K
katherine2
Guest
Honeybun, you are still playing that old Kevin Bacon game. You’ve been exposed. I would suggest you find a dog that hunts.
- Status
F
Fiat
Guest
Katherine2:
I’m not sure why you find Fix’s information so inconsequential. I happen to find it very telling. Apparently, so do many other objectors to this Corporation you are trying to defend. As a minion of the VOTF Corporation, wouldn’t you better serve the Corporation by trying to understand why this sort of information may have an affect on people?
Fiat
I’m not sure why you find Fix’s information so inconsequential. I happen to find it very telling. Apparently, so do many other objectors to this Corporation you are trying to defend. As a minion of the VOTF Corporation, wouldn’t you better serve the Corporation by trying to understand why this sort of information may have an affect on people?
Fiat
F
fix
Guest
You mean I have exposed the VOTF crowd that wants to make themselves an authority separate from the Church. We can all see who VOTF looks to for advice and guidance. I see no orthodox names in union with VOTF leadership.
F
fix
Guest
If I decide to form a group to support Catholic teachings on sexual morality and most of my advisors are porn stars would it be unreasonable for an intelligent person to conclude my group may have an agenda that differs from the Church’s teaching?
K
katherine2
Guest
Fiat,
Thank you for your response. I did want to make sure we didn’t have any outstanding issues before we moved on, so let me try to clarify some points.
Fiat:
Of course, seeing this as just an issue between an acused priest, his acuser and the law is not the path the bishops have chosen to take in their Dallas meeting. The bishops have now steped to the plate and accepted responsibility. So why not firect yoru fire to the bishops rather than solely VOTF?
Thank you for your response. I did want to make sure we didn’t have any outstanding issues before we moved on, so let me try to clarify some points.
Well, you may have found a point where you and VOTF differ. VOTF will accept that in partiuclar cases there may be false accusations against priests. VOTF does not accept that this scandal in general is a matter of innocent priests and falsely accusatory children. Certainly, a substantial number of cases exist where the priest admitted to the abuse or the bishop determined him to be guilty yet the secrecy and re-assignments continued.
I actually am not recalling many cases where the bishop believed the priest to be falsely accussed. In most cases it was known abusers repeatedly re-assigned to work with children and this information not disclosed to the laity. But, I’m willing to explore this with you. Certainly false accusations is a tragedy.
I think you have a valid point here. With the knowledge I have now that the Church authorities have been incompetent and unwilling to deal with this issue, I would go straight to the police and the press if some priest had tried to abuse my child. I would let the chanery either read about in the newspaper or when Father calls them asking for bail money.
Of course, seeing this as just an issue between an acused priest, his acuser and the law is not the path the bishops have chosen to take in their Dallas meeting. The bishops have now steped to the plate and accepted responsibility. So why not firect yoru fire to the bishops rather than solely VOTF?
You made the point that priests are even less likely than the general public to abuse children. I don’t think scandal (a sinful action that turns people away from the faith) occurs with a rare situation of abuse any more than the recent incident of the priest in Wisconsin committing murder caused people to turn away from the faith. Tragic and evil acts, yes. But most lay Catholics are mature enough to know sin is real. It is the coverup and the disregard by church authorities for the protection of children that is the scandal.
K
katherine2
Guest
it would not be unreasobale. But you do have an unreasonable comparision with VOTF. First you throw out the word “most”. Even using your definition of dissenters (a term that has been falsely used here to include those with reservations about totolly disciplinary features of the Church) where do you come up with “most”?
Second, people whose primary identiticiaon is as sexually immoral people advising on sexual morally is a bad idea.
Since VOTF is not a theological organization, no one is advising them on theology. The advice is on other matters.
Once again you fail totally to make a case. You’ve back away from most of your other failed attempts and now you have failed again.
K
katherine2
Guest
The most telling feature of VOTF’s critics seems to be their constant need to talk about third degree or less associations and avoid any discussion of VOTF’s core mission.
If the advisors are advising VOTF to take up heresey and VOTF is listening to them, then name the heresy VOTF has taken up. Why the ABSOLUTE silence on this?
Heck, you talk to me. Should your orthodoxy be questioned?
F
Fiat
Guest
Is this an admission of your heterodox?
F
Fiat
Guest
Dear Katherine2:
Given the fact that Civil Authority already provides all the protection necessary and punishment necessary, why does your
Corporation think it needs to work outside of the civil arena in this matter?
Fiat
I’m not talking about false accusations. I’m talking about a Bishop’s right to take his priests at their word. I think you may be confusing my position. I’m not at all saying that each and every Bishop’s actions were excusable. The misfeasance and malfeasance needs to be addressed. But you seem to overstate lay movement involvement here, heralding yourself as some sort of Greek deus ex-machina! You will notice that what exposed this issue to begin with was the intervention of civil authority. That avenue existed 100 years ago; 50 years ago; 10 years ago; and still exists today. VOTF Corporate Authorities who you seem to kow-tow to were not the ones to identify the problem; your corporation was not the one to expose the problem; and I hardly think your corporation is the one to address the problem.
Given the fact that Civil Authority already provides all the protection necessary and punishment necessary, why does your
Corporation think it needs to work outside of the civil arena in this matter?
I remember seeing news reports regarding conversions to the Catholic Church during and after the “scandal.” I remember seeing commentary that the number of conversions in particular increased. If membership numbers characterize your definition for scandal as you indicate here, then perhaps what you are calling a scandal isn’t a scandal at all?
Fiat
F
fix
Guest
I am not backing away from anything I have asserted. My analogy is a good one. VOTF has dissident advisors. What are they advising on? Why have any advisors that reject the authority of the Church?
K
katherine2
Guest
its an admission the accusation has been made.
F
fix
Guest
WINCHESTER – The president of Voice of the Faithful, a lay organization that has studiously avoided wading into debates over social issues, last night criticized the active role bishops have played in opposing same-sex marriage.
“We look with dismay at bishops who openly criticize the homosexual community and criticize gay rights,” James E. Post, the organization’s president, told about 150 people at a Voice of the Faithful meeting at St. Eulalia Church in Winchester.
In an interview afterward, Post told reporters, It is discouraging to see the archbishop using archdiocesan resources to run this campaign against gay marriage and to speak out in a way that is so divisive.*
Post said Voice of the Faithful, which claims 35,000 members nationwide, has not taken a position on same-sex marriage, and said “it’s not our issue.”
But, Post said, it was important to speak out because we can’t do our work without acknowledging the deterioration in the environment in the Catholic Church.*
Archbishop Sean P. O’Malley, a leader in the fight to preserve marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution, has said that he does not wish to be divisive, but is articulating the church’s view that marriage is between one man and one woman. Voice of the Faithful leaders have previously avoided speaking out on social issues, preferring to focus on the organization’s three goals, supporting victims, supporting *priests of integrity,*and helping to shape structural change in the church.
Post also said he regretted the politicization of the Eucharist as some Catholics have suggested that Senator John F. Kerry and other politicians should not receive Communion because they support abortion rights. O’Malley also has objected to the politicization, writing in The Pilot, the archdiocesan newspaper, that “it is of concern that some people seem determined to make our liturgical services a political battleground.”
“We look with dismay at bishops who openly criticize the homosexual community and criticize gay rights,” James E. Post, the organization’s president, told about 150 people at a Voice of the Faithful meeting at St. Eulalia Church in Winchester.
In an interview afterward, Post told reporters, It is discouraging to see the archbishop using archdiocesan resources to run this campaign against gay marriage and to speak out in a way that is so divisive.*
Post said Voice of the Faithful, which claims 35,000 members nationwide, has not taken a position on same-sex marriage, and said “it’s not our issue.”
But, Post said, it was important to speak out because we can’t do our work without acknowledging the deterioration in the environment in the Catholic Church.*
Archbishop Sean P. O’Malley, a leader in the fight to preserve marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution, has said that he does not wish to be divisive, but is articulating the church’s view that marriage is between one man and one woman. Voice of the Faithful leaders have previously avoided speaking out on social issues, preferring to focus on the organization’s three goals, supporting victims, supporting *priests of integrity,*and helping to shape structural change in the church.
Post also said he regretted the politicization of the Eucharist as some Catholics have suggested that Senator John F. Kerry and other politicians should not receive Communion because they support abortion rights. O’Malley also has objected to the politicization, writing in The Pilot, the archdiocesan newspaper, that “it is of concern that some people seem determined to make our liturgical services a political battleground.”
F
fix
Guest
Apparently VOTF does not agree with the Church about SS marriage?
K
katherine2
Guest
I think you need to back away from the Wild Turkey
So you admit you do not know if the advice they are giving is unorthodox (or even touches on theology) and certainly you have not an iota of proof any of their advice has been taken.
Maybe because they are quick to pick up the bar tab.
K
katherine2
Guest
apparently you are babbling.
F
fix
Guest
Given all of VOTF¹s fervent denials, what basis do the critics have for claiming the group is made up of dissenters?
The criticisms can be boiled down to three points: (1) The leadership of VOTF is composed almost entirely of dissenters; (2) VOTF gravitates toward dissenters as advisers and speakers at its events; and (3) Its goals are ambiguous enough to hide just about any kind of agenda.
Despite the objections of VOTF leaders, during my time in the organization, I found truth in each of the three charges. The July meeting with Lakeland bore this out.
After the group recited the Nicene Creed and then meditated with eyes closed to some New Agey*sounding music, Lakeland delivered a talk titled, ³Empowering the Laity.² Like many other theologians who speak at VOTF meetings, Lakeland is a member of the Catholic Theological Society of America. Predictably, he supports women¹s ordination and rejects most Catholic moral teachings related to human sexuality. For his 20-minute talk, he received a $300 stipend. (When some VOTF members criticized the invitation of Lakeland to the July meeting, they were met with jeers from the others, including some LI-VOTF board members.)
More at…faithfulvoice.com/danny.htm
The criticisms can be boiled down to three points: (1) The leadership of VOTF is composed almost entirely of dissenters; (2) VOTF gravitates toward dissenters as advisers and speakers at its events; and (3) Its goals are ambiguous enough to hide just about any kind of agenda.
Despite the objections of VOTF leaders, during my time in the organization, I found truth in each of the three charges. The July meeting with Lakeland bore this out.
After the group recited the Nicene Creed and then meditated with eyes closed to some New Agey*sounding music, Lakeland delivered a talk titled, ³Empowering the Laity.² Like many other theologians who speak at VOTF meetings, Lakeland is a member of the Catholic Theological Society of America. Predictably, he supports women¹s ordination and rejects most Catholic moral teachings related to human sexuality. For his 20-minute talk, he received a $300 stipend. (When some VOTF members criticized the invitation of Lakeland to the July meeting, they were met with jeers from the others, including some LI-VOTF board members.)
More at…faithfulvoice.com/danny.htm
F
fix
Guest
I see you have no way to debate facts and resort to personal attacks.
It was more of a rhetorical question, honey.
F
fix
Guest
If it appears as babble, then it may not be the speaker, but perhaps one listener does not want to hear the truth. Facts are stubborn things.
K
katherine2
Guest
So this would be a situation where the bishop judges the accusation to be false, having decided to take a priest at his word and not the child.
Certainly one must have every sympathy for a bishop in that situation. VOTF would hold that there are enough cases where the priest admitted to the abuse to see a pattern of neglect on the church authorities part. But even when a bishop has chosen to take a priest at his word and not the child at his or her word, is it right that Catholic parents are denied the information to make their own, independent judgement?
And the laity have a role in that.
VOTF doesn’t claim any exclusive right to address the problem. In fact, VOTF is quite clear that they expect others to join in addressing problem, specifically bishops, priests, and lay Catholics not affiliated with VOTF.
For the same reasons the bishops have said they don’t believe that Civil Authority already provides **all **the protection necessary and punishment necessary.
I am happy that in an authentic dialogue on this we have now moved beyond some third degree associations of VOTF with people who may disagree witht he bishops to a question of is VOTF correct to agree with the bishops on at least some points.
I’ve not seen those reports.
But I’m worried more about the long term matter. if catholics parents feel they can’t trust their clergy to be alone with their children, will this result in their faith being hurt because parents will limit their child’s unsupervised interaction with clergy? CYO, CCD, altar servers, retreats, etc?
And, as we saw recently in New Jersey, does it stop at child abuse? What about money and theft? Have we lay people not risen up and taken on the responsibities to protect our children and protect good stewardship?
K
katherine2
Guest
And if you know that to be true, why have you devoted all of your posts to people who are not leaders of VOTF but exclusively focused on people with a second, third or fourth degree relationship to VOTF?
That’s a rhetorical question too, sweetheart. I’m confident I know the answer.
- Status