alternatively, I’m happy to take on the role as an example of what a VOTF sympathetic Catholic would like to see occur and, recognizing I can’t bind VOTF, come up with some idea of a direction.

I think those are the limits an internet discussion allows. I am pleased that once we began to get away from suspicions and into real actions, the level of disagreement seemed to lessen.

 

[fix]

Ms. Pieczynski ,

Advisor at VOTF conference at the

Hynes Auditorium ,Boston Ma

July 20 2002

*Former president of *Call to Action

*Present board member **Call to Action

• James Carroll ,fanatical Pope basher
  
  one of the major advisors to VOTF at the Hynes Auditorium July 20 , 2002

essage 5 of 14 Debra Haffner

Former president of SIECUS

(Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States).

Former Director of Counseling, Education, and Public Affairs for Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington,D.C…

*(reported by C.J.Doyle of the Catholic Action League in *

www.massnews.com/2002_editions/07_July/072202_mn_faithful.shtml.)

** Larry Kessler **Aids Action Committee Elected to VOTF steering committee 22 June 2002

  I am a member of Our Lady's parish, Newton. 


 <>In all I have spent 40 years working in Catholic social action inside the church, alongside the church and outside the church. Now it is clear to me that another opportunity to serve is presenting itself.   Beyond my considerable experience, I believe I would bring several other important things to the VOTF Council:   · I am an openly gay man.

 

[katherine2]

aridite:

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?

I think you have a proper understanding of the situation and you are using terms accurately and correctly. I thank you for that. I would just note that the enforcement of canon law on these matters is so far gone that to begin enforcing such would appear to be structural change and the reality is that the general public would understand it in those terms. I still think your description (“structual integrity”)is more accurate. I also think the enforcement of the current canons is so far gone that the spirit of these canons is absent. it would be a de facto change in that sense.

As was pointed out ealier and a point I readily admitted to, formal mechanism of consultation still could fail. Pastors need more than the canonical requirement of consultation but to have the true spirit of lay consultation. The form can help the reality but it does not guarantee it.

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?

Oh, its hard to hide large settlements if the finance council has access to the books. I fparish pastoral councils don’t exist or operate in secret, there is little chance the parent of an abused child would take this matter to the Council. Had that been done, things might have been better. Canon law requires consultation with the pastoral council on prieslty assignments. Does this mean a diocese must disclose to the council a new pastor or potential pastor has a history of abusing children? I don’t know. But I think that some abuse would have been prevented if parish councils got even a hint of the background of some of these abuser-priests who were passed around from parish to parish.

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?

Well, that is one philosophy as to the problem – a philosophy that has some merit. Like most things in life I think it has some merit but not to the exclusion of all other factors.

People, even priests, sin. We can agree there. But the problem became much worse because priest-abuser were passed around and the laity were kept in the dark. The repeat abuse could have been prevented.

Dissent? All evidence seems to show that the priest-abusers were not particularly “unorthodox”, “liberal” or whatever. Many of them were outwardly rigiously “orthodox”. And in fact on occassion the parents were dismissed as “dissenters”.

 

[katherine2]

fix:

Ms. Pieczynski ,

Advisor at VOTF conference at the

Hynes Auditorium ,Boston Ma

July 20 2002

*Former president of *Call to Action

*Present board member *Call to Action
James Carroll ,fanatical Pope basher{/quote]

Ahh, more McCarthyism. Three degrees of separation. VOTF has an advisor (no information as what kind of an advisor, was she a meeting planner that reserved the Hynes Auditorium?). She formerly severed on the board of an organization. ANotehr person served on the same board. Thatr person is a pope basher.

You do lile playing that Kevin Bacon game.

 

[fix]

katherine2:

fix:

Ms. Pieczynski ,

Advisor at VOTF conference at the

Hynes Auditorium ,Boston Ma

July 20 2002

*Former president of *Call to Action

*Present board member *Call to Action
James Carroll ,fanatical Pope basher{/quote]

Ahh, more McCarthyism. Three degrees of separation. VOTF has an advisor (no information as what kind of an advisor, was she a meeting planner that reserved the Hynes Auditorium?). She formerly severed on the board of an organization. ANotehr person served on the same board. Thatr person is a pope basher.

You do lile playing that Kevin Bacon game.
Funny. I guess an adivsor carries no weight? I guess it is wrong to draw conclusions when a board has advisors that hold views that are the opposite of Catholic teaching?

 

[fix]

katherine2:

Dissent? All evidence seems to show that the priest-abusers were not particularly “unorthodox”, “liberal” or whatever. Many of them were outwardly rigiously “orthodox”. And in fact on occassion the parents were dismissed as “dissenters”.

Your opinion, not fact. The only part I would agree with is the part about clericalism that so defines many heterodox clerics today.

Who was that infamous pederast priest who was involved with NAMBLA? Was he orthodox, too?

 

[Theodred]

katherine2:

Well, answering your irrelevant points is becoming tiresome.

Is that the kinder, gentler, more charitable solution you “progressive” Catholics have to offer?

That was totally uncalled for. I have never been uncharitable to you, Katherine. Does this flame mean you can’t answer my points, or are unwilling?

You’re use of “McCarthyism” to every piece of evidence linking VOTF leadership to dissent, is what is becoming tiresome. Would saying that Joseph Stalin was a communist be a “McCarthyism”?

 

[katherine2]

fix:

Funny. I guess an adivsor carries no weight? I guess it is wrong to draw conclusions when a board has advisors that hold views that are the opposite of Catholic teaching?

An advisor might or might not. Advise can be accepted or rejected. An advisor might (and generally does) advise on a particular matter. I can accept advise from my retirement investment advisory without endorsing his views on interior design.

 

[katherine2]

Théodred:

You’re use of “McCarthyism” to every piece of evidence linking VOTF leadership to dissent, is what is becoming tiresome. Would saying that Joseph Stalin was a communist be a “McCarthyism”?

I use McCarthyism in reference to Exporter’s post. i think it is a fair and accurate discription of the post.

I’ve not used the term in reference to “evidence of linkage”. I’ve stated those who have suspicions or feelings or fear hidden agendas or connections should follow their private gut feeling.

But Exporters post left stated as fact rather than suspicion VOTF dissent. And it did it in a way that is McCarthyistic.

 

[katherine2]

fix:

Your opinion, not fact.

Fine. Its in the realm of opinion. No conclsive proof as to the outward orthodoxy in general of these child abusers.

 

[Theodred]

katherine2:

An advisor might or might not. Advise can be accepted or rejected. An advisor might (and generally does) advise on a particular matter. I can accept advise from my retirement investment advisory without endorsing his views on interior design.

Are you saying that a person’s dissent from Catholic teaching doesn’t play a role in that person’s advice regarding “changing the Church”?

 

[Theodred]

katherine2:

I use McCarthyism in reference to Exporter’s post. i think it is a fair and accurate discription of the post.

You also used it in reference to fix’s. While I’m inclined to think the term unfair to regards to Exporter’s post (unless VOTF can finally lay their agendas on the table once and for all and prove Exporter’s post wrong), it definitely wasn’t fair to use for fix’s. Fix’s post merely presented undeniable facts. The conclusions can be various depending on what kind of rose colored glasses one is wearing, or what kind of ideology one is trying to make fly with the average Catholic in the pew. However, reasonably and objectively these undeniable facts do raise questions that these individuals are certainly not answering.

 

[fix]

katherine2:

An advisor might or might not. Advise can be accepted or rejected. An advisor might (and generally does) advise on a particular matter. I can accept advise from my retirement investment advisory without endorsing his views on interior design.

Again, very funny. These folks are only giving advice about where to place chairs? They were chosen because they fit the dissenting mindset of VOTF.

Thet even have that trendy vicar from South Bend. The progressives are getting old. They still think it is 1968.

 

[katherine2]

Théodred:

Are you saying that a person’s dissent from Catholic teaching doesn’t play a role in that person’s advice regarding “changing the Church”?

That wasn’t the accusation. We are back to playing Kevin Bacon.

 

[katherine2]

Théodred:

You also used it in reference to fix’s. While I’m inclined to think the term unfair to regards to Exporter’s post (unless VOTF can finally lay their agendas on the table once and for all and prove Exporter’s post wrong), it definitely wasn’t fair to use for fix’s. Fix’s post merely presented undeniable facts.

I will apply te term to fix’s post. He didn’t present facts. He used the tactic of Joe McCarthy of thinking someone to something they were seperated from by three degrees.

James Carroll is a pope basher. Carroll serves on the Board of an organization. Ms. Pieczynski formely served on the board of the same organization.
Ms. Pieczynski has given some undefined advice to VOTF.

To link VOTF and Carroll is McCarthyistic. I make no apologies for that.

Exporter’s post is even worse. A person serves on the steering committee of VOTF. That person attends the Dallas bishops meeting but not as a VOTF representative. That person speaks to a reporter who the Catholic Bishops have given a news media credential to. The news media reporter is a supporter of gay rights. From this the claim is made that the VOTF Steering Committee meets with gay rights organizations.

That to is McCarthyism and it is beyound me how anyone could have any doubt about that.

 

[katherine2]

Théodred:

You also used it in reference to fix’s. While I’m inclined to think the term unfair to regards to Exporter’s post (unless VOTF can finally lay their agendas on the table once and for all and prove Exporter’s post wrong), it definitely wasn’t fair to use for fix’s. Fix’s post merely presented undeniable facts.

I will apply te term to fix’s post. He didn’t present facts. He used the tactic of Joe McCarthy of thinking someone to something they were seperated from by three degrees.

James Carroll is a pope basher. Carroll serves on the Board of an organization. Ms. Pieczynski formely served on the board of the same organization.
Ms. Pieczynski has given some undefined advice to VOTF.

To link VOTF and Carroll is McCarthyistic. I make no apologies for that.

Exporter’s post is even worse. A person serves on the steering committee of VOTF. That person attends the Dallas bishops meeting but not as a VOTF representative. That person speaks to a reporter who the Catholic Bishops have given a news media credential to. The news media reporter is a supporter of gay rights. From this the claim is made that the VOTF Steering Committee meets with gay rights organizations in oppositon to the teaching of the Catholic bishops.

That too is McCarthyism and it is beyond me how anyone could have any doubt about that.

 

[katherine2]

fix:

Again, very funny. These folks are only giving advice about where to place chairs? They were chosen because they fit the dissenting mindset of VOTF.

i don’t know what she was given advice on. If you know, you have chosen not to post that information with the rest of your post. You have also causal gone from the singular (Ms. Pieczynski) to the plural (“these folks”).

I remain amazed as to the flimsiness of the accusations against VOTF.

 

[Fiat]

I remain amazed as to the flimsiness of the accusations against VOTF

I remain amazed as to the flimsiness of VOTF’s “agenda” and “mission” and their efforts that may or may not exist to accomplish their agenda and mission which, again, may or may not exist.

 

[Theodred]

katherine2:

James Carroll is a pope basher. Carroll serves on the Board of an organization. Ms. Pieczynski formely served on the board of the same organization.
Ms. Pieczynski has given some undefined advice to VOTF.

To link VOTF and Carroll is McCarthyistic. I make no apologies for that.

Wow. You are a river in Eygpt. These are real connections that deserve real explanations. It all goes away once the aloof VOTF leadership makes it absolutely clear they fully assent to all the Church’s teachings. It certainly is not McCarthyism, unless McCarthyism is asking Michael Harrington if he’s a socialist.

Katherine, I will end my involvement with Opus Dei if you can find these same associations in regards to Opus Dei’s leadership.