VOTF

[katherine2]

aridite:

Ah, yes, judgment by character assassination.

Seemingly, the way Deal addresses VOTF.

He levels significant charges but fails to follow up. He talks about suspicions, lack of assurance, and no mention of certain topics. Hardly objectve proofs of dissent in themselves. I have suspicions and a lack of assurance with Mr. Hudosn plus reservations on topics he makes no mentions of. Shall I continue with that line of discussion?

He places a subhead of “Members” but then lists nothing more than some people who addressed a VOTF conference. These people were not members nor leaders and Deal damsn them for expressions they made outside of their address to VOTF.

He damns VOTF for supporting certain virtues because he claims they don’t address competing virtues. Nothing wrong with calling for balance, but hardly proof of dissent.

By making a selective reading of VOTF documents he accuses VOTF of making a selective reading of Church documents.

He notes they established and then discontinued a web based message board.

And on the one issue that the laity cleary do have existing rights over – stewardship – he attacks VOTF.

In the end, nothing he wrote provides any proof that VOTF is an organization that dissents from Church doctrine.

 

[aridite]

katherine2:

Seemingly, the way Deal addresses VOTF.

So, you’re justified in stooping to Deal’s level? If it’s bad for Deal, it’s bad.

katherine2:

In the end, nothing he wrote provides any proof that VOTF is an organization that dissents from Church doctrine.

Right, no proof. Just suspicions. But are the suspicions reasonable? What possible benefit is there to the Church VOTF cares so much for in giving voice to dissenters? OK, there may be some distinction between VOTF and the speaker/authors of the papers in question, but why continue to make the papers available on their website. If VOTF is so concerned to preserve the teaching of the Church, why do they not recoil in horror (as are some posters here) at the heterodoxy advanced? How many papers supported the bishops’ teaching authority, much less administrative authority and perogatives?

Protecting children, providing canonically required advice and consultation are laudable goals. I think these goals should be pursued, but by groups that are unambiguous in the support for doctrine and legitimate pastoral authority. It is clear (enough for me, at least) that VOTF has hidden agendas beyond the stated goals, and one hardly mounts an unassailable defense of its complete innocence by looking for wiggle room between VOTF and the dissenters they sponsor This is not to demand extraordinary proofs of orthodoxy – just to expect ordinary censure of heterodoxy.

 

[aridite]

aridite:

Protecting children, providing canonically required advice and consultation are laudable goals. I think these goals should be pursued, but by groups that are unambiguous in the support for doctrine and legitimate pastoral authority.

Does anyone know of such a group – orthodox, but concerned that Church be administered responsibly?

 

[Coder]

aridite:

Does anyone know of such a group – orthodox, but concerned that Church be administered responsibly?

There are several of us here in Massachusetts, however we have not formally organized. There are also small groups/individuals with their own web sites:

faithfulvoice.com/ (note that is NOT VOTF)
carolmckinley.blogspot.com/
amatha.blogspot.com/
users.trysb.net/dtf/
hccns.org/

Also, some of us from Massachusetts post here on Catholic Answers. CA is also an organization concerned that the Church end dissent and that all clergy and laity teach and live the true faith so that Catholicism is not a mockery in practice and that people will know and love Jesus.

 

[katherine2]

aridite:

So, you’re justified in stooping to Deal’s level? If it’s bad for Deal, it’s bad.

Right, no proof. Just suspicions.

Thank you for that. You certainly are entitled to your private suspicions and should abstain from supporting groups you find suspicious. Others need to follow their own reasonable and faithful judgement.

What possible benefit is there to the Church VOTF cares so much for in giving voice to dissenters?

Cares so much? I couldn’t even find their objectional submissions from the main webpage. I had to go through the link provided here.

OK, there may be some distinction between VOTF and the speaker/authors of the papers in question,…

There may? No. There is.

… but why continue to make the papers available on their website. If VOTF is so concerned to preserve the teaching of the Church, why do they not recoil in horror (as are some posters here) at the heterodoxy advanced?

Because they are not fanatics. Its totally appropriate to find out what is troubling people as you try to move forward.

How many papers supported the bishops’ teaching authority, much less administrative authority and perogatives?

Well, here is the nut of the case. Yes, it is high time someone start questioning the bishops’ claimed administrative authority and perogatives. Here is the real issue. How about we set aside these distracting issues and take up the discussion from here.

Protecting children, providing canonically required advice and consultation are laudable goals.

Laudable yes, but unmet goals.

I think these goals should be pursued,…

Its nice you think that way. But action is whart is required. So far VOTF has been the most successful lay group organizing in support of this laudable goal.

 

[aridite]

katherine2:

Because they are not fanatics. Its totally appropriate to find out what is troubling people as you try to move forward.

It is not fanatical to expect that certain questions of faith are not negotiable, much less to believe them not pertinent to the question of effective and responsible administration. Finding out (as if it were news) that some people who were raised Catholic are troubled with the Church’s stance on abortion hardly helps us “move forward.” I do not want to talk reform with people who are troubled by, e.g., the exclusively male priesthood. I would be more than happy to patiently and charitably discuss who may or may not be eligible to receive Holy Orders, and to defend the Church’s faith which has determined definitively the answer to such questions. But I’m not going to trust someone who finds this “troubling” to tell the bishops how to better do their job. This is not a fanatical attitude to take.

To continue to defend the sponsorship of dissenters is at least bad PR. How can VOTF really expect much support from truly faithful Catholics if they insist that it is relevant to the reform they’re interested in that we discuss the views of those who clearly do not respect any authority of the bishops? Because VOTF has a few legitimate concerns among other undefined or undisclosed ones is not enough to merit the name “Faithful”. If the illegitimate concerns (e.g., married/women priests) are really not part of their agenda, why not denounce them? It is this failure to censure the heterodox which a lot of people (myself included) just can’t “get beyond.”

katherine2:

Well, here is the nut of the case. Yes, it is high time someone start questioning the bishops’ claimed administrative authority and perogatives. Here is the real issue. How about we set aside these distracting issues and take up the discussion from here.

This really is the nut of the case. Bishops do really have administrative authority as well as teaching authority, and moreover they are interrelated. It is not merely “claimed.” In fact, it is their authority that put the requirement for consultation with the laity in Canon Law. Unless there is acknowledgement of this authority, it is utterly useless to continue discussing how best the authority and consultation are exercised.

 

[caroljm36]

"Goal: To shape structural change within the Church: We respect the teaching authority of the Church and recognize the role that the hierarchy should exercise in discernment. It is essential, however, that all the people of God be involved in this process of discernment. We will therefore devote ourselves to advancing meaningful and active engagement of the laity in the life of the Church. "

Arggh! More churchy slush, gush and mush. I don’t know anything about VOTF, though I think maybe I saw a news bit on them on TV. But I am so sick of this vague type of language–“discernment”??? oh my. I never know what anyone is really saying!

 

[James_the_Least]

I’m not sure why there are two threads about VOTF running in the Apologetics Forum…could they be combined?

• #87 *
  Today, 11:29 PM

James the Least
I’m not sure why there are two threads about VOTF running in the Apologetics Forum…could they be combined?

Eyewitness evidence that VOTF spreads dissidence!
Last Sunday, Dec. 5, 2004, a priest, Fr. Thomas Doyle O.P, representing Voice of the Faithful gave a presentation after the last mass in an area outside the church proper at St. Hilary Catholic Church in akron, Ohio. Fr. Doyle, whose talk was advertized as being about clergy abuse and justice for victim-survivors, did not make any attempt to hide at least part of VOTF’s real agenda: bashing the hierarchy and the ordination of women. He then proceeded to insult Pope John Paul II by calling him an “embarassing icon.” Gee, with this kind of representation, we may not have much to worry about this gang. Not many can put on such displays of dead-horse-beating and at the same time turn off the vast majority of Pope-loving Catholics (youth especially). This kind of bad fruit is obviously not inspired or led by the Holy Spirit, VOTF may just wither off the vine and blow away. Amen.

Keep the Faith!

 

[Annunciata]

James the Least:

… This kind of bad fruit is obviously not inspired or led by the Holy Spirit, VOTF may just wither off the vine and blow away. Amen…

We can only live in hope …nice post James!
God Bless,
Annunciata

 

[katherine2]

James the Least:

Eyewitness evidence that VOTF spreads dissidence!
Last Sunday, Dec. 5, 2004, a priest, Fr. Thomas Doyle O.P, representing Voice of the Faithful gave a presentation after the last mass in an area outside the church proper at St. Hilary Catholic Church in akron, Ohio. Fr. Doyle, whose talk was advertized as being about clergy abuse and justice for victim-survivors, …Keep the Faith!

I note their are some folks here who claim deep concern about the importance of strickly affirming the most precise details and nunaces of what they think are Church teachings but are loose and Caliviler wit their own language and get upset when their errors are exposed.

Fr. Doyle is not a representative of VOTF. He is a priest in good standing who wrote a report in 1985 on the issue of child abuse by Catholic clergy in the U.S. This report was part of his official duties at the Apostolic Nunciary and was “deep-sixed”. Had he been taken seriously at the time, we might be a much better situation today.

I don’t know what he said in Akron. I’ve seen no press reports. Since you have misrepresentated Doyle’s relationship with VOTF, not to mention provided no source or quotes, I imagine this might be in the catagory of other untruthful comments made about VOTF. The fact that VOTF’s critics seem to feel a need to lie about VOTF gives me greater assurance that VOTF is doing good work.

Personally, I would welcome an opportunity to hear first hand from him. Of course, I actually beleive finding someone to be an interesting and worthwhile speaker is different than having someone totally agree with me, reguritating my own opinions back to me are two different things. I guess that is the different between VOTF’s friends and critics.

 

[katherine2]

caroljm36:

Arggh! More churchy slush, gush and mush. I don’t know anything about VOTF, though I think maybe I saw a news bit on them on TV. But I am so sick of this vague type of language–“discernment”??? oh my. I never know what anyone is really saying!

More churchy, slush, gush and mush around the sickening word “discernment”:
By a discernment according to the Spirit, Christians have to distinguish between the growth of the Reign of God and the progress of the culture and society in which they are involved. This distinction is not a separation. Man’s vocation to eternal life does not suppress, but actually reinforces, his duty to put into action in this world the energies and means received from the Creator to serve justice and peace.

By a discernment according to the Spirit, Christians have to distinguish between the growth of the Reign of God and the progress of the culture and society in which they are involved. This distinction is not a separation. Man’s vocation to eternal life does not suppress, but actually reinforces, his duty to put into action in this world the energies and means received from the Creator to serve justice and peace.

The Holy Spirit gives to certain of the faithful the gifts of wisdom, faith and discernment for the sake of this common good which is prayer (spiritual direction). Men and women so endowed are true servants of the living tradition of prayer.

Conscience includes the perception of the principles of morality (synderesis); their application in the given circumstances by practical discernment of reasons and goods; and finally judgment about concrete acts yet to be performed or already performed. The truth about the moral good, stated in the law of reason, is recognized practically and concretely by the* prudent judgment* of conscience.

When we say “lead us not into temptation” we are asking God not to allow us to take the path that leads to sin. This petition implores the Spirit of discernment and strength; it requests the grace of vigilance and final perseverance.

Alone among all animate beings, man can boast of having been counted worthy to receive a law from God: as an animal endowed with reason, capable of understanding and discernment, he is to govern his conduct by using his freedom and reason

 

[katherine2]

aridite:

It is not fanatical to expect that certain questions of faith are not negotiable

The questions are non-negotiable. The people who have such questions are still children of God, possessing the human dignity He has given them.

 

[aridite]

katherine2:

The questions are non-negotiable. The people who have such questions are still children of God, possessing the human dignity He has given them.

Right. That’s why I said I would charitably and patiently discuss Holy Orders, etc. as a spiritual work of mercy: instuction for the ignorant, counselling for the doubtful or admonishment of the sinner. The (glaringly) ignorant, doubtful or sinful should not be the ones forming the agenda for lay representation. [Yes, I realize we are all to greater and lesser degrees ignorant, in doubt and sinful, and some of our bishops have been egregiously so. This is just what needs to be reformed. But it is counter-productive, to say the least, to ask the (glaringly) ignorant, doubtful and sinful to overcome ignorance, doubt and sin.]

But, the question remains, why should the entertainment of these question (questions which undermine legitimate teaching authority) be at all pertinent to the legitimate aims of fostering lay representation? Unless and until VOTF answers that question adequately, they have not earned the right to their name.

I agree that we only need one thread on VOTF. I will post on the other thread from now on. May we continue our spiritual works of mercy to each other there.

 

[katherine2]

aridite:

Right. That’s why I said I would charitably and patiently discuss Holy Orders, etc. as a spiritual work of mercy: instuction for the ignorant, counselling for the doubtful or admonishment of the sinner. The (glaringly) ignorant, doubtful or sinful should not be the ones forming the agenda for lay representation. [Yes, I realize we are all to greater and lesser degrees ignorant, in doubt and sinful, and some of our bishops have been egregiously so. This is just what needs to be reformed. But it is counter-productive, to say the least, to ask the (glaringly) ignorant, doubtful and sinful to overcome ignorance, doubt and sin.]

The answer is in your response. if we launch an Inquisition against the ignorant, there is no one left. You also easily skip from the fact two or three people (not officers and maybe not members) had something posted on a VOTF website. That’s a streach to say the whole organization is accursed.

And let me be frank. The fact that a Catholic mother might offer the opinion that women should be ordained does not take away her natural law rights to direct the raising of her children and protect them from abuse.

Given a bishop egregiously ignorant as to how to protect children and a mother egregiously ignorant as to the masculine nature of the priesthood, I’m not taking one iota away from that mother’s right to act in defense of her children.

if that makes me a bad Catholic, so be it.

 

[Trelow]

katherine2:

if that makes me a bad Catholic, so be it.

There aren’t any bad Catholics.
Only Catholics and those who claim to be Catholics. It’s a binary switch, accept all the teaching or don’t. There is no middle ground.

 

[Fiat]

Dear Katherine2:

I hope all is well. We’re having some cold weather here in Illinois, but it’s expected. You stated:

Given a bishop egregiously ignorant as to how to protect children and a mother egregiously ignorant as to the masculine nature of the priesthood, I’m not taking one iota away from that mother’s right to act in defense of her children

I have to say that I find your generalization about masculine characteristics a little offensive and off the mark. I think most men (and women) would agree that there is nothing masculine about sodomizing young boys and girls. Also, unless you can establish that women themselves are incapable of abusing children, then your premises fall apart. I think that most State Department of Children Services reports would disagree with your conclusion. In Illinois, at least, most child abusers are women. Perhaps Pennsylvania is different?

In faith,
Fiat

 

[katherine2]

Fiat:

Dear Katherine2:

I hope all is well. We’re having some cold weather here in Illinois, but it’s expected. You stated:
I have to say that I find your generalization about masculine characteristics a little offensive and off the mark. I think most men (and women) would agree that there is nothing masculine about sodomizing young boys and girls. Also, unless you can establish that women themselves are incapable of abusing children, then your premises fall apart. I think that most State Department of Children Services reports would disagree with your conclusion. In Illinois, at least, most child abusers are women. Perhaps Pennsylvania is different?

In faith,
Fiat

Dear, I think you are misreading my post. A mother who does not understand why only men are ordained to the priesthood (i.e. that the priesthood by its nature is masculine )does not lose her natural law rights to protect her children.

Does this help?

I hope you are staying warm and that the coldness does not stop you from your Christmas preparations.

 

[Weeorphan]

I have been for a while the interim president of a San Diego affiliate of VOTF . The Affiliate is defunct for lack of active participation and strong opposition by Catholics in our county. Attempts have been made to ‘train’ leadership, but to no avail hereabouts, despite well-intentioned efforts.

What motivates me for change is the egregious conduct of many bishops colluding to protect abusive priests ( not only in pedophilia but in management of their parish assets and personnel.) The old boy network is alive and well. How to change the Church while preserving its doctrine and hierarchical structure is problematic. No other well organized group besides VOTF exists today, large enough to stand up to the Church and demand transparency.

What I found, to my dismay, is that most of the participants in group sessions we had were also members of ‘Call to Action’, and other liberal action groups. Some were on the edge of quitting the Church if it were not for VOTF. So for some time I felt VOTF held up some hope of being useful to the Church in providing meaningful constructive feedback to local bishops, while helping these fragile Catholics stay within the fold.

Another problem I had was the VOTF leadership in Boston was ‘dancing with wolves’ in the laity fringe groups, to gather support. To invoke participation at their assemblies, they’d invite many liberal speakers with hidden and not so hidden agendas, marginalized theologians, as well as candid priests ( Fr Doyle) with legitimate concerns, fed up with the shenanigans of the college of bishops pussyfooting their serious sexual abuse problems.

However, VOTF has legitimate concerns too much mixed with liberal agendas. For this reason, my support of its work has cooled, in hopes the Holy Spirit has done enough punishing to steer the Church aright.

Recently deposed in testimony concerning abusive priests, Bishop Mahoney’s doing a foxtrot to avoid bankrupting the LA Diocese. He is obviously doing what he thinks is right for the Church, but heaven help him if God thinks otherwise.

What we are seeing in his fancy two-step, in my opinion, is example of that classic dichotomy found in any study of Ethics:

Utilitarianism vs individual rights: (whatever serves the majority is right, no matter the cost to individual rights). May God help him do what is right. Otherwise, there won’t remain much laity to govern.

 

[James_the_Least]

Weeorphan:

What motivates me for change is the egregious conduct of many bishops colluding to protect abusive priests ( not only in pedophilia but in management of their parish assets and personnel.)

Dear Weeorphan, Your post is interesting and raises questions. How many bishops have colluded, etc.? Is “pedophilia” the most exact term or is “homosexual sin committed with predominantly teen boys?”

Weeorphan:

The old boy network is alive and well.

Can you define “old boy network?”

Weeorphan:

How to change the Church while preserving its doctrine and hierarchical structure is problematic.

For whom? As for changing the Church, how about some repentance for personal sin and asking the Holy Spirit to come in for some deep, personal housecleaning? You seem to assume that hierarchy by itself is a problem. Even heaven has a hierarchy. The angels don’t seem to have difficulty with it. Your own body has a hierarchy…the brain and central nervous system still give the commands. Besides, you can’t do away with the hierarchy in the Church, becasue it is God-ordained, with Jesus as the Head. Anything that would want to dismember the Body, is opposed to the Head and is not from the Head. The Head desires faith, love, unity, holiness, obedience, trust, forgiveness…

Weeorphan:

No other well organized group besides VOTF exists today, large enough to stand up to the Church and demand transparency.

How do you define “Church” in this context? Then, how does a group “stand up to it?”

Weeorphan:

What I found, to my dismay, is that most of the participants in group sessions we had were also members of ‘Call to Action’, and other liberal action groups. Some were on the edge of quitting the Church if it were not for VOTF. So for some time I felt VOTF held up some hope of being useful to the Church in providing meaningful constructive feedback to local bishops, while helping these fragile Catholics stay within the fold.

Do you really see “Call to Action” members as “fragile?” We need to strive for unity, yes, but even Jesus didn’t try to stop those who walked out on him over His hard saying about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. Leaving for awhile may not be the worst thing in some cases. Many who leave the Church, even for other denominations, come to long for what they abandoned; some return with a newfound appreciation for the good in Catholicism, even in its hierarchical structure.

Weeorphan:

Another problem I had was the VOTF leadership in Boston was ‘dancing with wolves’ in the laity fringe groups, to gather support. To invoke participation at their assemblies, they’d invite many liberal speakers with hidden and not so hidden agendas, marginalized theologians, as well as candid priests ( Fr Doyle) with legitimate concerns, fed up with the shenanigans of the college of bishops pussyfooting their serious sexual abuse problems.

Thank you for openly admitting what many deny to be the case.
“Candid”, however, is too nice an adjective with a nice connotation of open truth-telling. How about the adjective “insulting?” or “vindictive?” “College of bishops” could use a definition. If you mean the USCCB, it does not, as a national conference of bishops, have a sexual abuse problem. Aside from making policy statements, it has no canonical or juridical authority over what idividual bishops do or don’t do in their own dioceses. Perhaps all individual bishops need to tend to their own flocks with regard to helping them understand and follow what the Scriptures and the Church teach about the entire area of sexuality. There is no paucity of good teaching from both these sources. God may be more interested in repentance, regeneration and redemption than with punishment at this time. He’ll get to punishment later.

Weeorphan:

However, VOTF has legitimate concerns too much mixed with liberal agendas. For this reason, my support of its work has cooled, in hopes the Holy Spirit has done enough punishing to steer the Church aright.

No doubt you’ve cooled because of the chilling effect of VOTF’s icy
blasts. Related to the above, the Holy Spirit does not punish, but does steer the Church aright, of that we are confident. The timing of the steering may not be our timing, but the timing will be perfect.

Weeorphan:

there won’t remain much laity to govern.]

The remnant will always be the minority. God desires quantity and quality, but, according to Jesus, in the end, because of man’s preference for darkness, it will be quality that gets into paradise.
Amen.

Merry and blessedly peaceful Christmas!

 

[Weeorphan]

Reply To James the Least:

You ask how many bishops have colluded? Any Diocese where offending priests have been shuffled around, is governed by ‘colluding’ bishops. Exact count? One is too many.

You ask if pedophilia should be replaced by pederasty: in my listening to many victims of SNAP, enough females bore witness before our group sessions to convince me that pederasty is not broad enough to describe the cross-section of sexual preference in our offending priests.

You ask what ‘old boy network’ means. Surely you know what that might mean, but just in case, I’ll offer you a fitting explanation: Crony seminary classmates advancing each other up the hierarchical ladder with prejudice, and protecting their backsides even in the event of justified criminal indictment.

I speak not against the ‘Hierarchy’, for the body needs a head. What troubles the Church is when the head thinks it can do anything without caring first for its feet(laity). I am against the egocentric arrogance of bishops circling the wagons to save their own and the Church’s institutional image above the welfare of sexually abused clergy victims. Shooting oneself in the foot is never a good idea. Utilitarianism versus inalienable individual rights:the Hierarchy finds itself on the wrong side of a classic struggle in Christian Ethics.

Yes, the Hierarchy needs a crash course in spiritual fitness, like Army officers who have grown feeble and fat. The seminaries should have boot camp training for spiritual warfare preparing for the rough and tough secular world they will minister. The carnal temptations for secular priests are many, the stresses intense and immense, unlike cloistered monastic religious who live in quiet, closed communities. Secular priests need to be turned into leather necks, trained as God’s marines under fire on the beachhead of the Enemy. Instead, we have priests who are spritually feeble and fat, strangers to deep contemplative prayer and disciplined fasting, unable to fight the good fight for long before succumbing to temptation. I wonder if a Jesuit course in sensory deprivation would drive many of our bishops mad. This lack of spiritual depth without a rockbed foundation is the crux of the problem in our Hierarchy today. This needs to change, or else.

The laity have been fed far too long, that stale bread from the pulpit of feeble and fat priests who were also fed and raised on it. We grow emaciated from 'Wonder Bread" sermons full of synthetic vitamins and fibreless white flour. When was the last time you heard a fire and brimstone priest come right out and teach chastity in or out of marriage? How many emphasize our becoming ‘Another Christ’, by dying to our egocentricities? How many priests even know what it means to suffer the ‘dark night of the soul’ or the intense, agonizing labor of rebirth?I dare say, very few.

If we were to suffer a persecution as under Emperor Diocletian, how many of us would be able to profess our Faith in the face of a fiery death? How many of us in our so-called Church Militant are ‘Army regulars’ instead of Sunday mercenaries or cradle Catholic draftees ready to desert under Enemy fire? Whether priest or laity, few will enter the narrow gate to salvation, even among us Catholics.
To be continued in next post.