L
larryo
Guest
*Crisis Magazine *has an interesting article on VOTF at www.crisismagazine.com. Look under the Heading of Archives - Past E-letters. The article was dated August 8, 2002.
- Status
T
TPJCatholic
Guest
weeorphan,
I would say that human tendency to sin has been with us since the fall in the garden and that tendency will not leave us until the Lord returns. That said, I feel certain that the clergy will find other ways to sin, just as all humans sin. However, the absolutely horrible level of abuse present during the 70s and 80s is not likely to return for an extremely long time because the problem has been fixed. Unfortunately, we live in a very sick world, and the Bishops allowed the clergy and seminarians under their control to reflect the sickness of society at large. Many truly sick men were allowed into the Priesthood, that has ceased (though nothing we do can be perfect).
The changes you suggest, while well thought out, are not at all needed because there is nothing to fix that has not already been fixed. Frankly, if there is an area of genuine weakness, it lies in the hands of the laity–not the clergy. Lay Catholics need to come back to Christ and back to His Church, they need to quit re-inventing the faith to sit their own whims.
When the culture is deeply sick (as ours is) then we must be attentive to the fact that the Church will be infected as well. The Bishops are now painfully aware of the high cost of letting down their guard, and it is not going to happen again. Cardinal Law served as a type of extreme example to all other Bishops, Cardinals and Priests.
During the days leading-up to the reformation the Church had corrupted how it used indulgences, and that lead to a firestorm of problems for the Church that we still feel to this day (yes, I realize that is a bit of a simplification). Yet, the Church cleaned-up its act and has not repeated those sins and mistakes. Likewise, the abuse crisis is a horrible stain on the Lord’s Church, yet the problems are fixed and like the abuse of indulgences, they will not be repeated in anything close to how they were in the 70s and 80s.
No fixes are needed, find another cause to hunt.
I do not at all agree that the Church holds an inappropriate atttiude towards the laity. Ninety-precent+ of all Church and faith functions are conducted by lay Catholics…not exactly a weak percentage.
I would say that human tendency to sin has been with us since the fall in the garden and that tendency will not leave us until the Lord returns. That said, I feel certain that the clergy will find other ways to sin, just as all humans sin. However, the absolutely horrible level of abuse present during the 70s and 80s is not likely to return for an extremely long time because the problem has been fixed. Unfortunately, we live in a very sick world, and the Bishops allowed the clergy and seminarians under their control to reflect the sickness of society at large. Many truly sick men were allowed into the Priesthood, that has ceased (though nothing we do can be perfect).
The changes you suggest, while well thought out, are not at all needed because there is nothing to fix that has not already been fixed. Frankly, if there is an area of genuine weakness, it lies in the hands of the laity–not the clergy. Lay Catholics need to come back to Christ and back to His Church, they need to quit re-inventing the faith to sit their own whims.
When the culture is deeply sick (as ours is) then we must be attentive to the fact that the Church will be infected as well. The Bishops are now painfully aware of the high cost of letting down their guard, and it is not going to happen again. Cardinal Law served as a type of extreme example to all other Bishops, Cardinals and Priests.
During the days leading-up to the reformation the Church had corrupted how it used indulgences, and that lead to a firestorm of problems for the Church that we still feel to this day (yes, I realize that is a bit of a simplification). Yet, the Church cleaned-up its act and has not repeated those sins and mistakes. Likewise, the abuse crisis is a horrible stain on the Lord’s Church, yet the problems are fixed and like the abuse of indulgences, they will not be repeated in anything close to how they were in the 70s and 80s.
No fixes are needed, find another cause to hunt.
I do not at all agree that the Church holds an inappropriate atttiude towards the laity. Ninety-precent+ of all Church and faith functions are conducted by lay Catholics…not exactly a weak percentage.
T
TPJCatholic
Guest
Theodred,
I agree with your last post. Lay Catholics want to blame anyone but themselves. The culture is very sick, and lay Catholics make-up a large part of that culture…seminarians come from families entrenched in that culture…connecting the dots…
I agree with your last post. Lay Catholics want to blame anyone but themselves. The culture is very sick, and lay Catholics make-up a large part of that culture…seminarians come from families entrenched in that culture…connecting the dots…
W
Weeorphan
Guest
Dear Theodred:
When Jesus accused the Pharisees of being hypocrites, did he mean all of them? Not all, even when he painted them with a wide brush as 'white-washed sepulchers, tombs full of dead men’s bones, over whom men walk unawares". I have no doubt many Pharisees in his day were guileless, and many priests today are faithful and trustworthy, but I write rhetorically.
Would you consider St Paul arrogant and haughty when he told St Peter to come down off his high horse? Perhaps many listening to Paul thought he was proud and arrogant to scold who Christ appointed as the Rock of his Church, Peter. But they were wrong, because the Holy Spirit did the scolding. Paul was simply stating the obvious truth as he saw it. So do I, when in the spirit of truth, I rhetorically scold Christ’s ordained priests. Neither have I spared our apathetic laity. If you consider it haughty to state the truth as one sees it, then you fall into that same category.
*Judge not lest ye be judged. … Beware lest you strive to remove the speck in mine eye, and leave a splinter in your own. *
Isn’t it much more humble of you not to attack me personally and stick to the issues? For the sake of all concerned, please exercise throughout this Forum that verbal moderation and self-control so important to our spiritual growth.
When Jesus accused the Pharisees of being hypocrites, did he mean all of them? Not all, even when he painted them with a wide brush as 'white-washed sepulchers, tombs full of dead men’s bones, over whom men walk unawares". I have no doubt many Pharisees in his day were guileless, and many priests today are faithful and trustworthy, but I write rhetorically.
Would you consider St Paul arrogant and haughty when he told St Peter to come down off his high horse? Perhaps many listening to Paul thought he was proud and arrogant to scold who Christ appointed as the Rock of his Church, Peter. But they were wrong, because the Holy Spirit did the scolding. Paul was simply stating the obvious truth as he saw it. So do I, when in the spirit of truth, I rhetorically scold Christ’s ordained priests. Neither have I spared our apathetic laity. If you consider it haughty to state the truth as one sees it, then you fall into that same category.
*Judge not lest ye be judged. … Beware lest you strive to remove the speck in mine eye, and leave a splinter in your own. *
Isn’t it much more humble of you not to attack me personally and stick to the issues? For the sake of all concerned, please exercise throughout this Forum that verbal moderation and self-control so important to our spiritual growth.
T
Theodred
Guest
I apologize. I had no idea you were equal to Our Blessed Lord and Saint Paul.
Weeorphan said:
How dare you accuse me of being judgmental !! HOW DARE YOU ! After what you have said about the clergy of the Catholic Church. Shame on you.
You accused me of not having any ammunition and stooped to personal attack. You, however, are the one now not addressing my points, and stooping to calling me judgmental.
That’s ok, though. I know where you are coming from.
E
Exporter
Guest
The following site states that VOFT steering committee has been having meetings with Gay and Lesbian organizations and a professor of theology from Notre Dame who approves of homosexual Priests. Here it is:
conservativemonitor.com/religion/2002008.shtml
A few paragraphes down you’ll see the crux of the matter.
conservativemonitor.com/religion/2002008.shtml
A few paragraphes down you’ll see the crux of the matter.
E
Exporter
Guest
This is from the site to be found in the previous post.
"
“While many of the gay community’s longstanding political, legal and religious allies gathered in the statehouse to oppose the gay civil-rights setback, they were joined – for the first time in state history – by two Roman Catholic priests.”
These statements on VOTF and homosexuality by the most respected liberal U.S. Catholic newspaper and the Rev. McBrien, the respected liberal theologian, show that VOTF is not mainstream, as James Likoudis says.
“Richard P. McBrien oozes with admiration for this group [Voice of the Faithful] seeking to restructure the Church, democratize it, gain financial control of it, and subordinate our Bishops to this new lay class of secular feudal lords and professionals,” Catholics United for the Faith’s Likoudis said. “It’s a power grab under the guise of more ‘lay participation’ and is made up of those dissenting liberals and radicals who do not like Catholic moral teaching but do like Dignity and GLAAD [radical homosexual organizations].”
"
“While many of the gay community’s longstanding political, legal and religious allies gathered in the statehouse to oppose the gay civil-rights setback, they were joined – for the first time in state history – by two Roman Catholic priests.”
These statements on VOTF and homosexuality by the most respected liberal U.S. Catholic newspaper and the Rev. McBrien, the respected liberal theologian, show that VOTF is not mainstream, as James Likoudis says.
“Richard P. McBrien oozes with admiration for this group [Voice of the Faithful] seeking to restructure the Church, democratize it, gain financial control of it, and subordinate our Bishops to this new lay class of secular feudal lords and professionals,” Catholics United for the Faith’s Likoudis said. “It’s a power grab under the guise of more ‘lay participation’ and is made up of those dissenting liberals and radicals who do not like Catholic moral teaching but do like Dignity and GLAAD [radical homosexual organizations].”
T
Theodred
Guest
George Wiegel does a good job addressing the whole issue in his book The Courage to Be Catholic. He’s not easy on those in the hierarchy who have made grave mistakes, but nor does he ignore the wider issues, and ultimately the more pressing issues. These include in a very big way the culture of dissent (usually accompanied by or stemming from liturgical nihilism) and unfaithfulness on the part of the both certain clergy and laity, EQUALY.
What frustrates me so much about VOTF is that they have consistently overlooked the fact that for every bishop who mismanaged a sexual predator, there was a group of lawyers/PR people/therapists/psychologists guiding those bishops into all manner of stupidity. AND these people, these rather large groups of people, are all made up of LAY PEOPLE! VOTF wants to change the structure of things? They need to look first at the kind of lay consultation that bishops such as Bernard Cardinal Law were receiving from psychologists and lawyers.
I’ve sat in front of a seminary formation board… it was made up of two lay people and one person from the clergy that weeorphan speaks so disrespectfully about. That’s a two to one ratio of lay involvement over clergy involvement in seminary formation, and this was ten years before the sex abuse scandal of 2002. There has always been more than enough lay involvement in seminary formation.
With or without lay involvement in diocesan administration or seminary formation (which, btw, I am definitely for greater lay involvement from the parish level and up), scandals such as 2002 will continue to rock the American Church. The real problem is moral laxity and the heterodoxy it produces, and always has been. We allowed the stench of modernism, with all its moral permissiveness owning to the pseudoisms of early psychology and the therapeutic method, to invade our Catholic homes, parishes, colleges and seminaries (as early as the 40s and 50s), gave it free reign in the post-Vatican II years with our liturgical nihilism and relativistic moral theologies, and now we are living with the consequences.
What will bring us back isn’t administrative solutions, silly groups like VOTF or RCF, or “restructuring the heirarchy.” What will bring us back is the example of Saint Philip Neri and Saint Robert Bellarmine. It’s time for prayer, heroic virtue, and FIDELITY!
T
TPJCatholic
Guest
Théodred,
I agree with many of your points, but not with your sense that things look bleak. I see a great renewal happening in the Church, and I feel the abuse crisis helped accelarate that renewal. Faithful Catholics want the real faith, young people want the full truth, more people are adoring the Lord in adoration, more people are calling for the traditional Latin Mass, more wonderful men are entering seminaries, more wonderful men are being ordained, wonderful new high school text books are being developed for a new generation, groups like Opus Dei are calling more and more people to personal holiness…it is truly a wonderful and exciting time to be a Catholic, truly a time of Grace.
There is a long road ahead, yet Pope John Paul II’s statements of great optimism are well founded. Groups like VOTF are quite silly and they will disappear or will be fully marginalized overtime.
Prayer is much needed, as always. Yet truly, I feel great excitemnet in this age!
I agree with many of your points, but not with your sense that things look bleak. I see a great renewal happening in the Church, and I feel the abuse crisis helped accelarate that renewal. Faithful Catholics want the real faith, young people want the full truth, more people are adoring the Lord in adoration, more people are calling for the traditional Latin Mass, more wonderful men are entering seminaries, more wonderful men are being ordained, wonderful new high school text books are being developed for a new generation, groups like Opus Dei are calling more and more people to personal holiness…it is truly a wonderful and exciting time to be a Catholic, truly a time of Grace.
There is a long road ahead, yet Pope John Paul II’s statements of great optimism are well founded. Groups like VOTF are quite silly and they will disappear or will be fully marginalized overtime.
Prayer is much needed, as always. Yet truly, I feel great excitemnet in this age!
K
kliner
Guest
no, i couldn’t, because i glanced at it in a books-a-million store and sat it down shortly thereafter. but here are some links that back up my first post:
cached google search
Seattle Catholic
T
Theodred
Guest
You are absolutely correct. Looking back up that last post, it does seem overly pessemistic. The Holy Spirit is working over time, and more and more poeple are cooperating.Théodred,
I agree with many of your points, but not with your sense that things look bleak. I see a great renewal happening in the Church, and I feel the abuse crisis helped accelarate that renewal. Faithful Catholics want the real faith, young people want the full truth, more people are adoring the Lord in adoration, more people are calling for the traditional Latin Mass, more wonderful men are entering seminaries, more wonderful men are being ordained, wonderful new high school text books are being developed for a new generation, groups like Opus Dei are calling more and more people to personal holiness…it is truly a wonderful and exciting time to be a Catholic, truly a time of Grace.
There is a long road ahead, yet Pope John Paul II’s statements of great optimism are well founded. Groups like VOTF are quite silly and they will disappear or will be fully marginalized overtime.
Prayer is much needed, as always. Yet truly, I feel great excitemnet in this age!
I suppose the post came off as so pessemistic because I know groups like VOTF aren’t making anything better… they are making matters worse with their Luther-like/Calvin-like rhetoric.
K
kliner
Guest
no, i couldn’t, because i glanced at it in a books-a-million store and sat it down shortly thereafter. but here are some links that back up my first post:
cached google search
Seattle Catholic
T
TPJCatholic
Guest
Théodred,
Yes, groups like VOTF can be quite painfull thorns in our collectives sides…yet the Holy Spirit is in control and there sure is a lot of great stuff happening. I also think that there is great hope for the future of the Church in the United States because many Protestants are getting quite sick of the debase nature of our culture…the Catholic Church is the only Christian Church that never waivers from its 2,000 years of truth founded in Christ. I feel we may be sitting at the edge of a wave of conversions into the one true faith, mainly because people will see that it must be true simply because it does not change with the cultural winds. Most Christians seek truth.
Yes, groups like VOTF can be quite painfull thorns in our collectives sides…yet the Holy Spirit is in control and there sure is a lot of great stuff happening. I also think that there is great hope for the future of the Church in the United States because many Protestants are getting quite sick of the debase nature of our culture…the Catholic Church is the only Christian Church that never waivers from its 2,000 years of truth founded in Christ. I feel we may be sitting at the edge of a wave of conversions into the one true faith, mainly because people will see that it must be true simply because it does not change with the cultural winds. Most Christians seek truth.
K
kliner
Guest
Knights of Columbus: Ladies Auxiliary is not an exclusion of women. check with your local council.
may the Peace of Christ be with you.
K
katherine2
Guest
Théodred:
The above it a perfect example that what VOTF is saying and what its ciritics are reading are not matching up.
Law and other bishops employed various lawyers and psychologists in their professional capacity. The bishops have the responsibilitity if they have made poor choices here. This has nothing to do with the lay vocation, as is clear from the fact that many of these individuals hired by the bishops were not even Catholic. That is a different kettle of fish than Catholics acting on their lay vocation.
The more this thread continues, the more I am convinced that theri is a significant misunderstanding between VOTF and its criticis.
The above it a perfect example that what VOTF is saying and what its ciritics are reading are not matching up.
Law and other bishops employed various lawyers and psychologists in their professional capacity. The bishops have the responsibilitity if they have made poor choices here. This has nothing to do with the lay vocation, as is clear from the fact that many of these individuals hired by the bishops were not even Catholic. That is a different kettle of fish than Catholics acting on their lay vocation.
K
katherine2
Guest
You are not reading carefully, dearie.
K
katherine2
Guest
For me, the fact that VOTF’s critics feel the need to resort to McCarthyistic tactics is further evidence of their good works.
Now, we have a headline that "VOFT [sic] steering committee has been having meetings with Gay and Lesbian organizations "
What do find out is the real truth behind this McCarthyistic accusation?
A member of the VOTF steering committee (not THE STEERING COMMITTEE and not as an official VOTF activity) was spoken to by newsreporter for a gay and lesbian media source who had been given press credentials by the Bishops’ Conference!!!
IMAGINE! The bishops should not listen to an organization who has a steering committee member who speaks to a lesbian that the same bishops gave a press credential to.
If anyone can explain how this is not a McCarthyisitic attack, I would appreciate it.
T
Theodred
Guest
I’m not saying anything remotely resembling the fact that the bishops aren’t ultimately responsible for their diocese…
What I am saying is that the whole Church in tota, including the laity, was responsible for the scandal. How has VOTF approached the obvious failings of various lay people involved in the sex scandal? Oh, yeah, they, like you, apparently are refusing to acknowledge that the laity had anything to do with it:
What does “many” mean? On the contrary the vast majority of lay people employed by bishops for various administrative and consulting positions are and were Catholic, including every single pyschologist I ever came into contact with regarding my seminary formation and work in two different dioceses.
Quite the contrary. Lay consultation has very much to do with the roles of various lay people… unless you are trying to redefine what the laity is and does. Perhaps you would rather the “lay vocation” involve governing the Church, and perhaps even providing the sacraments (?).
I might be misunderstanding VOTF, but I don’t think I’m misunderstanding what you are saying here. You are talking about “lay vocation” but have said nothing about lay responsibility, nor have you demonstrated that you understand and accept what the Church has always taught the laity is and should be.
Vocations are to ordained life, to married life, consecrated life, chaste single life.
The laity is made up of those who have vocations to married life, consecrated life, and chaste single life. These are lay vocationS, all of which have different characteristics. Maybe part of the problem is that we are trying to create a whole new vocation.
K
katherine2
Guest
Théodred:
Any comments on the McCarthyistic tactics soem VOTF critics are using?
I don’t disagree with that. Lay people failed to apply the oversight they should have.
I don’t think that is true. For lay people to correct their failings on this matter they need to take action. yet some are damning VOTF for taking action.
“Many” or “vast majority” doesn’t really matter. There is a distinction between faithful lay Catholics living out their responsibilities they have as Catholics and people a bishop has hired for what the bishop judges as a secular competence. On th eone hand you have lay people living out their faith. On the other hand, you have laywers, doctors etc. who may not even be Catholic. Even if they are Catholic and even if they charitablly give the bishop a break on their usually fee, it is still the equivalent of a plumber coming over to fix the pipes at the Chancery.
I think VOTF is an example of lay people taking responsibility to improve the sitution.
Any comments on the McCarthyistic tactics soem VOTF critics are using?
- Status