W
Weeorphan
Guest
Lorarose said:
- Status
W
Weeorphan
Guest
I have emailed three of top VOTF leadership, with whom I have had previous intercourse, and fully expect a reply to my request for a rebuttal to charges made in this Forum’s thread. One already announced being on vacation till Jan 3. The other two I presume are scrambling for advice and consent from their Board.
What I mean by that last statement is VOTF is extremely sensitive to making public statements without weighty deliberation. On the one hand, VOTF has a wide spectrum of constituents, liberal and conservative, that want representation. To offend the liberals would cut their membership considerably. The survival of any organization becomes its ultimate priority and chief vulnerability. Our Church is as guilty of this survival imperative as any institution, harboring many ‘liberals’ even among its priests and theologians at accredited Catholic universities. So consider this well: isn’t the pot is calling the kettle black?
In this regard, one can argue that quantity should yield to quality, but that argument cuts both ways. Both VOTF and the Church should thus be drumming out the extreme liberals, but I submit they would find their respective memberships reduced considerably. Maybe that would be spiritually good in the long run, but certainly not prudent in a world of Madison Avenue imagery and illusion. Alas, both organizations are dancing with wolves.
But then, too, if VOTF were to sign a statement of total allegiance to a bishop’s authority, in the face of his alleged collective collusion in the sexual abuse scandal, that would be grossly dishonest and incompatible with its intent to clean out scumbags.
However, doesn’t the Church do the same thing, – cater to liberals–, by muffling the fire and brimstone sermons into stale ‘Wonder Bread’ synthetics, as I described in an earlier post? Why? The Church knows who butters its bread, and cannot offend the vast numbers of liberal cafeteria Catholics in the audience, for fear of losing tithes every Sunday. Yes, this is a commercially prudent, probably premeditated course of action, and explains much of why the Church has lost membership over the years to zealous evangelical sects. The Church no longer has the backbone or stomach for minority status and social persecution.
This presents a tight situation, sailing between a Scylla and Charybdis, a rock and a hard place. On that I think we can all agree. If this movement of VOTF be of God, then we risk opposing the renewing fire of the Holy Spirit. If it be of the Satan, then it shall wimper and die of its own accord. Let us wait and see.
What I mean by that last statement is VOTF is extremely sensitive to making public statements without weighty deliberation. On the one hand, VOTF has a wide spectrum of constituents, liberal and conservative, that want representation. To offend the liberals would cut their membership considerably. The survival of any organization becomes its ultimate priority and chief vulnerability. Our Church is as guilty of this survival imperative as any institution, harboring many ‘liberals’ even among its priests and theologians at accredited Catholic universities. So consider this well: isn’t the pot is calling the kettle black?
In this regard, one can argue that quantity should yield to quality, but that argument cuts both ways. Both VOTF and the Church should thus be drumming out the extreme liberals, but I submit they would find their respective memberships reduced considerably. Maybe that would be spiritually good in the long run, but certainly not prudent in a world of Madison Avenue imagery and illusion. Alas, both organizations are dancing with wolves.
Code:
On the other hand, VOTF is committed to 'bending-over-backwards', to be politically(religiously) correct within the Church. What would come of their role as a voice of constructive feedback if the Church would not sit down and discuss legitimate lay accusations of corruption and abuse by the Hierarchy? To make bold inflammatory statements against established doctrine would be foolhardy suicide and shut the pastoral door in their face. VOTF must maintain respectful communication with the College of Bishops, by muffling the liberal dissenting porton of their constituency as much as possibles.However, doesn’t the Church do the same thing, – cater to liberals–, by muffling the fire and brimstone sermons into stale ‘Wonder Bread’ synthetics, as I described in an earlier post? Why? The Church knows who butters its bread, and cannot offend the vast numbers of liberal cafeteria Catholics in the audience, for fear of losing tithes every Sunday. Yes, this is a commercially prudent, probably premeditated course of action, and explains much of why the Church has lost membership over the years to zealous evangelical sects. The Church no longer has the backbone or stomach for minority status and social persecution.
This presents a tight situation, sailing between a Scylla and Charybdis, a rock and a hard place. On that I think we can all agree. If this movement of VOTF be of God, then we risk opposing the renewing fire of the Holy Spirit. If it be of the Satan, then it shall wimper and die of its own accord. Let us wait and see.
R
RobbyS
Guest
I think the Knights of Columbus is better prepared to perform this role, since they do not begin by questioning the hierarchical nature of the Church.
T
Theodred
Guest
The lawyers, the victims brave enough to come forward and the media were the ones to force the bishop’s hand… not organizations like VOTF or RCF, for that matter. Therefore, I can give a rat’s behind who they catter to or who’s butt they are kissing. Both are non-intergers in regards to affecting “reform” and if they continue with this rhetoric that sounds more like Martin Luther than Saint Philip Neri, they will ultimately do more harm than good.
I think your preception of the “Church” is woefully pessimistic and unfair. There are wicked people in the Church, and there are people in the Church who are worried about PR, but they do not equal the Church. On this score you are way off base. The gates of hell, nor the PC crowd, have in the past or will in the future prevail against the Church.
L
larryo
Guest
Katherine2, just a minor correction. The saint’s name is spelled “Katharine” with an “a.” Saint Katharine Drexel, ora pro nobis.
K
katherine2
Guest
I personally would have not a moment’s trouble in signing such as statements and it seems no more than a re-wording to statement’s VOTF has already made.
Nevertheless, I do understand, appreciate and uphold the Church’s wisdom (being loyal to the Magisterium as I am) in composing the above for those with the particular mission of teaching theology, while offering a different statement for the general faithful – namely the promises of baptism and the Nicene Creed.
At the risk of being verbose, let me repeat myself. The Church in Her wisdom asks those engaged in theology to affirm their fidelity with w acertain forumula (which you provided). For those of us with the vocation of the laity (myself, VOTF, etc), the profession of faith for us are our baptismal promises and the Nicene Creed.
Since you and I are friends having a discussion, and you raised this question, I’ve affirmed to you that the oath the Church asks theologians to take is one I can take myself with great ease even though i am not a theologian (no suprise to you, I am sure).
Nevertheless, I can certainly understand that if you want to send this request by certified mail to VOTF HQ, that they may busy themselves with other matters rather than respond.
I note that some conservatives get very hyper over realtivly minor aspects of the liturgy which they think confuse the role of priest and laity. A related principle might be employed here.
K
katherine2
Guest
This might indicate why a discussion of VOTF’s initiatives might be informative rather than just playing the Kevin Bacon game with them.
I think you grossly misunderstand VOTF positon, current canon law and Catholic history.
I assume as an orthodox Catholic you reject the theory that any form of pastoral or even episcopal selection previously used by the Church during her 2000 history can be a perversion of apostolic truths, right?
Second, VOTF has been only mildly focused on this matter (less than I think they might).
And most importantly, I think you fail to realze that under CURRENT canon law, the lay faithful are to have a voice in pastoral choices, though the principle is weakly followed, I beleive. So in large part, VOTF is asking for the Church to make more real what she already claims to be doing.
K
katherine2
Guest
You understand that a giving the exclusive role to represent the laity to an organization that will not take me or any other member of my sex as a member does create certain problems for me.
I know the conservatives are quite firm about not having women priests. Excluding women from any active role in the lay vocation is a new one for me.
T
TPJCatholic
Guest
Katherine,
Can I assume you will aggressively seek the “oath of fidelity” signature from every leading member of VOTF? After all, every truly faithful Catholic should have no problem signing such an oath, correct? And, after all, the oath is simply stating that the signing person promises to be fully faithful to the Magisterium and all teachings of the faith, correct?
You see, that is really all that most people would require of any lay group, an oath of fidelity–that they actually keep and live by!
VOTF does itself no good by entertaining any talk of female ordination, or Priest marrying, or other such anti-faith nonsense. Signing the oath would tell us all that they would cease doing such things, for no faithful Catholic would lie to the entire Body of Christ, correct?
BTW, I personally do not view any liturgical abuse as being minor, not matter how small the abuse. The liturgy comes from Christ, and must be kept sacred, even in the smallest details. There are proper channels to formally change the liturgy, lay people cannot do it on their own. Jesus taught us to follow all that He gave us…not just some of the things we personally like and approve of.
Can I assume you will aggressively seek the “oath of fidelity” signature from every leading member of VOTF? After all, every truly faithful Catholic should have no problem signing such an oath, correct? And, after all, the oath is simply stating that the signing person promises to be fully faithful to the Magisterium and all teachings of the faith, correct?
You see, that is really all that most people would require of any lay group, an oath of fidelity–that they actually keep and live by!
VOTF does itself no good by entertaining any talk of female ordination, or Priest marrying, or other such anti-faith nonsense. Signing the oath would tell us all that they would cease doing such things, for no faithful Catholic would lie to the entire Body of Christ, correct?
BTW, I personally do not view any liturgical abuse as being minor, not matter how small the abuse. The liturgy comes from Christ, and must be kept sacred, even in the smallest details. There are proper channels to formally change the liturgy, lay people cannot do it on their own. Jesus taught us to follow all that He gave us…not just some of the things we personally like and approve of.
T
TPJCatholic
Guest
Katherine,
Pastoral decisions are made by the Bishops. (name removed by moderator)ut from the laity has at times been accepted, but please note that it is “(name removed by moderator)ut” only…final decisions as to who will sheperd any given parish is always left to the Bishop. Again, the Church is not a democracy.
Sincerely and respectfully I submit that perhaps you might find benefit in ceasing your defense of the VOTF and see that perhaps their agendas are not completely pure. I am not attacking VOTF, I am attempting to get you to detach your mind from your defense of that group just long enough to see that perhaps their motives are not quite what you think.
One simple example: VOTF has been charged with desiring to open a discussion about female ordination…if that is not true, they should declare that publicly and not hide under the false umbrella of being faithful Catholics. Further, if it is true then they clearly stand against infallible declarations by the Pope and the Magisterium and they also stand against 2,000 years of Church history’s Sacred Traditon and Sacred Scripture. This is just once example, we could extend this to Priests being married, abortion, homosexuals, etc…there are many areas of serious concern regarding VOTF and all they have to do is speak up to inform us of where they stand on these issues–definitively. If these are false charges, one would think they would be quite eager to clear their own reputation–yet that does not happen.
Pastoral decisions are made by the Bishops. (name removed by moderator)ut from the laity has at times been accepted, but please note that it is “(name removed by moderator)ut” only…final decisions as to who will sheperd any given parish is always left to the Bishop. Again, the Church is not a democracy.
Sincerely and respectfully I submit that perhaps you might find benefit in ceasing your defense of the VOTF and see that perhaps their agendas are not completely pure. I am not attacking VOTF, I am attempting to get you to detach your mind from your defense of that group just long enough to see that perhaps their motives are not quite what you think.
One simple example: VOTF has been charged with desiring to open a discussion about female ordination…if that is not true, they should declare that publicly and not hide under the false umbrella of being faithful Catholics. Further, if it is true then they clearly stand against infallible declarations by the Pope and the Magisterium and they also stand against 2,000 years of Church history’s Sacred Traditon and Sacred Scripture. This is just once example, we could extend this to Priests being married, abortion, homosexuals, etc…there are many areas of serious concern regarding VOTF and all they have to do is speak up to inform us of where they stand on these issues–definitively. If these are false charges, one would think they would be quite eager to clear their own reputation–yet that does not happen.
M
Mfaustina1
Guest
“Voice of the Faithful” is an organization that wants more say and “government” within the Church to be run more by the lay people than the hierchy. They basically want to be Baptists in Catholic clothing!..no offense to Baptists who may be reading this, but I don’t believe in having things both ways! - Mfaustina1
W
Weeorphan
Guest
IF anyone reading this thread has any doubts that a serious criminal collusion among our bishops has been occurring for a long long time, involving thousands of sexual abuse victims around the world, damaging the psyche of mainly innocent children, then read on and weep for our Church. VOTF is striving as best it can to uproot this spiritual disease among our clergy and prevent this tragic atrocity from ever happening again.:
After three years of revelations and a record $100-million settlement, the sex scandal roiling the Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange won’t fade away.
As part of the agreement reached Dec. 2 with 87 plaintiffs, Bishop of Orange Tod D. Brown vowed not to fight the release of files that show how the church handled those allegations through the years. Attorneys who crafted the settlement say they expect the case files to be released this year.
Those who have seen the files say they show that Orange County church leaders quietly moved molesting priests to new parishes and other dioceses, ignored or downplayed testimony by victims and their parents and rarely reported the crimes to police.
Los Angeles Diocese will be next to feel “the wrath of GOD”.
After three years of revelations and a record $100-million settlement, the sex scandal roiling the Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange won’t fade away.
As part of the agreement reached Dec. 2 with 87 plaintiffs, Bishop of Orange Tod D. Brown vowed not to fight the release of files that show how the church handled those allegations through the years. Attorneys who crafted the settlement say they expect the case files to be released this year.
Those who have seen the files say they show that Orange County church leaders quietly moved molesting priests to new parishes and other dioceses, ignored or downplayed testimony by victims and their parents and rarely reported the crimes to police.
Los Angeles Diocese will be next to feel “the wrath of GOD”.
K
katherine2
Guest
No, I won’t and I make no apologies for that. Did you not read my previou spost? The Church, IN HER GREAT WISDOM, and from a solid, theological basis, holds out as the statement of faith for the laity their baptismal promises and the Nicene Creed. These are the statements of witness proper to those of the lay vocation.
You’ve have plucked from another vocation – that of theologian – an oath the Church has composed from them.
I think of all this shows you lack an understading of the basis of the lay vocation.
I don’t find the oath at all objectionable. Neither to I find the pledge to the flag objectionable. I’ll affirm them both. Neither is directly related to VOTF’s mission.
You seem to be unique in requiring this of a lay group. The Church certainly does not.
VOTF does not advocate a maried clergy. But if you consider this to be “anti-faith”, your faith is not Catholic.
K
katherine2
Guest
Of course the church is not a democracy. In a democracy, you can vote out leaders who are not worthy of their office. Tyrants have to be asasinated!!!
(It’s a joke, don’t get upset!!!)
A
aridite
Guest
I don’t think anyone on this thread has expressed doubts that some bishops have acted reprehensibly, and I believe, some are probably still being protected by cronies. I don’t believe VOTF is striving as best it can to uproot this spiritual disease, though. They could strive for hierarchal transparency in a much more transparent manner. I am becoming more and more convinced that they are sowing seeds of spiritual disease at least as bad as those they are ostensibly trying to uproot. It is becoming clear to me, at least, that the “cure” of VOTF may be worse than the disease. Actually they are of a piece: dissent in the 70’s at least contributed to the original problem of sexual abuse; hubris at least contributed to episcopal misconduct. I pray that katherine2 is right, and that VOTF is not long for this world – the cause of reform will be taken up by other entities.
T
TPJCatholic
Guest
Katherine,
By attempting to insult me, or others here, you merely hurt yourself. Please refrain from such silliness.
I know the faith and lay vocations quite well. I also know that the oath I posted is for professors and theologians and “if” you had taken time to notice, I did slight word modication to the oath in order to more appropriately fit lay Catholics in any sort of group or ministry (btw, don’t be shocked if the Church begins to require those sorts of oaths from lay Catholics–we are all called to be completely faithful to Jesus and His Church, not just Priests and theologians).
One can easily see that my point is VOTF has a responsibility to the Lord and His Church, and not to simply give lip service to people who find VOTF’s agendas to be questionable.
I have noticed that you have refrained from commenting on nearly all of the meaningful comments I have made. YOu also appear to have no intention to open your mind about the possibility that the VOTF may not be as pure as you like to think. Notice, I used the word “possibility,” notice further that I have used the word “if” many times in my discussion about the VOTF. I have not charged the VOTF with any specific actions, I am merely re-stating problems that “some” people have seen with the VOTF. Frankly speaking, as a faithful lay Catholic I would not waste my time having anything to do with a group like the VOTF; however, for those Catholics who embrace VOTF, I feel they are entitled to the fullness of the faith and the fullness of loyalty to the Lord’s Church ----- the Church that Jesus alone instituted.
Furthermore, I find it very interesting that you think married clergy represents the “faith,” since for many centuries now celibacy has been the norm. Yes, there are exceptions (even today), yet the exceptions are reasonably few–and yes in the early Church there were married clergy. Yet today the norm is celibacy for the Latin Rite and lay Catholics will not change that–that is a decision that lies in the hands of the Bishops.
Further, I find it interesting that you did not deny that the VOTF seeks to have female ordination, etc. You, just like the VOTF, have not actually denied such charges, so perhaps that lends some insight into the truth of such charges.
Finally, the VOTF seeks structural change within the Church, and yet there is no problems with the structure of the Church. The problem lies in sin, not in structure. People sin, all people sin, that includes clergy. Changing structures of the Church is not going to stop sin, it might shift the sin to some area, but the Church will always be a place for sinners, run and guided by sinners. It would do the VOTF some good to remember that.
God Bless and Happy New Year
By attempting to insult me, or others here, you merely hurt yourself. Please refrain from such silliness.
I know the faith and lay vocations quite well. I also know that the oath I posted is for professors and theologians and “if” you had taken time to notice, I did slight word modication to the oath in order to more appropriately fit lay Catholics in any sort of group or ministry (btw, don’t be shocked if the Church begins to require those sorts of oaths from lay Catholics–we are all called to be completely faithful to Jesus and His Church, not just Priests and theologians).
One can easily see that my point is VOTF has a responsibility to the Lord and His Church, and not to simply give lip service to people who find VOTF’s agendas to be questionable.
I have noticed that you have refrained from commenting on nearly all of the meaningful comments I have made. YOu also appear to have no intention to open your mind about the possibility that the VOTF may not be as pure as you like to think. Notice, I used the word “possibility,” notice further that I have used the word “if” many times in my discussion about the VOTF. I have not charged the VOTF with any specific actions, I am merely re-stating problems that “some” people have seen with the VOTF. Frankly speaking, as a faithful lay Catholic I would not waste my time having anything to do with a group like the VOTF; however, for those Catholics who embrace VOTF, I feel they are entitled to the fullness of the faith and the fullness of loyalty to the Lord’s Church ----- the Church that Jesus alone instituted.
Furthermore, I find it very interesting that you think married clergy represents the “faith,” since for many centuries now celibacy has been the norm. Yes, there are exceptions (even today), yet the exceptions are reasonably few–and yes in the early Church there were married clergy. Yet today the norm is celibacy for the Latin Rite and lay Catholics will not change that–that is a decision that lies in the hands of the Bishops.
Further, I find it interesting that you did not deny that the VOTF seeks to have female ordination, etc. You, just like the VOTF, have not actually denied such charges, so perhaps that lends some insight into the truth of such charges.
Finally, the VOTF seeks structural change within the Church, and yet there is no problems with the structure of the Church. The problem lies in sin, not in structure. People sin, all people sin, that includes clergy. Changing structures of the Church is not going to stop sin, it might shift the sin to some area, but the Church will always be a place for sinners, run and guided by sinners. It would do the VOTF some good to remember that.
God Bless and Happy New Year
T
TPJCatholic
Guest
Katherine,
I accept that you meant “tyrants get assinated” as a joke. Yet, do you really think that is somehow funny? Even as a joke, you are directly implying that some of the clergy should be killed. Nice joke.
Nope, I am not upset, just trying to make you see that such things are really not even remotely close to amusing.
I accept that you meant “tyrants get assinated” as a joke. Yet, do you really think that is somehow funny? Even as a joke, you are directly implying that some of the clergy should be killed. Nice joke.
Nope, I am not upset, just trying to make you see that such things are really not even remotely close to amusing.
K
katherine2
Guest
I think you make a significant error by your suggestion that clerical celibacy is an article of faith (“Priest marrying, or other such anti-faith nonsense”).
Now, the fact that you seem to make an error on a matter of the faith does not cause me to think the church should not listen to your legitimate pastoral concerns. I think others should have the same favor.
Fine. And as I have said, the oath you composed is certainly something I can affirm. What’s the problem?
Let’s wait for this to happen before we focus too much on it.
Yes. I am quite aware that even after a lot of strum and drang, you have not come up with any specific charge against VOTF. If you have suspicions or reservations, go with your heart. I’m sure all sorts of possibilities exist.
Priestly celibacy is a discipline of the Latin Church. (a worthwhile discipline in my opinion). The lay faithful have every right to have and express their private opinions on disciplinary matters and the bishops have a moral obligation to listen to the lay faithful and consider how disciplines impact on pastoral concerns.
I deny that VOTF seeks female ordination. (happy?)
That’s a worthy opinion. Those who hold that opinion have a solid reason not to join VOTF. I don’t happen to fully embrace that view, hence you and I choose to follow different courses, each of us acting on what our judgement tells us is best.
Thank you, and much happiness for 2005!
K
katherine2
Guest
Killed, no. But, when faced with a bishop unworthy of this office, running him out of town on a rail like with Bernie Law is an option the laity have.
T
Theodred
Guest
People involved in these organizations constantly harp things like:
“We must expose the truth!”
No one in these organizations have exposed any “truth”. The victims, their lawyers, and the media did, and they did it well.
“We want to change the way things are done!”
They haven’t. The bishops and their ad hoc committees have.
“We want to run that unworthy bishop out of town, like Bernie Law!”
No one in any of these groups ran anyone out of Boston… the pope did.
BTW, that is Bernard Cardinal Law, not Bernie Law. He is an ordained bishop of Christ’s Church and the office requires the respect of proper address. I do not address Cardinal Mahony as Mikie Mahony, even though I don’t particularly agree with his theology or administration or his handling of sexually abusive priests.
Also, the ordained shepherds of Christ’s Church are attacked in ways unfathomable to us lay people. The Devil isn’t stupid… he knows that to scatter the sheep, he must strike the shepherds. For this reason, those who fill these offices not only deserve our respect, but our love and prayers. Even when they are struck down by Satan, give in to temptation, commit even the most horrible sins, they still should recieve our love and prayers. Hate the sin and seek justice, but love the sinner, and especially love the sinner if that sinner is one of Satan’s most frequent targets.
Is VOTF (or RCF, for that matter) making that clear?
“We must expose the truth!”
No one in these organizations have exposed any “truth”. The victims, their lawyers, and the media did, and they did it well.
“We want to change the way things are done!”
They haven’t. The bishops and their ad hoc committees have.
“We want to run that unworthy bishop out of town, like Bernie Law!”
No one in any of these groups ran anyone out of Boston… the pope did.
BTW, that is Bernard Cardinal Law, not Bernie Law. He is an ordained bishop of Christ’s Church and the office requires the respect of proper address. I do not address Cardinal Mahony as Mikie Mahony, even though I don’t particularly agree with his theology or administration or his handling of sexually abusive priests.
Also, the ordained shepherds of Christ’s Church are attacked in ways unfathomable to us lay people. The Devil isn’t stupid… he knows that to scatter the sheep, he must strike the shepherds. For this reason, those who fill these offices not only deserve our respect, but our love and prayers. Even when they are struck down by Satan, give in to temptation, commit even the most horrible sins, they still should recieve our love and prayers. Hate the sin and seek justice, but love the sinner, and especially love the sinner if that sinner is one of Satan’s most frequent targets.
Is VOTF (or RCF, for that matter) making that clear?
- Status