Winning back Catholics (VOTF warning)

  • Thread starter Thread starter NWUArmyROTC
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

NWUArmyROTC

Guest
Recently my University Center hosted a roundtable on how to reachout to disaffected Catholics. Disaffected Catholics are lapsed, fallen away, or staying in the Church but feeling not welcome.

Anyway to the good stuff (or scary stuff). My observations on the event.

The focus was on Mr. Schorn’s “A Faith Interrupted: An Honest Conversation with Alienated Catholics.” He argued that they feel disaffected specifically on the sins of the Church and the Church’s liturgy (thus the blame is placed on the Church not the individual). He also pointed on that a crisis of faith (understandable), moral teaching (Truth is Truth) might have led them away as well. He estimated there are 17 million Fallen Catholics who have left the Church and numerous others who are in the Church but not.

His talk framed the discussion. He seemed to argue that we should change teaching to accomodate more people, something that scared me. Things only got worse. Two of the panelists were good. They weren’t as hard-line as I would have liked, but considering the event, not too surprised. They both talked about the need to reach out but also teach.

One of the Panelists took teaching to mean that each person should read Christology. In and of itself, a good thing to do. Her examples were Fr. Haight’s “Jesus: Symbol of God” and Elizabeth Johnson’s “She Who Is.” That set me off. Mr. Schorn argued that doctrine and moral teaching should adapt to the age.

I objected, arguing that Truth is Truth and it cannot be negotiated. That got everyone’s attention as they turned toward me and began murmuring. I was told that Vatican II replaced the moral teaching of the Church with our own conscience and personal authority on issues. Vatican II is the new tradition, nothing before it can stand. That shocked me, quite a perversion of Vatican II. Another person chimed in talking about what a disaster JP II’s papacy was because Hans Kung said so. The hostility to the Church was so apparent, that mostly everyone there fit into the disaffected Catholic description. I have never seen such universal disdain for the teachings of the Church.

If anyone is considering doing anything or attending anything with Voice of the Faithful. STAY AWAY!!! Satan is in that organization. It is evil and has corrupted so many.

Christ is the Light of the World. They want to hide it under a basket.
 
40.png
NWUArmyROTC:
Another person chimed in talking about what a disaster JP II’s papacy was because Hans Kung said so.
Click to expand...
So Pope Hans didn’t like Karol Woytila’s administration!

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
 
40.png
NWUArmyROTC:
His talk framed the discussion. He seemed to argue that we should change teaching to accomodate more people, something that scared me.

I objected, arguing that Truth is Truth and it cannot be negotiated. That got everyone’s attention as they turned toward me and began murmuring. I was told that Vatican II replaced the moral teaching of the Church with our own conscience and personal authority on issues.
Click to expand...
I would love to know two things:
  1. What is the point of “changing the teaching”? What value is membership in the Church if the Church is going to betray Christ? (And anyway, what if a lot of people don’t like the NEW “teaching”? What then? Do we change it again, to “include” them?)
  2. WHERE in the sixteen documents of Vatican II does it say that our own consciences and personal authority replace the Magisterium in matters of morals?
 
40.png
NWUArmyROTC:
I was told that Vatican II replaced the moral teaching of the Church with our own conscience and personal authority on issues…
Click to expand...
The next time that happens give them this quote from Vatican II:

“In the formation of their consciences, the Christian faithful ought carefully to attend to the sacred and certain doctrine of the Church. For the Church is, by the will of Christ, the teacher of the truth. It is her duty to give utterance to, and authoritatively to teach, that truth which is Christ Himself, and also to declare and confirm by her authority those principles of the moral order which have their origins in human nature itself” (Dignitatis Humanae 14).

See what Pope John Paul II has to say on that, too.
 
I went to one of those just last night. I found Schorn to be a rather droning speaker, and I was alarmed when he said something about “race, gender and sexual orientation”. I thought, Oh no, is he one of *those *Catholics (who is pushing for gay marriage, etc,) I haven’t read the book, so I didn’t really know. It was hard to understand exactly what the speakers were trying to say, although some did make some good points. Anyway, I was annoyed so much by the way this program was handled. I sent an e-mail to the organization about it. If anyone was planning on going, be forwarned. Here’s some of the points I made in my e-mail that will give you an idea of how this program went down:
  1. When having a panel discussion, it is best to caution the speakers to limit the time of their responses if you are to allow for audience questions later on in the program. This will allow the program to be completed close to the allotted time. Have only one or two panelists give answers to a particular question at a time. Allow an approximate amount of time for each question. That way the panel speaker part of the program won’t run overtime and cut off the rest of the program.
  2. If you are going to use questions on cards, submitted by the audience - well, USE THEM! Many people last night took the time and trouble to fill out cards with questions. There were several ladies who spent time sorting the cards to avoid duplicate questions. The ladies handed the cards to the moderator. While he was waiting for the cards, he asked some questions of the panel. During the answers, the ladies gave him the cards. The answers to those initial questions were very long, while the cards sat waiting.
Then, when it was time for the cards, someone from the audience who arrived late raised their hand. The moderator, instead of saying, “I’m sorry, but this is a moderated forum. If you would like to write your question down, we’ll see if we can get it answered. The cards and pens are in the back of the room.”, he let this person ask the question, which was a two-minute long lecture, basically with a question finally tacked on to the end (Which is why using written questions is a good idea - to avoid pontificators!). I found that to be very disrespectful of everyone else there who had filled out cards. Plus, isn’t the reason you had a moderated question session so that the questions could be sorted through ahead of time? I realize the moderator was caught off-guard, but maybe he can be prepared next time to prevent this sort of thing.
  1. Similar to point 2 - If you are going to use a card question system, don’t just throw it to the winds the way the moderator did last night. Time was almost out, but instead of saying, “We’ve only got a few minutes, so I’ll try and ask a few of the questions from the cards.” he, unbelievably, just opened up the floor to questions with a show of hands. Now, I realize there was a chance that my questions might not have been answered with the cards anyway, but couldn’t he have tried? Especially since so many went through the trouble of writing the questions down? It was so rude and inconsiderate. That was the moment I got up and walked out.
I think it would be helpful if you have a set of rules drawn up for these presentations, and then make a note on whatever program you hand out to attendees that (briefly) states what the rules are. In particular, if you are having a moderated forum with questions submitted on cards, write on the program that questions must be written down for answer during the moderated portion of the program. And that open questioning will be allowed at the end if time permits.

This was especially disappointing to me because I am (very) recently returned to the Catholic Church after 18 years. I wanted to gain information on how to bring some family members back, as well as reinforce my decision. Some of my questions were answered, but not all, and in particular, the ones I wrote down were not. I was very disappointed in this, and I hope my suggestions will help things to run more smoothly next time you have a presentation.
Click to expand...
I wish I had stayed home and read a book.

Aunt Martha
 
40.png
NWUArmyROTC:
Recently my University Center hosted a roundtable on how to reachout to disaffected Catholics. Disaffected Catholics are lapsed, fallen away, or staying in the Church but feeling not welcome…
Click to expand...
I wonder if these people read what returning Catholics have to say about reasons why they left and returned.

I grew up with the influence of “Catholics” who expected many changes to the Church. I eventually wandered off and tried a different denomination that had many of those changes. When I returned I saw that those changes hadn’t happened while I was away. Now that I’m back, and I want authentic teachings of Christ and the Catholic Church. If I had been given all ot those authentic teachings in the first place instead of truth mixed with lies, I probably would have never left.
 
40.png
AuntMartha:
I went to one of those just last night. I found Schorn to be a rather droning speaker, and I was alarmed when he said something about “race, gender and sexual orientation”. I thought, Oh no, is he one of *those *Catholics (who is pushing for gay marriage, etc,) I
I wish I had stayed home and read a book.

Aunt Martha
Click to expand...
Aunt Martha, don’t you LOVE the way homosexual activists and apologists try to line up their cause with either the civil rights or women’s rights banners? As if a behavior pattern was somehow equivalent to having two x chromosomes or being born black.

As to the question card issue, I COMPLETELY agree. I volunteer at a large cathedral that has wonderful speakers. I collect the question cards, go through them and try to prevent duplicates and then give them to the moderator. Then I listen to what supposedly are the questions and realize they are making up their own questions because nothing on the cards is being presented or the moderator makes up her own issues and all the time is taken up. It has to be frustrating to people who took the time to write down their concerns

Lisa N
 
I chose somewhere in between because “heretical organization devoted to tearing down the Church” sums up their activity pretty well but uncharitably ignores the fact that these misguided individuals are not intentionally tearing down the Church - they’re just horrendously ill-informed.

As to my experience of the organization: I and a companion attended a presentation by one of VOTF’s founders in order to see if they were as out there as they are reputed to be. They were out there. Way out there. Aside from us two college students the next youngest person in attendance must have been at least 50 (not a slap at any of you who have accumulated more life experience than me, this is just the typical demographic of dissent) and the audience kept spewing forth grossly inaccurate historical “fact” and caricatures of Catholic teaching.
 
I was employed by the Archdiocese of Boston when this organization was formed. It is typical of most organizations formed and made up of “cultural elites”: well-to-do, “intellectual” types who are at an age when thye have plenty of time on their hands to devote themselves to things like “taking over the Catholic Church”! Lots of swells, but the thing never flew in the parishes where faith takes precedent over wealth, privelege, and college credentials following one’s name. From its inception, when it was formed in the deviant conscience of a renegade, homosexual priest with an axe to grind with the Cardinal, VOTF was doomed because they immediately " elected" an active homosexual to their board of directors, proving exactly what one could expect to be getting if one bought into their rhetoric. VOTF members were merely taking advantage of the great sadness and dismay of the people of the diocese, who, in the midst of all that turmoil might have listened to a group advocating change. But, it was easy to sense that this group of know nothings would not fit the bill. They are unworthy of mention in all but the most inconsequential of things.
 
I was told that Vatican II replaced the moral teaching of the Church with our own conscience and personal authority on issues.
Heh, no, no no. That was Protestantism, silly heretics. :whacky:
 
ourladyswarriors.org/dissent/dissorg.htm

"From their mission statement, they are attempting to “3. Shape structural change within Church.” This is intended to make a “democratic” Church which clearly violates the hierarchical structure which has always existed and is reemphasized in Vatician II Lumen Gentium. The chairman James Muller states in a National Catholic Reporter article on April 26, 2002, “We have donation without representation, and we have to change that.” Also on a CNN interview dated April 29, 2002, the chairman desires cafeteria Catholicism: “… our goal is to provide a democracy for the laity, so that the laity can decide what they want and then counterbalance the absolute power, which we have now of the hierarchy.” "


catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=6003

catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=4610

catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=5320

Sited from Our Lady’s Warriors :A list of dissenting organizations
ourladyswarriors.org/dissent/dissorg.htm
 
Trelow,

Thanks for the links. The last one you posted had a link on its main page that was a letter from Catholic Culture.org, which I thought expressed the concerns about VOTF very well.

catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=5320

I am very distressed about this whole situation, because the Catholic Church I started attending last month is very big on this group. I had no indication of this from the Mass there - it was a traditional Mass. I just assumed everything was peachy, until I went last Tuesday to the VOTF program at a university, that was advertised in the weekly church bulletin. Then after going to that program, and then reading more about VOTF, I realized it was bad news. And the Church is actually hosting a program featuring these people. Ack! Well, fortunately there are two other Catholic Churches nearby me. I’ll be trying one tomorrow!

Aunt Martha
 
Aunt Martha,

I would reccomend St. Athanasius if you are looking for a more Orthodox Parish in this “unnamed” area of Illinois.
NWUArmyROTC
 
40.png
NWUArmyROTC:
Aunt Martha,

I would reccomend St. Athanasius if you are looking for a more Orthodox Parish in this “unnamed” area of Illinois.
NWUArmyROTC
Click to expand...
Thanks. I just sent you a PM.

Aunt Martha
 
Andreas Hofer:
I chose somewhere in between because “heretical organization devoted to tearing down the Church” sums up their activity pretty well but uncharitably ignores the fact that these misguided individuals are not intentionally tearing down the Church - they’re just horrendously ill-informed.

As to my experience of the organization: I and a companion attended a presentation by one of VOTF’s founders in order to see if they were as out there as they are reputed to be. They were out there. Way out there. Aside from us two college students the next youngest person in attendance must have been at least 50 (not a slap at any of you who have accumulated more life experience than me, this is just the typical demographic of dissent) and the audience kept spewing forth grossly inaccurate historical “fact” and caricatures of Catholic teaching.
Click to expand...
That’s a good point, Andreas, about seeing for yourself…
 
There seemed to be a lot who left the Church during or after Vat II. But I can’t tell if it was because things changed so much or because they didn’t change enough. Sometimes their reasons just seem all jumbled up. My husband who is 66 was like that, even though he had been a seminarian for a short time. He had a bone to pick about Humanae Vitae, and Galileo…He had all sorts of liberal ideas, but after a few years talking about orthodoxy, old ways and new, it seems that he missed the older ways, all the devotions etc, and fell back into it rather easily. I think Vat II just got people like him all confused and full of expectations, waiting for the Church to keep things in order but all these renegade religious all went off in different directions.

My poor parish is trying to get the disaffected back in church…they have a sign out saying “Welcome home Catholics!” but I don’t think anyone driving by realizes what that’s about. It sounds more like an upcoming reunion than a reconciliation program. Guy in my prayer group said he went to the first such meeting to help out, and only one person showed up. She had the flu and he became very sick afterward. Pathetic.
 
Glad to see I was not the only idiot out there. I have seen other posts containing VOTF but never took time to read them.

Thanks for the heads up:thumbsup:
 
There has always been a tension between those who seek religious purity in the Church and those who seek to reach out to the disaffected and fallen-away. Note the controversy that existed between Saint Peter and Saint Paul in the Book of Acts.

Jesus reached out to the marginalized who were kept from the practice of pure worship because of their sin. He did not condemn them, but neither did he immediately invite them into the Temple. In fact, during his public ministry, I don’t find that Jesus spent much time in the Temple. He was kept busy teaching his disciples and reaching out to people of all walks of life.

Would Jesus turn his back to the pro-abortion feminist? the in your face gay activist? the Catholic politician who supported the War in Iraq and the murder of Terri Schindler? No. He would reach out to them before repentence with forgiveness.

Pray “Should I expect a reward, Lord? I am a useless servant only doing what I was commissioned to do.” Help me to love others for Love’s sake. Help me to forgive others as I have been forgiven."
 
4 marks:
There has always been a tension between those who seek religious purity in the Church and those who seek to reach out to the disaffected and fallen-away. Note the controversy that existed between Saint Peter and Saint Paul in the Book of Acts.
Click to expand...
The trouble is though - is the only way to reach out to disaffected Catholics to change some of the basic tenets of the church? For example, Is the only way to reach Catholic women who have fallen away to allow women priests or allow abortions?

I think that the majority of people who have left the Catholic Church are people who just fell away from faith in general. The Church would have a better chance of reaching these people by ministering to their souls, not by changing the rules.

If the Church keeps changing to meet the demands of an always changing society, what will it become?

Aunt Martha
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top