VOTF

[fix]

katherine2:

they have. you choose not to accept this fact.

I will be happy to look at the proof. Please provide a link. I have only read they say they take no positions on these things.

 

[Fiat]

Katherin2:

You stated:

As is the Archdiocese of Boston.

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

You do greatly err, good friend! Of course every diocese and archdiocese is incoporated for legal recognition under the laws of the United States. It has to be it it wants to take advantage of favorable tax laws. However, they are also E-C-C-L-E-S-I-A-L entities as well united under the Pope! Its identity as one does not nullify its identity as the other!!!

Has VOTF, Inc., been recognized by the Holy See as a part of the Church’s ecclesiastical structure, or is VOTF only recognized by the laws of the United States government? Help me back up, Katherine2 as I flip through the pages of the Corporate Registry and U.S. Tax Code with you.

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

Perhaps the very clever person who came up with the name of VOTF as he/she was filling out his 501(c)(3) Application?? I would say most people don’t make the distinction between the corporate reality of an entity, particularly when that entity uses some ridiculously haughty and arrogant name like “Voice of the Faithful.” But, if you would like some specific names, I’d be happy to oblige (of course, I’ll leave off last names for privacy reasons): Ed, Susan, Mary, Bob, Carlos, Karen, Judy, David, etc…

Fiat

 

[katherine2]

Fiat:

Katherin2:

Of course every diocese and archdiocese is incoporated for legal recognition under the laws of the United States. It has to be it it wants to take advantage of favorable tax laws. However, they are also

Hence your error. As you admit, incoporation in itself doesn’t result in all of the evil attributes to said it did. I tahnk you for the retraction.

Has VOTF, Inc., been recognized by the Holy See as a part of the Church’s ecclesiastical structure,

It doesn’t claim to be. The Knight of Columbus is part of the Church’s ecclesiastical structure nor is Catholic Answers.

Perhaps the very clever person who came up with the name of VOTF as he/she was filling out his 501(c)(3) Application??

Nice guess, but wrong. try again.

I would say most people don’t make the distinction between the corporate reality of an entity, particularly when that entity uses some ridiculously haughty and arrogant name like “Voice of the Faithful.”

Sort of liek Soceity of Jesus or Catholic Answers?

But, if you would like some specific names, I’d be happy to oblige (of course, I’ll leave off last names for privacy reasons): Ed, Susan, Mary, Bob, Carlos, Karen, Judy, David, etc…

Fiat

in other words, nothing you can provide any verification of. Not suprising

 

[katherine2]

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?

fix:

I will be happy to look at the proof. Please provide a link. I have only read they say they take no positions on these things.

We are faithful Catholics in communion with the universal Catholic Church.
We love and support our Church and believe what it professes.
We accept the teaching authority of our Church, including the traditional role of the bishops and the Pope.

www.votf.org

 

[Fiat]

Dear Katherine2:

You are fond of bringing up names like, “Society of Jesus,” “Notre Dame,” etc. Let’s parse this out…The distinction is that those names, while presumptuous in and of themselves, are at least meaningful. I know what the word “society” is and I know who “Jesus” is. I know what the word “Notre” means, and I know who “Dame” refers to. Also, I can read any variety of materials describing these entities to find what these organizations are all about. These organizations don’t pretend to speak for me as a Catholic. They speak for themselves. I have every right to question their motives, attack them, not donate to them, slander their names, whatever…

Now onto “Voice of the Faithful.” I know what a “voice” is. It is singular, and the singular nature suggests unity. I know that the word “faithful” in the phrase “VOTF” refers to the voice, but what the voice is saying is certainly beyond me. It is also certainly beyond you since you can’t define for anyone what VOTF means by the terms of its own stated mission. You waffle from point to point and put yourself in a very convenient position by defending certain aspects of the VOTF corporation when you’re able to, but then suggests that you can’t speak for VOTF when you can’t defend them…You indicate that you’re not their spokeswoman.

You said:

Hence your error. As you admit, incoporation in itself doesn’t result in all of the evil attributes to said it did. I tahnk you for the retraction.

I have no idea what you mean here. I have retracted nothing I’ve said, and I did not say that corporations are in and of themselves evil. Corporations are simply that: corporations! They don’t represent me, unless I’m a shareholder or on the board. They are faceless. They cannot be Catholic. Their existence is dependent entirely upon the civil authorities. They are capitalistic. They require public approval and support for their existence.

Your weak understanding of corporate formation remains. As far as KofC and Catholic Answers not being a part of the ecclesial structure, you’re absolutely right. Did I say they were?

You said:

But, if you would like some specific names, I’d be happy to oblige (of course, I’ll leave off last names for privacy reasons): Ed, Susan, Mary, Bob, Carlos, Karen, Judy, David,

Do you need sworn affidavits? I appreciate your demand for verifications and accountability. I wish VOTF was as accommodating.

[On a personal note, let me say that I actually find VOTF, Inc., to be innocuous and impotent, but I find this thread exciting for some reason.]

Fiat

 

[Theodred]

katherine2:

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

LOL nice try. I missed the part where he told the prostitutes to keep prostituting. OR are you talking about the disreputable Jewish leader types? Did you pay attention to what he said to these people? You do realize that these people succeeded in having him killed?

The admonition not to keep bad company is a well established moral precept that embodies good common sense.

… which is exactly why you apparently don’t like it much .

 

[katherine2]

Fiat:

Dear Katherine2:

You are fond of bringing up names like, “Society of Jesus,” “Notre Dame,” etc. Let’s parse this out…The distinction is that those names, while presumptuous in and of themselves, are at least meaningful.

Okay. So we can set aside the matter of presumption. VOTF is no more presumptive than alot of other Catholic organizations. The remaining issue is meaningfulness.

I would suggest to you that few if any organizations intend to express the full meaning of their group in their proper name. Some one here (maybe you) recommended a group 'Roman Catholic Faithful". Is that any more despcriptive?

if you most significant complaint is that VOTF’s proper name is not fully descriptive, I think we can close this discussion with me admitting our differences are so minor they are not worth discussing.

Now onto “Voice of the Faithful.” I know what a “voice” is. It is singular, …{/quote]

You are backsliding. “Society” is singular. “University” is singular.

It is also certainly beyond you since you can’t define for anyone what VOTF means by the terms of its own stated mission.

This whole thread has been basiclly devoted to people attacking third degree associations of VOTF. I think you need to point a finger at VOTFs’ critics who seem to have no tolerance for a discussion of it mission. At one point, I thought I got this focused on a real proposal – one that it seemed to actually get approval from some of the posters here. I would be happy to return to that point on this thread and cease any back and forth on matters that VOTF has a steering committee member who served on the board with another person who was once a cabin mate on a cruise with a person who belongs to a club that has a member who is thinks priests should marry.

How about it? Shall we have a discussion of VOTF’s ideas rather than who they have how many degrees of separation from? I’m game.

Your weak understanding of corporate formation remains. As far as KofC and Catholic Answers not being a part of the ecclesial structure, you’re absolutely right. Did I say they were?

No. You did suggest corporations that are not part of the ecclesial structure are faceless. They cannot be Catholic. Their existence is dependent entirely upon the civil authorities. They are capitalistic. They require public approval and support for their existence.

Do you need sworn affidavits? I appreciate your demand for verifications and accountability. I wish VOTF was as accommodating.

I thought maybe with all of the public commentary you could point me to a news article for CA forum thread where someone was honestly confused on this.

[On a personal note, let me say that I actually find VOTF, Inc., to be innocuous and impotent, but I find this thread exciting for some reason.]

Fiat

it may well be. I think more likely it represents an impluse among the laity that goes far beyond its formal membership. I care more about the movement than I care about any organization.

 

[Fiat]

Dear Katherine2:

You stated:

How about it? Shall we have a discussion of VOTF’s ideas rather than who they have how many degrees of separation from? I’m game.

Good move. Specifically, I would be interested in knowing what VOTF believes was the cause of the sex abuse scandal and how the scandal can be avoided in the future. Should we start a new thread dealing specifically with this? My interest though is not what individual Catholics believe what was at the heart of the problem, but what VOTF believes was at the heart of the problem.

Fiat

 

[rjmporter]

I have read this thread over the past two days with much interest. Not knowing much of VOTF, I have been very educated by both sides of this issue. And I have somewhat radical (please don’t let this turn off the more conserative among you) suggestion. Those of you who are so opposed to the direction that VOTF seems to be headed, rather than posting, complaining and essianlly accomplishing nothing but words, join the organization, seek opportuinities to volunteer in influential positions, or at least positions where your oppions can be heard within this organization.

As a small scale model, I offer my own experience in influencing the direction or the RCIA program at our church. I had heard rummors that the program was becoming heterodox. Rather than post a complaint on a computer BB, I volunteered to be a sponsor, and then a catechist in our RCIA program. It offered me an opportunity to question herterodox positions, offer orthodox observations and change the direction of our RCIA program from steering off into “left-field”. It is now fully in the boosum of the Holy Catholic Faith.

I now serve as the RCIA director and our DRE (who was often charged, incorrectly, with heterodox opinions) teaches a wonderfully orthodox class on the infallibility of the Church and the Holy Father and gives an amazing talk on the Church as the Sacrament to the World.

If you feel that you are the Voice of the Faithful, then join the VOTF and use charity and love to steer it into an othodox advisory capacity. Especially in its current infancy, you could be the difference between VOTF as the new Call to Action or VOTF as a real true voice for Catholic renewal in the Chruch.

Praise the Father who wills our salvation, Praise the Son who won it, Praise the Holy Spirit who inspires us to live it.

Ross

 

[Fiat]

Dear Ross:

I like your suggestion, although it does pose some practical difficulties. There are any number of organizations I disagree with. It would be impossible for me to join them all in order to influence them all. Therefore, sometimes the most effective direction is to post your ideas on discussion boards like this. Plus, I consider groups like VOTF, Inc., to be more parasitic than anything else. The real influence we as lay Catholics has is not in supporting a corporation, but in living out our sacramental vows within the Church.

In faith,
Fiat

 

[katherine2]

Fiat:

Dear Katherine2:

You stated:
Good move. Specifically, I would be interested in knowing what VOTF believes was the cause of the sex abuse scandal and how the scandal can be avoided in the future. Should we start a new thread dealing specifically with this? My interest though is not what individual Catholics believe what was at the heart of the problem, but what VOTF believes was at the heart of the problem.

Fiat

First of all, bless you, Ross, for a very thoughtful post.

Now,let me try to respond to my dear friend Fiat.

You ask about VOTF’s view of the cause of the scandal. I think VOTF is very clear the the cause of the scandal rests with the church authorities. Certainly the cause of the acts of abuse lies with the abuser. But despite all of the media hype over this we know the number of priest abusers is not radically differrent than the general population.

VOTF has been quite clear, I think that what caused the scandal was the coddling of abusers, their transfer to new assignments with a new set of children and the secrecy around all of this.

In cases where on the first instance of abuse a priest was immediately removed from pastoral ministry and the victims and their families were delt with pastorally and compassionately, there was the sin of abuse, but no scandal. The laity understood that sin is real. But when responded to appropriately by the authorities, scandal was avoided.

(as a side note, before the trust between some bishops and faithful was broken, you found that the laity would have accepted a bishop judgement in tranfering a priest with a single instance of abuse to be a convent chaplain or to a monastery and way from any children. I think that trust is now gone. Plus there is the other issue of the fairness of making these religous communities dumping grounds for such).

Yes, the scandal is when a bishop moves an abuser priest three time, each time to a new set of children which he abuses and in each time keeping this information secret from Catholic parents and other laity.

 

[Fiat]

Yes, the scandal is when a bishop moves an abuser priest three time, each time to a new set of children which he abuses and in each time keeping this information secret from Catholic parents and other laity

I’m wondering if Bishops of the Catholic Church have the right to believe in the power of the Holy Spirit to transform a sinner’s life. I am also wondering if Bishops have the right to believe that within the sacrament of reconciliation, forgiveness actually is granted. I’m wondering if the Bishops were really put in as easy a position as some people seem to suggest.

Also, you said:

But despite all of the media hype over this we know the number of priest abusers is not radically differrent than the general population.

Isn’t it fair to say that the number of priest abusers is in fact RADICALLY DIFFERENT from the general population with FAR FEWER priests abusing children than professionals in other sectors? I don’t have any statistics at the moment, but this is the impression I was left with after initial reports were released.

Before this thread gets too off-track, am I correct in concluding that the VOTF corporation believes that individual abusers caused the abuse and Bishops exacerbated the scandal by not removing those priests immeidatley? Now, what solution does the Corporation have in mind?

Fiat

 

[fix]

katherine2:

We are faithful Catholics in communion with the universal Catholic Church.
We love and support our Church and believe what it professes.
We accept the teaching authority of our Church, including the traditional role of the bishops and the Pope.

www.votf.org

I checked out their site. They have learned to be more savvy and hide their dissent better than when they first started. The letter from the president of Regis University is a good example of the type of subtle wordspeak that makes orthodox Catholics uneasy about VOTF.

One other point is that the thrust of VOTF seems to be that the laity are “smarter” than those poor dumb peasants in preVII land. Now, we can take over, “change the Church”, and make it better. Apparently the HS has been confused all these centuries and your elitist pals at VOTF are going to straighten Him out.

I do not see the laity as any better than most clerics. The idea that so many of us who reject Church teachings are going to improve what those mean old, paternal bad men are doing is almost laughable.

I am not saying the laity do not have a role, but “changing the Church” is not in the cards. I will stick with the Holy Spirit. VOTF can propagandize all day long. They do not represent anyone except the tired old protestors from 1968.

 

[katherine2]

fix:

I checked out their site. They have learned to be more savvy and hide their dissent better than when they first started. .

No, dear, once again you are mistaken (it would be uncharitable to say you are telling a lie). What I posted is not a change but has been VOTF’s position from the begining.

 

[katherine2]

Fiat:

I’m wondering if Bishops of the Catholic Church have the right to believe in the power of the Holy Spirit to transform a sinner’s life. I am also wondering if Bishops have the right to believe that within the sacrament of reconciliation, forgiveness actually is granted. I’m wondering if the Bishops were really put in as easy a position as some people seem to suggest.

I don’t see anyone in VOTF denying any of those things. One can believe in sacramental forgiveness but still take precautions to protect children. You can believe in the power of the Holy Spirit to transform. But making the unilateral judgement that the Holy Spirit has transformed someone in a particular case and then putting other people’s children secretly at risk is another thing.

Isn’t it fair to say that the number of priest abusers is in fact RADICALLY DIFFERENT from the general population with FAR FEWER priests abusing children than professionals in other sectors? I don’t have any statistics at the moment, but this is the impression I was left with after initial reports were released.

Okay. Let’s accept that. It further makes the point the scandal was not in the acts of abuse but the way the bishops responded to it.

Before this thread gets too off-track, am I correct in concluding that the VOTF corporation believes that individual abusers caused the abuse and Bishops exacerbated the scandal by not removing those priests immeidatley?

Yes.

Now, what solution does the Corporation have in mind?

Yes. Let’s move on to that question next. Are we okay on everything preceding this question?

 

[Fiat]

I don’t see anyone in VOTF denying any of those things. One can believe in sacramental forgiveness but still take precautions to protect children. You can believe in the power of the Holy Spirit to transform. But making the unilateral judgement that the Holy Spirit has transformed someone in a particular case and then putting other people’s children secretly at risk is another thing

I think you still simplify the issue. You assume that guilt had been proven, which in fact it had not! It’s problematic for you or the Corporation to conclude that Bishops ought not display good faith torward their clergy. You also assume that the only avenue of protection that existed for us poor lay people who are mindless and need to be coddled is through the Church Herself [Enter Voice of the Faithful, Inc., with its mighty slogan and tax exempt status and its conferences that mean nothing or say nothing about who the corporation is]. Your persepctive seems to ignore the access everyone has (Catholic and non-Catholic) to the entire civil jursidiction.

Okay. Let’s accept that. It further makes the point the scandal was not in the acts of abuse but the way the bishops responded to it.

I can’t agree with you entirely, here. To say that sodomozing children is not scandalous in and of itself grossly misses the mark. You indicated earlier that ultimately the individual abusers were the problem. This we can agree on.

Yes. Let’s move on to that question next. Are we okay on everything preceding this question?

Not entirely. See comments above.

Fiat

 

[fix]

katherine2:

No, dear, once again you are mistaken (it would be uncharitable to say you are telling a lie). What I posted is not a change but has been VOTF’s position from the begining.

NEWTON, Mass. - New questions about the fidelity of the reform group Voice of the Faithful have arisen following a one-day meeting June 7 of 45 Boston-area Voice affiliates.

       According            to a June 7 press release from the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts,            keynote speaker Paul Lakeland, professor of religious studies at Connecticut's            Fairfield University, told the Newton gathering that Catholics were            "suffocating from structural oppression" and advocated the            abolition of the College of Cardinals, the ordination of women as deacons            and lay participation in the election of bishops.

        And, Lakeland            predicted, future priests would consist of "some married, some            not; some straight, some gay, some women, some not."

       The Catholic            Action League said Lakeland's comments serve as "further compelling            evidence of the hypocrisy of Voice's claim of fidelity to the Catholic            religion."

       In an interview            June 18, Lakeland confirmed the Catholic Action League's reporting of            his comments was substantially accurate. But Lakeland said he was expressing            only his own opinions in his keynote address - which dealt primarily            with the future role of the laity in the Church - and not the opinions            of Voice of the Faithful. 

       And, Lakeland            said, the comments singled out for criticism do not challenge Church            doctrine but rather Church practices that are open to change.

       However,            Lakeland acknowledged during the interview that he remains a proponent            of the ordination of women as priests, even though Pope John Paul II            definitively ruled against women priests in his 1994 apostolic letter            *[Ordinatio            Sacerdotalis](http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html)* (On Priestly Ordination). And, when asked if he            agreed with the Catechism of the Catholic Church's statement that homosexual            orientation is intrinsically disordered, Lakeland replied, "No,            I don't."

       **History            of Controversy**

       Voice of            the Faithful was formed in January 2002 in the Boston area, shortly            after the revelations of the mishandling of clergy sexual abuse that            triggered the nationwide abuse scandal and eventually led to Boston            Cardinal Bernard Law's resignation.

       From its            inception, Voice of the Faithful has said "structural change"            to democratize Church structures is key to addressing the abuse crisis.            However, Voice's Web site explanation of "structural change"            states Voice of the Faithful "does not seek any change in Church            doctrine."

       And in            its "Policies and Positions" section the organization states,            "We do not advocate the end of priestly celibacy, the exclusion            of homosexuals from the priesthood, the ordination of women or any of            the other remedies that have been proposed across the spectrum of Catholic            thought."

       Voice of            the Faithful's critics have challenged these claims of doctrinal fidelity,            pointing out that dissenters frequently are assigned prominent roles            at the group's meetings. At a major Voice gathering in Boston last July,            for example, featured speakers included Debra Haffner, a former official            of Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington, and several theologians            who have publicly challenged the authority of the Church's hierarchy.

 

[fix]

Voice of the Faithful vice president Ann Carroll, who served as chairperson at the Newton meeting, said there was no intention of promoting dissenting views by inviting Lakeland to speak. She said one reason Lakeland was selected was because he holds a faculty position in the religious studies department of a well-known Catholic university, which Carroll said indicates that his views accord with Church teachings.

       "Our            No. 1 criteria was we wanted a theologian, and a theologian from a noted            Catholic university," Carroll said. "We aren't a dissident            group."

       After that            event, a Voice of the Faithful spokesman sought to refute charges it            was dominated by dissenters. But Lakeland's keynote address shows that            Voice remains sympathetic to dissent, said C.J. Doyle, president of            the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts. 

       "Now            we know what [Voice of the Faithful] means by structural change in the            Church - Protestant church government, a weakened papacy and women priests,"            Doyle said in the Catholic Action League's statement. "The notion            that [Voice of the Faithful] is faithful to anything remotely resembling            Roman Catholicism is an insult to the intelligence of Catholics."

      *(Register            correspondent John Mallon contributed to this report.)*

 

[fix]

katherine2:

No, dear, once again you are mistaken (it would be uncharitable to say you are telling a lie). What I posted is not a change but has been VOTF’s position from the begining.

Sweetie, I am not a mistaken as you disingenuous.

 

[fix]

THE VOTF PLAYERS While VOTF has been operating largely on a volunteer basis up to this point, many of those associated with its leadership are involved with other dissenting groups, like Call to Action (www.cta-usa.org), CORPUS, and We Are the Church (www.we-are-church.org). Jan Leary, a member of VOTF’s steering committee, serves as the contact for Save Our Sacrament/Annulment Reform, and Andrea Johnson, another steering committee member, is the contact for the Women’s Ordination Conference in Virginia.

But this barely scratches the surface. Many of the people invited to speak at VOTF’s national convention on July 20 espouse other radical views that are not in line with Church teaching. The following people were all invited to speak at the Boston conference:

** Leonard Swidler, professor of Catholic thought at Temple University. Well-known for his work in the formation of a “global ethic” with dissenting theologian Hans Kung, Swidler is also the founder of the Association for the Rights of Catholics in the Church (www.arcc-catholic-rights.org). As the chair of the association’s constitution international drafting committee, he’s responsible for drawing up a constitution for a more “democratic” church which includes the proposal for elected leaders; term limits for those leaders; a legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government; and opening up leadership positions to all people, including “women and minorities.”

** James Carroll, columnist for the Boston Globe. Carroll, a self-proclaimed Catholic, was ordained a priest in 1969 but left the priesthood in 1974 and married before his laicization, effectively excommunicating himself. His columns in the Globe confirm that he believes in contraception, abortion, and women’s ordination. Additionally, he rejects numerous fundamental Church teachings, such as the divinity of Jesus Christ. In a July 16 column, Carroll stated that at the VOTF convention, “deeper questions must be confronted as well – the role of the laity in church governance, assumptions of sexual morality, the place of women, the pathologies of clericallism, the ‘creeping infallibility’ that corrupts church teaching.”

** Debra Haffner, a member and former president of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS). SIECUS promotes guidelines for sex education for children grades K-12, guidelines which approve of children ages 5-8 being taught that masturbation and homosexuality are acceptable practices. Not only that, they also urge that 12- to 15-year-olds be taught how to obtain and use contraceptives.

Haffner is also the cofounder of the Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing (www.religionproject.org). The institute’s “Religious Declaration on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing” calls for “theological reflection that integrates the wisdom of excluded, often silenced peoples, and insights about sexuality from medicine, social science, the arts and humanities; full inclusion of women and sexual minorities in congregational life, including their ordination and the blessing of same sex unions…[and] support for those who challenge sexual oppression and who work for justice within their congregations and denomination.” Haffner has also been quoted as saying, “No matter what gender orientation you have – bisexual, transgender – no matter what sex you are, no matter what age you are, no matter what marital status you are, no matter what sexual orientation you are, you have a right to sex.”

** Tom Groome, professor of theology at Boston College. Groome gave an interview to BBC 4 World Forum on the sex-abuse scandal in which he commented on the Church: “Catholic Christians are…distinguishing between their faith in the tradition and their faith in the institution… The Church is terribly important to us, but we won’t exaggerate the importance, as it were, of the institution.” On priestly celibacy and women’s ordination: “I think that [priestly celibacy] has to be revisited, likewise the exclusion of women from ministry has to be rethought. But that’s not a liberal position…” On ecclesial hierarchy: “I would love to see an overhaul in how our bishops are chosen because right now they’re chosen by a kind of subterfuge – a kind of backroom politics.” And finally, on the pope: “I do think that the problem of an enfeebled pope becomes fairly trransparent, especially when the Church faces such a tragedy in a crisis time as we are in at the moment.”

** Michele Dillon, professor of sociology at the University of New Hampshire. Dillon has published several books, including Debating Divorce: Moral Conflict in Ireland; Gay and Lesbian Catholics; and Catholic Identity: Balancing Reason, Faith, and Power, a work focusing on why “pro-change” Catholics (such as those who support abortion, women’s ordination, and homosexuality) remain in the Church.