VOTF

[Weeorphan]

One of the main reasons we are debating VOTF is its significant size in membership. Do the other groups, like RCF mentioned in previous posts, have significant membership( 30,000)? I assume they do not. Now once size becomes critical as in VOTF, then the threat to the Church’s status quo is significant. It follows in human nature that the Hierarchy will find any excuse to target this new threat, just to keep the clerical status quo, which obviously does not have a successful self-policing system. Wolves disguised as shepherd dogs would rather no one watch them stalk the flock.

People and institutions avoid change like the plague, because of the risks involved in following an uncharted course. We can assume the clergy is not holding back any punches, to preserve the status quo, even to magnifying out of proportion the liberal elements in VOTF. Such bare knuckle tactics distract the laity from the real issue of a failed self-policing clergy. Membership in the pews is just as laced with liberal elements as VOTF, but the hierarchy won’t amplify that fact because it reflects badly on the clergy, not VOTF. *Bad mouthing and image slurring is not confined to political campaigns for national office. *

VOTF, as I understand their mission, is seeking creative ways to police the conduct of bishops unable to police themselves. Of course, who polices VOTF is a valid question.

Naturally, any inuendos of democracy give rise to fears of an American form of cafeteria Catholicism. If members can pick and choose their priests, then are we not far from picking and choosing our doctrine, cafeteria style? I believe some Protestant sects do that already, with disasterous results.( e.g.,an openly gay bishop elected by laity of American Episcopals). However, a carefully crafted systemic reform might well do the job of effective clergy policing.

The following is merely a suggestion, subject to change, and my own concept, in no way derived from anything I have read on VOTF’s site:

 For example, suppose each parish elected its own Parish/Finance Council  without their pastor's heavy-handed influence or appointment? Further suppose that each Parish/Finance Council had veto power on all fiscal decisions by their priest- pastor who would be as usual chosen  by the bishop.  This parish Council would have no influence nor veto powers in matters of doctrinal faith and morals, but it would have the power to require a timely canonical review, if any assigned priest became involved in alleged sexual misconduct, financial misdealings, tried to alter orthodox liturgy, or gave undoctrinal sermons. Furthermore, if any local bishop (loyal to the old boy network) refused a canonical review, or slighted the evidence presented before a tribunal of peers, the Council would have the right to appeal higher for an unbiased retrial, even to the Vatican. 

  This simple system might solve the problem of priests and bishops who go from bad to worse, because they are not peer-reviewed for their misdeeds. Since Parish/Finance Councils would answer only to registered parish membership and the Pope, it would eventually take VOTF out of the picture entirely, with its primary goal of  effective structural change being accomplished.

Who can deny the need for an effective clergy-policing system, since abundant evidence exists of criminal collusion by bishops considering themselves above the law? If the clergy had honored the trust of the laity, we would not have to resort to any of this. The clergy have brought this upon themselves. Now the Holy Spirit through our hands must act to save the Church. Whether we do it through VOTF or RCF or whatever, maybe a simple structural change of this sort would be acceptable to all concerned. Comments, improvements and suggestions are most welcome.

In hurricane winds, weeping willows bend but haughty trees fall.

 

[Weeorphan]

Sadly, here is more stark evidence of Church incrimination and the vitally urgent need for structuring an effective policing system for our hierarchy:

*SPOKANE IS THIRD DIOCESE FILING BANKRUPTCY *
The Diocese of Spkane became the third U.S. diocese to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy because of civil lawsuits claiming sex abuse of minors by clergy. Demands by the plaintiffs continue to be beyond the ability of the diocese to meet," said Spokane bishop William S Skylstad in announcint the decision Dec. 6. The Spokane Diocese listed $812.3 million of the liabilities result from sex abuse suits.
via The Southern Cross.

Why hasn’t the laity finally realized the seriousness of this crisis?. Probably because our Clergy has minimalized it to save face.
We can’t afford that head-in-the-sand attitude any longer. Whether VOTF or some other organization takes the lead, the time is now.

 

[Weeorphan]

Sadly, here is more stark evidence of Church incrimination and the vitally urgent need for structuring an effective policing system for our hierarchy:

*SPOKANE IS THIRD DIOCESE FILING BANKRUPTCY *
The Diocese of Spkane became the third U.S. diocese to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy because of civil lawsuits claiming sex abuse of minors by clergy. Demands by the plaintiffs continue to be beyond the ability of the diocese to meet," said Spokane bishop William S Skylstad in announcint the decision Dec. 6. The Spokane Diocese listed $81.3 million of the liabilities result from sex abuse suits.
via The Southern Cross.

Why hasn’t the laity finally realized the seriousness of this crisis?. Probably because our Clergy has minimalized it to save face.
We can’t afford that head-in-the-sand attitude any longer. Whether VOTF or some other organization takes the lead, the time is now.

 

[Theodred]

Weeorphan, like I said your view of the Church is utterly devoid of the divine. If you really think this way, why do you even bother to worry about the Church. Obviously the Church is nothing more than a human institution to you. I for one would want nothing to do with a religion of man made traditions.

I’m sorry, but you are the one who sounds haughty to me.

 

[katherine2]

Weeorphan,

thank you for that thoughtful and intersting reply. I would disagree with Theodred that “your view of the Church is utterly devoid of the divine.” In fact, I think your critics have a view of the lay faithful as utterly devoid of the divine.

Personally, I think much good can be done with even a lighter touch that you suggest. The first principle should be the enforcement of exisiting canon law. All parishes are required to have a finance council. It is estimated that 1/3 of U.S. parishes do not. (why is it that conservatives never bring up THIS violation of canon law?). The finance councils have the canonical right to advise the pastor on all financial transactions above a certain amount and review the books of the parish. However, no penalty exists for a violation of this right. This canon should be put into the legal documents of the parish so if a pastor makes an expenditure without consultation, it would be an illegal transaction and he would be guilty of fraud.

I hate to overregulate, but given that only a few progressive parishes I know of do what would seem to be common sense, I beleive their should be a mandate that the names of the members of the Parish Finance Council and the Pastoral Council appear on the Sunday bulletin.

 

[TPJCatholic]

Katherine,

If the charges against VOTF are false (note the use of the word “if” even in this case), then where is the outrage from VOTF leaders? They are charged with wanting to advance homosexual agendas, with seeking female ordination, with seeking Priest marriage, with lessening the authority that the Bishops have, etc…so if those charges are false, why has VOTF not taken any steps to correct those false charges?

There are groups within the Church (i.e. Opus Dei) who have had been attacked by a plethora of false charges (the Da Vinci code tries to make a target of the faith and specifically of Opus Dei), yet Opus Dei counters those attacks with the truth, entire books have been written to counter such tripe. Opus Dei is not the only case, there are other examples, including the Church itself, with many thousands of books written to defend its positions–and with an entire body of apologists who regularly defend the faith against false charges and false persceptions.

So–where is the VOTF’s outrage? Many of the leaders of VOTF come from questionable backgrounds…so it seems their lack of desire to defend their positions speaks volumes. Their lack of a clearly defined loyalty (oath of some kind) to the Magisterium and all the teachings of the faith is also quite telling. They do NOT want to make an oath of any kind, that is quite clear. They appear to want to let their group be guided by the wind, to turn in whatever direction public opinion desires.

BTW, I am glad you would have no problem with commiting to such an oath–so go and convince the VOTF to do the same. It would help the VOTF enormously if they dedicated themselves completely to the Lord, His teachings and His Church. Such a step would give a clear statement of who they are. Absent that, I do not see how any faithful Catholic could enter such a group.

 

[katherine2]

TPJCatholic:

Katherine,

If the charges against VOTF are false (note the use of the word “if” even in this case), then where is the outrage from VOTF leaders?

Sometimes, the better part of wisdom is simply to ignore false charges from marginal elements. I beleive President Bush says that he takes that philosophy.

BTW, I am glad you would have no problem with commiting to such an oath–so go and convince the VOTF to do the same. It would help the VOTF enormously if they dedicated themselves completely to the Lord, His teachings and His Church. Such a step would give a clear statement of who they are. Absent that, I do not see how any faithful Catholic could enter such a group.

I’m sorry you can’t see that. It seems to me that if every organization stopped its work to respond to requests from indivuduals that they take oaths such individuals have composed for them, nothing would ever get done.

No, i think it better to affirm the wisdom of the Church which understands the diversity of vocations within the Church. For us of the lay vocation, the Church puts before us our baptismal promises and the Nicene Creed. Oaths are for theologians and it is improper to confuse vocations. To each his proper place.

Best wishes for the new year.

 

[TPJCatholic]

weeorphan,

I think what you are not seeing is the history of the problem. Let’s face reality, the abuse crisis is the huge problem that has caused all these discussions. Had the abuses not occurred, this would all be mute and VOTF would not have been created. Those are obvious points, I think you will agree.

Now, the peak period of abuse was the 70’s and 80’s, there was abuse before and after those decades, and there has been some level of abuse throughout the history of the Church (and humanity for that matter). However, abuse in the 90s dropped to less then one-percent, which means the efforts the Church was already making at seminary level had already been productive. One needs to realize that the Bishops have known about the problem of abuse for a long time, they had already made progress in their selection of Priests at seminary level long before the abuse crisis hit the world stage. The Bishops had hoped that they could avert a national disaster, yet obviously they did not avoid it.

The point is, the Church and the Bishops had done a stellar job before the 70s and 80s, and they have done a stellar job throughout most of 90’s and now into the 2000s…so why should they want to make giant changes to Church structure, when they have already shown success in the changes they made in the 90s?

It was their lack of due dilligence in the selection of seminarians that lead to the horrible abuses of children and minors. Then, of course, some of those poorly selected Priests became Bishops, and those Bishops helped to propogate the problem, etc…

Today, children are likely more safe within Catholic schools and ministries, then in any other place they could be. Yet today, mis-informed people think it was groups like the VOTF who changed that, and that is simply not true. The Bishops had already made great changes to the seminaries throughout the 90s. The problem is already substantially fixed, and the Bishops are the ones who fixed it (secretly, hoping to avoid a crisis). The complication now is all the lawsuits and finanical burdens that have resulted from the horrible sins of the abuses that mainly occured in the 70s and 80s. Once those legal actions are done, and once a reasonable level of healing has taken place…the Church will be healthier then it has been for four to five decades.

There are no reasons for making structural changes. There is nothing to fix that has not already been fixed.

 

[TPJCatholic]

Katherine,

Respectfully, you have confirmed my suspicions. I thank you for the chat and wish you all of God’s blessings.

 

[Weeorphan]

Théodred:

Weeorphan, like I said your view of the Church is utterly devoid of the divine. If you really think this way, why do you even bother to worry about the Church. Obviously the Church is nothing more than a human institution to you. I for one would want nothing to do with a religion of man made traditions.

I’m sorry, but you are the one who sounds haughty to me.

Theodred:

Would I write, ’ The Holy Spirit must act through our hands to renew the Church", if my view of the Church was utterly devoid of the divine?
The Holy Spirit generates Church traditions through its inspired members. Frankly, we agree in not having anything to do with a religion of man-made traditions.

Given my gentle explanation, would you still call me haughty?
Please refrain from attacking anyone personally when you run out of ammunition in a debate. It drastically diminishes our respect for any of your comments.

 

[katherine2]

There are no reasons for making structural changes. There is nothing to fix that has not already been fixed

recent reports from New Jersey indicate otherwise. Phase two, fom sex to money?

 

[aridite]

Weeorphan:

Now once size becomes critical as in VOTF, then the threat to the Church’s status quo is significant. It follows in human nature that the Hierarchy will find any excuse to target this new threat, just to keep the clerical status quo, which obviously does not have a successful self-policing system. Wolves disguised as shepherd dogs would rather no one watch them stalk the flock.*
*

I think you grossly under-estimate the amount of care and good will the vast majority of our pastors have in trying to implement reform. No one denies that some priest committed horrible crimes and some bishops covered them up (and may still be covering up the cover-ups). But, by far most priests and bishops are good and faithful, and are genuinely trying to make right what went wrong. The bishops created the Lay Review Board, and though there have been conflicts, overall that Board has praised the efforts at reform. And, no, the LRB is not a pawn of the bishops. It is subject, ultimately, to the authority of the bishops, but that, for good or ill, is the essential nature of the Church. Change that, you change the faith.

From a previous post, you said:

Weeorphan:

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.

Again, this is grossly unfair, and simply inconsistent with demographics. I think it can be shown (as the last national election showed) that those who attend Church every week (Catholic and protestant) are far more likely to morally and religiously, as well as politically, conservative. The ones who are consistently in the pews every week are the conservatives, and while the cafeteria-types might make for large numbers by rotating through, as it were, I would be surprised if most of the collection money was not comming from the conservatives. It just is a principle of fund-raising, that only those who are committed to a cause give to it – and by definition cafeteria-Catholics are not (as) committed.

Weeorphan:

For example, suppose each parish elected its own Parish/Finance Council without their pastor’s heavy-handed influence or appointment? Further suppose that each Parish/Finance Council had veto power on all fiscal decisions by their priest- pastor who would be as usual chosen by the bishop. This parish Council would have no influence nor veto powers in matters of doctrinal faith and morals, but it would have the power to require a timely canonical review, if any assigned priest became involved in alleged sexual misconduct, financial misdealings, tried to alter orthodox liturgy, or gave undoctrinal sermons.

Your suggestion, while I do not doubt made with sincerity and good will, shows how hard it is to separate administration and finances from doctrine. Your example presumes the Parish/Finance Council would safeguard orthodox liturgy, catechesis and preaching. But, suppose the Parish/Finance council comes to be composed mostly of those of a liberal ideology. Suppose the Pastor proposed a new Faith Formation program on sexuality which centered on abstinance, or hiring a new orthodox DRE. With veto power, the Council effectively undermines the pastoral and doctrinal initiatives of the Pastor. Without the money, unpopular doctrinal teaching is silenced. Oversight in finances is good to expose fraud and misconduct, and consultation is good and prudent to assess and address pastoral needs, but beyond that, it changes the structure of the Church into a congregationalist model. I am sure Christ did not institute that.

Also, I think there is an over estimation of the willingness of the lay faithful to be involved in the oversight of parishes. It may be the case that the 1/3 of parishes without finance committees cannot find willing and/or qualified parishoners to sit on them. It is my experience that most lay Catholics want their pastors to take care of the details, don’t want to volunteer for committees with (God forbid) meetings. Perhaps that contributed to the sex abuse crisis, but it a reality that need to be addressed.

 

[TPJCatholic]

Katherine,
It is unrealistic to think that “any” entity would be free of sin. Today, abuse of minors is something around 1/10th of 1 percent. The average across the last four decades was 4 percent. Children are far more likely to suffer abuse in their own homes, then they are in any Catholic environment. The changes the Bishops have made over the last 10-12 years are working. Now, we will agree that 0% abuse is our goal, yet in a fallen world that will not ever be attained.

Something like 8% of parents/family members abuse their own children…there is nothing more scared then a child’s own home, yet there is no outcry to “fix” that huge problem. Likewise, studies have shown that abuse of children and minors is quite widespread, and frankly speaking the Bishops have quietly corrected the cause of the abuses long before they were legally forced to do so.

There is nothing to fix that has not already been fixed, or in the process of being fixed regarding abuse of minors and children.

Groups like the VOTF are merely spitting into the wind with no real impact…the Bishops knew the problem and they tackled it many years ago.

 

[katherine2]

TPJCatholic:

Katherine,
It is unrealistic to think that “any” entity would be free of sin. Today, abuse of minors is something around 1/10th of 1 percent. The average across the last four decades was 4 percent. Children are far more likely to suffer abuse in their own homes, then they are in any Catholic environment. The changes the Bishops have made over the last 10-12 years are working. Now, we will agree that 0% abuse is our goal, yet in a fallen world that will not ever be attained.

Something like 8% of parents/family members abuse their own children…there is nothing more scared then a child’s own home, yet there is no outcry to “fix” that huge problem. Likewise, studies have shown that abuse of children and minors is quite widespread, and frankly speaking the Bishops have quietly corrected the cause of the abuses long before they were legally forced to do so.

There is nothing to fix that has not already been fixed, or in the process of being fixed regarding abuse of minors and children.

Groups like the VOTF are merely spitting into the wind with no real impact…the Bishops knew the problem and they tackled it many years ago.

TPJ,

Yet the bishops themselvs say the response to the crisis and the efforts to create and implement safeguards is not complete. So, I don’t understand your position.

And, of course, we have two issues. One is to actually put intoplace such programs and polices. teh otehr is to restore a sense of trust from the laity.

 

[katherine2]

Again, this is grossly unfair, and simply inconsistent with demographics. I think it can be shown (as the last national election showed) that those who attend Church every week (Catholic and protestant) are far more likely to morally and religiously, as well as politically, conservative. The ones who are consistently in the pews every week are the conservatives, and while the cafeteria-types might make for large numbers by rotating through, as it were, I would be surprised if most of the collection money was not comming from the conservatives. It just is a principle of fund-raising, that only those who are committed to a cause give to it – and by definition cafeteria-Catholics are not (as) committed.

Actually among Catholics the differences were slight, almost all due to the fact the Hispanic Catholics have a low Mass attendence rate and a high preference for Kerry.

For that matter, Kerry voters were more likely than the general public to attend Church. It is the people who didn’t vote at all that were least likely to attend church.

 

[Weeorphan]

TPJCatholic:

Concerning your assertion that the Church has fixed its problem, human nature being what it is, would you say the tendency for nepotism( given the old boy network as a kind of fraternity) has ever been eradicated from the course of human history? We see it in police departments, politics, medicine, education and, religious institutions from the beginning of recorded history. Do you really think our creature penchant for a pecking order in any organization, even in the basic family unit between siblings, will ever cease? How about the spiritual insecurity that manifests as a greedy accumulation of power?

It would be a naive disregard of human behavior in Church history to assert that these problems of human imperfection did not exist before 1970, and have not existed after 1990. Statistics can be made to say anything. If it appears that things have improved since 1990, perhaps greater diligence has recessed the wolves till things quiet down. We can bet that Satan never sleeps, stalking about for opportunity to pounce on its next prey. We can bet the Church will always have its human imperfections till the end of time. The structural change I suggested before does not threaten holy doctrine, only the clergy’s medieval attitude toward the laity, and the laity’s apathetic sloth. Herein may lie the real problem, which, in my opinion, only this sort of structural change can resolve.

 

[Weeorphan]

TPJCatholic:

Concerning your assertion that the Church has fixed its problem, human nature being what it is, would you say the tendency for nepotism( given the old boy network as a kind of fraternity) has ever been eradicated from the course of human history? We see it in police departments, politics, medicine, education and, religious institutions from the beginning of recorded history. Do you really think our creature penchant for a pecking order in any organization, even in the basic family unit between siblings, will ever cease? How about the spiritual insecurity that manifests as a greedy accumulation of power?

It would be a naive disregard of human behavior in Church history to assert that these problems of human imperfection did not exist before 1970, and have not existed after 1990. Statistics can be made to say anything. If it appears that things have improved since 1990, perhaps greater diligence has recessed the wolves till things quiet down. We can bet that Satan never sleeps, stalking about for opportunity to pounce on its next prey. We can bet the Church will always have its human imperfections till the end of time. The structural change I suggested before does not threaten holy doctrine, only the clergy’s medieval attitude toward the laity, and the laity’s apathetic sloth. Herein may lie the real problem, which, in my opinion, only this sort of structural change can resolve.

 

[Theodred]

Weeorphan:

Theodred:

Would I write, ’ The Holy Spirit must act through our hands to renew the Church", if my view of the Church was utterly devoid of the divine?
The Holy Spirit generates Church traditions through its inspired members. Frankly, we agree in not having anything to do with a religion of man-made traditions.

Given my gentle explanation, would you still call me haughty?
Please refrain from attacking anyone personally when you run out of ammunition in a debate. It drastically diminishes our respect for any of your comments.

What? You’re unfounded attacks against “the clergy” is totally unfair. You stated that they are all guilty of collussion in criminal activity? What planet are you living on?

I’m not attacking you. I’m attacking your unfair, and yes haughty, attacks against the priests and bishops of the Catholic Church. Your statements are anti-Catholic in their overly simplistic generalizations.

We can assume the clergy is not holding back any punches, to preserve the status quo, even to magnifying out of proportion the liberal elements in VOTF

Anti-Catholic and haughty.

If the clergy had honored the trust of the laity, we would not have to resort to any of this. The clergy have brought this upon themselves.

Anti-Catholic and haughty.

Why hasn’t the laity finally realized the seriousness of this crisis?. Probably because our Clergy has minimalized it to save face.

Anti-Catholic and haughty. How could the “clergy” minimalize [sic] something that the media has in most cases reported fairly, and in some cases sensationalized. Such as this was never in the hands of your theoretical evil “clergy”.

Now the Holy Spirit through our hands must act to save the Church.

Haughty… extremely haughty!! You are telling the Holy Spirit what to do! How is that not haught??

 

[aridite]

katherine2:

Actually among Catholics the differences were slight, almost all due to the fact the Hispanic Catholics have a low Mass attendence rate and a high preference for Kerry.

For that matter, Kerry voters were more likely than the general public to attend Church. It is the people who didn’t vote at all that were least likely to attend church.

Hmm. That wasn’t the impression I got from the statistics quoted after the election, but I’ll admit I didn’t make a detailed study. Weren’t Bush supporters more likely to be church-goers than Kerry supporter? And weren’t regular church-goers more likely to be Bush supporters than Kerry supporters? Anyway, if I’m wrong about the connection between voting and religion, I stand corrected.

But I don’t think it affects my main points: regular Catholic Church goers are more likely to be traditional and orthodox, regular Church goers give more than irregular Church goers, and that money from the collection plate is not a significant consideration in how the bishops have responded to the sex abuse scandal, nor in how priests craft their homilies. On the last point, if priest were tailoring their preaching to the collection, you would expect Catholic Churches to at least resemble protestant mega-churches and priest resemble televangelists (which they don’t). I think there is a pretty tried-and-true model for raising money from religion, but the Catholic Church moved away from it 500 years ago.

 

[Theodred]

This thread demonstrates so well why there will be more children abused at the hands of Church personel. While the spirit decays, people worry about administration.

Abusive preists were not created by bishops. Priests don’t come in a can, just add water. They were born into and raised by guess who? THE LAITY!

Guess who the majority of my teachers were in the seminary? LAY PEOPLE!

Guess who administered every single psychological examination while I was in the seminary? LAY PEOPLE!

If you VOTF people want to consider the laity and yourselves totally innocent, then that’s fine with me… I’ll just have to pray twice as hard, and suffer a little more in reparation.

It’s easy to point fingers, especially at those most vulnerable. It’s quite another thing to take a good long hard look at ourselves. What’s on the television? What’s on the computer? What do we tolerate without so much as a peep in protest? What kind of world are we raising our children in? What will our kids grow up to do if they are left at home watching SPIKE television every afternoon?