VOTF

[katherine2]

Fiat:

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.

I understand that. If you see it that way, its a valid reason to not participate in VOTF. It doesn’t justify flimsy, negative accusations in reponse.

Still, no explaination why the shfit from the singular to the plural?

 

[katherine2]

Théodred:

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.

They have said they do. You choose not to believe them, citing that Steering Committee members have associations with people who have associations with people who have associations with people you don’t liek.

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.

Actually, I wonder if I could find a person who has advised Opus Dei and who has served on the board of an organization that at some time also had a Phalangist on its board. I’m betting it could be done.

But, if I did find such, I would hope you would not resign from Opus Dei for that reason.

N.B. David, no one here but you and I know who Michael Harrignton was.

 

[aridite]

katherine2:

I understand that. If you see it that way, its a valid reason to not participate in VOTF. It doesn’t justify flimsy, negative accusations in reponse.

Just a point of order. How can you support our distrust of VOTF but vilify the negative accusations, when, for my part, my distrust of VOTF was caused by their association with dissenters and their failure to assert their orthodoxy (to my satisfaction)? If you think the accusations are unjustified, I would think our distrust of VOTF born of these accusations equally unjustified.

 

[Theodred]

katherine2:

Actually, I wonder if I could find a person who has advised Opus Dei and who has served on the board of an organization that at some time also had a Phalangist on its board. I’m betting it could be done.

Don’t become the pot calling the kettle charred.

Micheal Harrington… I used to be a big fan before I found JPII.

 

[katherine2]

aridite:

Just a point of order. How can you support our distrust of VOTF but vilify the negative accusations, when, for my part, my distrust of VOTF was caused by their association with dissenters and their failure to assert their orthodoxy (to my satisfaction)? If you think the accusations are unjustified, I would think our distrust of VOTF born of these accusations equally unjustified.

Because as a Christian I feel that just because you are entitled to private distrust based on assumptions, you need facts to be entitled to make negative accusations.

 

[katherine2]

Théodred:

Don’t become the pot calling the kettle charred.

Micheal Harrington… I used to be a big fan before I found JPII.

David, my friend,

I was just thinking outloud about Opus Dei!!

And as for Harrington, I met him when he was with the Catholic Worker. I’m sorry he lost his faith, but always found his books internesting. (oh, dear. VOTF is supported by a person who reads books written by a person who left the Catholic Church. This is the end of VOTF :crying:

As for Harrington and the Pope, they would have made interesting dinner partners. And probably enjoyed each others company.

 

[fix]

katherine2:

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.

I listed three heterodox folks. I can list more. VOTF has been banned by some bishops. Are they misinformed, too? Your pal Harrington was a Marxist, right?

 

[katherine2]

fix:

I listed three heterodox folks. I can list more.

Yes, you listed three people. You have not explained their relationship to VOTF.

 

[Theodred]

katherine2:

Yes, you listed three people. You have not explained their relationship to VOTF.

I remember a little old lady once tell me: “Just because Johnny has some bad friends doesn’t mean he’s a bad person.”

She was talking about John Gotti.

 

[katherine2]

Théodred:

I remember a little old lady once tell me: “Just because Johnny has some bad friends doesn’t mean he’s a bad person.”

She was talking about John Gotti.

She was right. Mr. Gotti was not bad because of the actions of his friends. He was bad because of his own actions.

Another way of saying this is " just because Johnny is Italian doesn’t mean he is bad person. "

 

[Fiat]

Dear Katherine2:

I admire your endurance with this issue. Thanks again for taking the time to offer explanations to us “objectors”. For me, Aridite nailed the issue of contention in his/her earlier post:

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?

How exactly does VOTF justify theological conferences as an aid to enforcing canon law? Certainly, VOTF must agree that the company it keeps will be able to offer insight, or else what would be the point of having advisors, speakers, etc? Certainly we can only condemn John Gotti for his own actions and not the actions of others, but if we think that the influence of our company has no effect on us, we fool ourselves.

Fiat

 

[fix]

katherine2:

She was right. Mr. Gotti was not bad because of the actions of his friends. He was bad because of his own actions.

Another way of saying this is " just because Johnny is Italian doesn’t mean he is bad person. "

How many non heterodox folks are advisors to VOTF?

Also, when asked about the central issues of dissent facing the Church like priestesses, married clergy, birth control, VOTF claims they have not taken any position, right? Why have they not publicly claimed obedience to the Church in matters of faith, morals and disciplines?

 

[katherine2]

Fiat:

Dear Katherine2:

I admire your endurance with this issue. Thanks again for taking the time to offer explanations to us “objectors”. For me, Aridite nailed the issue of contention in his/her earlier post:

Hey, I’m retired. I appreciate your endurance.

How exactly does VOTF justify theological conferences as an aid to enforcing canon law?

it doesn’t. Here is where I think some of the sources you have trusted for information on VOTF are not reliable and may not even be of integrity.

VOTF has held two conferences and a convention. The Conferences had 18 presentations at one and 16 at the other. None of the presentation were on a theological topic. (that zero out of 34). Conferees were told "Participant statements are not necessarily endorsed by Voice of the Faithful, Inc."

Maybe some of the presenters touched on theological topics, I don’t know. But this is my complaint with your sources. 34 presentations, none of which is on a theological topic, all of which particpants are told are the opinions of the presenter, not VOTF and maybe drawing one or two sentences from one or two presenters (or even from something they said in another forum not related to VOTF) and this somehow is turned into “VOTF holds heterodox theological conferences”. Charity pushes me to say we have a failure of logic in that conclusion, but I do have to wonder if it is out and out dishonesty on your source’s part.

I should also note that at the Convention (and maybe calling the Convention a "theological conference’ in an inaccurate statement but allowable mistake) had foru major presents, none speaking on theology. It then had 35 unsolicited papers received, of which if you push it three or four might be said to be partially on theology.

I look at this and I look at Export’s post of the false and McCarthyistic tactics against VOTF and I have to say what is going on here. Is it a belief that “our cause is just, so if we are dishonest or exagerated in our accusations that is okay”?

As I have said repeatedly, I have total respect for those who conclude VOTF is not their cup of tea. But when people lie, to me it makes me think better of the vicitm of the lies.

Certainly, VOTF must agree that the company it keeps will be able to offer insight, or else what would be the point of having advisors, speakers, etc? Fiat

yes. insight. people with theological errors can offer insight. One of the speakers criticized by VOTF opponents because of his alleged unorthodoxy was a victim of priest sexual abuse. As a Catholic, I am not comfortable with censoring such and individual, regardless of what his views are on birth control, women priests or gay rights.

Some of our bishops have said they want to hear from each and every victim. Trust me on this one, if one of them were to follow the path of VOTF’s critics (assuming the critics really have any consistent principle here rather than just using whatever club seems handy) that they are only willing to listen to victims of abuse of perfect orthodoxy (“I’m sorry young man, since you are for birth control I don’t want to hear about your experience with abues”), you can bet one old lady will be re-considering her committment to non-violence and making a quick trip to the Chancery to knock some sense into a guy in a purple dress.

 

[Fiat]

Dear Katherine2:

I am pleased that in your post you correctly identified VOTF as “Voice of the Faithful, Inc.,” because in all legal respects, this is precisely what VOTF is—A CORPORATION. Like any corporation, VOTF has a president and a board of directors. In order for VOTF to qualify for exemption status, there are certain statements it must make to the Federal Government.

Herein lies the rub, Katherine2. Voice of the Faithful is a hierarchical institution in and of itself, and its legal existence is dependent entirely on the Federal government and the code of the IRS. Voice of the Faithful, Inc., is not and cannot be the measure of lay Catholics. It cannot speak for us; it cannot think for us; and it certainly cannot represent. Earlier you correctly pointed out that law firms cannot be Catholic. You are correct. I will also point out that Corporations cannot be Catholic, either!

If a person is unaware of the legal existence of VOTF, Inc., then the person assumes that VOTF is part of the Holy Catholic Church, which of course, is not the case. Moreover, because VOTF is nothing more than a corporation, the liberal Catholic has every right to make a presentation before the VOTF Board of Directors but ONLY IF the Board of VOTF makes the opportunity available. Likewise, if a “convervative Catholic” is invited to do so, the “conservative” Catholic has every right to make a presentation before the VOTF Board of Directors, but again, ONLY IF the Board of VOTF makes the opportunity available.

Because VOTF is nothing more than a corporation, should we lay Catholics be concerned over the influence which that Corporation is having over the Holy Catholic Church? You better believe it!!! We would be equally concerned if AT&T were trying to stick its nose into our Ecclesiology!

VOTF, as a member of corporate America, becomes dangerous when that corporation tries to usurp power from we lay Catholics who are not shareholders in this corporation and who frankly want nothing to do with it!
We ought to demand every measure of accountability of VOTF, Inc., as possible. And if those measures are McCarthyistic, I say bring it on. Is this faceless VOTF, Inc. afraid of something? Are they hiding something? (Am I sounding ultra paranoid here to make a point! )

The last thing Holy Mother Church needs is some American Corporate Hinch-man capitalizing on Her. Again, the VOTF Corporation is not what is going to help sanctify Our Church. It is the sacraments and the sacramental life that we individual lay Catholics vow to live!!!

Your brother,

Fiat

 

[Theodred]

katherine2:

She was right. Mr. Gotti was not bad because of the actions of his friends. He was bad because of his own actions.

Another way of saying this is " just because Johnny is Italian doesn’t mean he is bad person. "

LOL, you definitely never met her. She loved her “Johnny Boy”. He could do no wrong.

One is also responsible for the company they keep, becuase the company we keep reflects either what we are, or what we want to be.

 

[fix]

I ask again if VOTF is not dissident, then why do they not publicly say they adhere to all the the Church teaches in regard to faith and morals?

 

[katherine2]

Théodred:

One is also responsible for the company they keep, becuase the company we keep reflects either what we are, or what we want to be.

reminds me of a first century rabbi who hung around with a lot of disreputable types.

 

[katherine2]

Théodred:

One is also responsible for the company they keep, becuase the company we keep reflects either what we are, or what we want to be.

Reminds me of a first century rabbi who hung around with a lot of disreputable types.

 

[katherine2]

fix:

I ask again if VOTF is not dissident, then why do they not publicly say they adhere to all the the Church teaches in regard to faith and morals?

they have. you choose not to accept this fact.

 

[katherine2]

Fiat:

Dear Katherine2:

I am pleased that in your post you correctly identified VOTF as “Voice of the Faithful, Inc.,” because in all legal respects, this is precisely what VOTF is—A CORPORATION. Like any corporation, VOTF has a president and a board of directors. In order for VOTF to qualify for exemption status, there are certain statements it must make to the Federal Government.

Herein lies the rub, Katherine2. Voice of the Faithful is a hierarchical institution in and of itself, and its legal existence is dependent entirely on the Federal government and the code of the IRS.

As is the Archdiocese of Boston.

Try to apply for principles consistently. You have been falling down on this.

If a person is unaware of the legal existence of VOTF, Inc., then the person assumes that VOTF is part of the Holy Catholic Church,

Who assumes that? No one I know. You seem quite aware that is not the case. Van yiu name someone who thinks this?