VOTF

[Lorarose]

<I have. They have said that VOTF has never participated in a pro-abortion rally at the Vatican Embassy or anywhere else and any representation that they did is false. Why don’t you post the photos proving VOTF was supporting abortion?>

If this is true then maybe they need to get the word out to some of their members not to wear their shirts and buttons while hanging out with their buddies from Catholic For A Free Choice?

VOTF is not the “only” lay group addressing the abuse problem.
Roman Catholic Faithful (RCF) has been at it for quite some time, has actively campaigned against corrupt bishops, and has been instrumental in the removal of some of our perverted “shepherds”

I’m looking forward to seeing if Weeorphan receives a reply from VOTF

 

[Theodred]

katherine2:

Théodred:

Voice of the … Faithful. It is a lay group mostly on the east coast that is calling for reform and renewal in light of the priest sex scandal. That’s all fine and dandy, but they allow dissenters to use thier group …QUOTE]

Gee, just like Catholic Answers Forum?

That’s an odd comparison. VOTF is now an internet forum? Could have fooled me. Mr. Keating, do you actively endorse and sponsor dissension by inviting dissenters to post here and then posting your agreement with them?

You are grasping for straws, Katherine.
Katherine, I really don’t understand your vehement defense of VOTF. Do you feel the same about other lay groups calling for reform in light of the priest sex scandal? Or are you just so fired up over a lay group with connections to Call to Action and FutureChurch?

 

[Theodred]

katherine2:

I assure you whatever background checks the church does, they are not shared with the public. Therefore IN THE SAME WAY, I don’t see why you expect VOTF to share background reports with you.

Dear Katherine, I thought that was what VOTF was trying to accomplish… to share these background checks with the public.

 

[Theodred]

Weeorphan:

In reading these postings, rather than respond to the charges listed against VOTF leadership, I thought it best to contact VOTF public relations department and invite their informed rebuttal.

I have written two letters and emailed their public relations people listed their website a few months ago. I was very polite, and simply asked why they had hosted certain speakers at their events, and had listed a certain books containing heretical doctrines on their website without providing a warning or note that the material contained in the books was contrary to Catholic teaching. I never recieved a reply. Apparently, I’m not a big of enough fish to garner their attention.

I wouldn’t hold your breath while waiting for a reply.

 

[katherine2]

Weeorphan:

In reading these postings, rather than respond to the charges listed against VOTF leadership, I thought it best to contact VOTF public relations department and invite their informed rebuttal. “Cafeteria religion” (in promoting abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia, divorce, etc), democratically elected clergy, female priests, etc,etc, are truly serious accusations, for all are against Church doctrine. Let them answer why they tolerate liberal leaning speakers who promote these deviant concepts at their conventions. Let them reveal the stance of their top leaders on all these issues. Let’s see if VOTF has the courage for such total transparency.

When I get a second, I will right Catholic Answers Froum and ask them why they tolerate deviant concepts as well.

 

[katherine2]

Théodred:

Dear Katherine, I thought that was what VOTF was trying to accomplish… to share these background checks with the public.

What’s your source on that?

 

[katherine2]

Théodred:

Mr. Keating, do you actively endorse and sponsor dissension by inviting dissenters to post here and then posting your agreement with them?

Hey, sweetheart, as far as an invitation from Mr. Keating, that’s how I got here!

What’s your source for VOTF’s agreement with dissenters?

 

[Theodred]

katherine2:

Hey, sweetheart, as far as an invitation from Mr. Keating, that’s how I got here!

What’s your source for VOTF’s agreement with dissenters?

1. VOTF’s website: suggested reading of books with material and themes directly opposed to Catholic teaching without afixing a warning or note that these books contain this material.
2. Events sponsored by VOTF where dissenters have spoken and advocated ideas directly opposed to Catholic teaching without VOTF publically stating that these speakers were presenting concepts and doctrines that are opposed to Catholic teaching.
3. I’m not your sweetheart

I’m still waiting for an answer to my question. Would you be willing to go to the mattresses for a group such as Roman Catholic Faithful?

 

[TPJCatholic]

Katherine,

The background reports do not have to be shared with me personally. Perhaps we should create a commission as a type of watchdog group over all lay groups (including VOTF) with copies of all background reports/checks made available to all Bishops. The Bishops and Priests are being “watched,” so who is watching the watchers?

The point you are missing is this: why should faithful Catholics trust any lay group? VOTF is a lay group that has made it clear it does not trust the Church to do the right thing…so how do we determine if VOTF is doing the right thing? Wolves wearing sheep clothing can come in many forms, not just the clergy.

As for transparency, VOTF is not at all transparent…do you really think that is a good thing? What if the Church tried to remain that way?

It is very productive for lay Catholics to try improve the faith…BUT, they absolutely must begin by being steadfastly and completely faithful to the authority of the Magisterium and they must be completely faithful to all teachings of the faith.If they fall short of that, then they are likely trying to change the Church and faith to their liking.

Example: Lay Catholics who ask “why can’t women be ordained” are asking a valid question, yet lay groups should NEVER entertain a discussion where ordaining women is a possibility; rather, lay groups should attempt to provide appropriate answers to such questions that are in-line with the teaching of the faith. And, when their ability answer such question accurately exists, then the matter should be referred to an expert who can give an appropriate response.

The faith/Church is not a democracy, its teachings are not up for change by lay groups.

 

[katherine2]

Théodred:

1. VOTF’s website: suggested reading of books with material and themes directly opposed to Catholic teaching without afixing a warning or note that these books contain this material.

Such is not proof of dissent. Even the Inquistion wouldn’t convivt you on just that.

1. Events sponsored by VOTF where dissenters have spoken and advocated ideas directly opposed to Catholic teaching without VOTF publically stating that these speakers were presenting concepts and doctrines that are opposed to Catholic teaching.

Again, does not prove dissent.

1. I’m not your sweetheart

ain’t that the truth.

I’m still waiting for an answer to my question. Would you be willing to go to the mattresses for a group such as Roman Catholic Faithful?

Never heard of the group previously. Sure, I would take them at their words as to what they define themselves as. Tell me about them.

 

[katherine2]

TPJCatholic:

Katherine,

The background reports do not have to be shared with me personally.

I see. When you wrote:

*“VOTF …should open their books, pass out their personal bio’s—let us see extensive background information on every leading member of VOTF (what groups, orgs, companies, associations they belonged to, along with mental histories, criminal histories, finanical histories, etc.).” *

I took that to mean you though they should be shared with you and the general public. Thank you for the clarification.

The point you are missing is this: why should faithful Catholics trust any lay group?

Because otherwise we would have no lay groups and lay group preform an important mission in the life of the church? Knights of Columbus, Legion of Mary, PTO.

It is very productive for lay Catholics to try improve the faith…

Okay. That has nothing to do with VOTF. They are not about improving the faith. They are abotu improving Catholic community life.

 

[Theodred]

Really, Katherine, this is pointless. Its a he said she said thing at this point. Are these facts shinning examples of VOTF’s fedelity? They certainly are not, and you apparently can’t explain them away.

http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=6003

http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=4462

http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=4610

http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=5320

The Roman Catholic Faithful:
rcf.org/index.html

I’m not a member of RCF, nor am I involved with this group in any way. However, this group claims to be orthodox and opposed to the kinds of heterodoxy advocated by those invited to speak at VOTF events. RCF “solution” to the priest sex scandal seems to be very different from VOTF’s.

 

[TPJCatholic]

Katherine,

As stated in this thread there is NO proof to the dissenting agendas that “some” claim the VOTF have; however, the VOTF has done absolutely nothing to counter those claims and yet they continue to call themselves the VOTF. Now, it is obvious that many groups like Knights of Columbus, etc…are not about to make themselves fully transparent;however, it seems to me that if a group refers to itself as the VOICE of the FAITHFUL, then it has a responsiblity to accurately speak that voice.

I can tell you that I am a “faithful Catholic” and I have never had one word to say about the VOTF mission. They are speaking for me, for you, and for every lay Catholic when they use the name of the VOTF. Because of that, they bear a burden of responsibility that is quite enormous…they must try to speak for ALL the faithful, not just themselves or a select group of people that share their views.

If (note: I am using the word "if) the voice of the faithful has any of the agendas that have been rumored, then they are an enemy of the Church, al Catholics, the faith and Christ. If they do not hold those agendas, then they have a clear responsibility to prove they do not because they are claiming to speak for millions of faithful Catholics. Either way, they cannot have it both ways without suffering a great deal of suspicion.

My intent in this thread is to simply say that the VOTF has been far less then forthright about their missions and goals, yet they seemingly, and apparently hypocritically, demand that the Church be held to a standard they will not apply to themselves.

VOTF could end all the rumors and suspicion by coming clean on precisely what their intentions are and allowing the Bishops that have a close look at who their leaders are. Barring that, many Catholics like me will simply have to assume that the VOTF is just another lay group that is trying to tear down Jesus’ Church.

 

[Lorarose]

Regarding Roman Catholic Faithful…

They advised me on a situation I had to deal with and gave me excellent advise.
They are faithful to Church teaching - but are very aggressive in their opposition to corruption.
They have been accused of being too aggressive - but I personally think this situation (meaning the scandal) may need such action.

rcf.org

 

[katherine2]

TPJCatholic:

Katherine,

As stated in this thread there is NO proof to the dissenting agendas that “some” claim the VOTF have…

THANK YOU.

…; however, the VOTF has done absolutely nothing to counter those claims…

While I appreciate your assertion that there is NO proof to a dissenting agenda of VOTF, some people (even folks here on this board) have made up the most false and unbelievable accusations. I don’t speak for VOTF, but I can see why they might conclude that they would spend the rest of their lives responding to the malice and hatefulness of others.

I can tell you that I am a “faithful Catholic” and I have never had one word to say about the VOTF mission. They are speaking for me, for you, and for every lay Catholic when they use the name of the VOTF.

Don’t get hung up on the name. I think we talked about THE SOCIETY OF JESUS and THE UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME.

If (note: I am using the word "if) the voice of the faithful has any of the agendas that have been rumored, then they are an enemy of the Church, al Catholics, the faith and Christ. If they do not hold those agendas,…

…then their accussors are vile sinner.

My intent in this thread is to simply say that the VOTF has been far less then forthright about their missions and goals, yet they seemingly, and apparently hypocritically, demand that the Church be held to a standard they will not apply to themselves.

I think they have been quite forthright. Of course, none of their accussors here have been willing to have a civil discussion of the goals and missions. They instead spend unlimited energy investigating one of twenty guest speakers at one of fourteen conferences who also belongs to a different organization that has on its board a person of questionable opinions of some matter. Its like playing that Kevin Bacon game (actually, its McCarthyistic)

In all of the posts here, have any of VOTF raised ONE item of VOTF’s public inititiaves? No. It also about the degrees of separation from someone they don’t like.

 

[aridite]

katherine2:

Don’t get hung up on the name. I think we talked about THE SOCIETY OF JESUS and THE UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME.

I never did understand your point of bringing up these examples. Your point seems to be: the Society of Jesus was not really founded by Jesus or does not really follow Jesus, they just call themselves that; and the University of Notre Dame does not really belong to Our Lady, it just calls itself that. So your point with Voice of the Faithful would be that they are not really faithful or they do not really speak with the voice of those who are faithful, they just call themselves that. Good, I’m glad we got that sorted out.

katherine2:

In all of the posts here, have any of VOTF raised ONE item of VOTF’s public inititiaves? No. It also about the degrees of separation from someone they don’t like.

Not true. I agreed that measures to protect children and lay consultation with bishops are a good and laudable things. Won’t you concede that VOTF ought to respect our trust and address our confusions about their orthodoxy? IMO they would have to do it once before it would be appropriate to claim they were spending all of their time answering their critics. They haven’t done it once to my knowledge. They have apparently ignored polite, respectful requests for such clarification from the lay faithful. Doesn’t sound like they really have much respect for either the laity or the faith.

 

[katherine2]

aridite:

I never did understand your point of bringing up these examples.

Focus on the article “THE”. I don’t think any of these organizations claim to have an exclusive right to the description suggested in their name. If you consider youself faithful but don’t think VOTF speaks for you, fine. Move on and be well.

Not true. I agreed that measures to protect children and lay consultation with bishops are a good and laudable things.

Then let’s discuss that for a while.

Won’t you concede that VOTF ought to respect our trust and address our confusions about their orthodoxy? IMO they would have to do it once before it would be appropriate to claim they were spending all of their time answering their critics. They haven’t done it once to my knowledge. They have apparently ignored polite, respectful requests for such clarification from the lay faithful. Doesn’t sound like they really have much respect for either the laity or the faith.

To the laity, they have done it. They have affirmed that:

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.
Now, if by “our confusions”, you mean yourself and some of the other critics here on Catholic Answers have not received a personal reply, I imagine a similar letter to “Catholic Answers” might not get a reply also. Maybe I should offer to VOTF to make that my little project – they could give me all the incoming letters, I could cut and paste the above, and mail it back.

But it certainly is simplier to just read it on the website.

 

[TPJCatholic]

katherine,

VOTF can avoid all of this quite easily. All they need to do is make a public oath of fidelity as an organization. They should announce that from this day forward VOTF will be completely faithful to the Magisterium (including the Pope) and to all teachings of the faith (including Sacred Tradition), and that they will NOT entertain avenues of discussion that has potential for leading people outside the boundaries of that oath of fidelity. If memory serves, VOTF has been asked to give that oath of fidelity–yet they have not done so. That point alone makes one wonder what their true agendas are

Example: on the VOTF website they state that they “respect” the teaching authority of the Church; however, respect is not the same as being bound (or completely loyal) to the authority Jesus gave the Magisterium and the Pope (i.e., I can respect you and yet still disagree and go another way). Muslims “respect” Jesus very much, yet they reject Him as savior, Lord, God, Only Son of God.

Additionally, it seems VOTF wants a voice in pastoral choices, which means they want a say at parish level as to who will be their pastor…that completely perverts the apostolic truths that Jesus gave His Church through the laying on of hands, etc…it also seems to speak the claim that VOTF wants the Church to function as a democracy.

There is much more we could discuss, yet if you open your mind you will see that there are many things to question regarding the VOTF intentions. My point all along is that the VOTF can wipe away all doubt by either being fully transparent, or by declaring the oath of fidelity as stated above (preferrably they would do both).

Happy New Year to you.

 

[Theodred]

It’s not the lack of a reply to my two letters or my email. It’s the questions I asked that have not been answered. If VOTF accepts the traditional role of the bishops and the pope, why are they courting persons that openly do not accept the traditional role of the bishops and the pope? Why were they given applause by VOTF leaders? Why are their books listed on the website without so much as a peep from people claiming to accept the traditional role of the bishops and the pope? It doesn’t appear that VOTF accepts the traditional role of the bishops and the pope due to their reticence concerning material that is contrary to the teachings of the Church in these books.

I asked these questions precisely because VOTF claimed to accept the traditional role of the bishops and the pope.

I can scream all day that my hair is green… but doing so isn’t going change single brown hair on my head.

 

[TPJCatholic]

Katherine,

I am sure you know that Catholic theologians are supposed to sign an oath of fidelity assuring Catholics that they will receive a truly Catholic education. Well, those same theologians are not asking for the Church to change, they are teaching the faith. VOTF is asking/demanding changes be made to the way the Church runs, and it seems VOTF takes on discussions that is quite contrary to the faith. I propose that each leading member of the VOTF sign a copy of the same oath that Catholic professors and tehologians are supposed to sign, as follows:

**OATH OF FIDELITY TO THE MAGISTERIUM

of the

HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH

**I, ________________________________________, hereby pledge my fidelity

and obedience to the Magisterium of the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church. I

promise to remain faithful to Her perennial teachings as entrusted by our Lord, Jesus

Christ, to this holy Magisterium since Her founding and for all ages to come in all things

entrusted to me in which I serve, ad majorem Dei gloriam.

---

(Signature) (Date)