Is 'Voice of the Faithful'Unfaithful to Catholic Principles?

MassNews ^ | July 22, 2002

[sinkspur]

They will go the way of all schismatics.

They're not schismatics. On another thread, Catholic Charities of Boston says it will ignore Law's demand that it not accept VOTF money.

And, your cutting and pasting aside, Fr. Thomas Doyle, who knows where all the bodies are buried in the sexual abuse scandal, is fully behind this group.

And, the bishops will get no help from Rome on this matter, as the Archbishop who heads the Congregation for the Laity, Cardinal Stafford, said he supports more of a role for the laity in the Church.

[SoothingDave]

They're not schismatics

What would it take to be labeled a "schismatic," in your estimation?

And, the bishops will get no help from Rome on this matter, as the Archbishop who heads the Congregation for the Laity, Cardinal Stafford, said he supports more of a role for the laity in the Church.

Is this "role" to be qualified in any manner? Or is any involvement in any issue mildly connected to the Church good?

Is clamoring for the impossible (priestesses) a good use of encouraging the laity's role? Is demanding the Church teachings on morality be weakend a good role for the laity? Is encouraging defiance to the Church's leaders a good role for the laity?

SD

[ksen]

Is encouraging defiance to the Church's leaders a good role for the laity?

It seems that the leaders themselves are doing a good enough job of encouraging the laity to become defiant.

[SoothingDave]

It seems that the leaders themselves are doing a good enough job of encouraging the laity to become defiant.

Well, yes, but that isn't really the point. It is one thing to be disgusted with certain persons in the leadership. It is quite another to generalize this into a general principle.

SD

[sinkspur]

If a parent or a sibling committed some great wrong, we may be angry, but should we therefore cease to love them and encourage them kindly to convert back to the practice of the true faith of God and sound moral behavior and teachings?

Love them, yes, but you'd watch them like hawks until they regained your trust. Until the hierarchy proves that it won't foist abusive priests on Catholic lay people, they must be watched, closely.

[sinkspur]

Is encouraging defiance to the Church's leaders a good role for the laity?

If by "defiance" you mean insisting that bishops never again be able to cover-up for an abusive priest, and that mechanisms be put in place to assure that that does not happen, then, yes, that is a role for the laity.

It is a "general principle" that if one is not accountable to anyone, then one will, unguided by any outside source, do pretty much what one wants to do. One wonders what "outside source" guided the bishops who knew priests were abusing young people, and reassigned them anyway.

[SoothingDave]

If by "defiance" you mean insisting that bishops never again be able to cover-up for an abusive priest, and that mechanisms be put in place to assure that that does not happen, then, yes, that is a role for the laity.

I agree. So where does the agitating for married priests and "priestesses" come into the picture? These issues have nothing to do with cleaning up the mess and ensuring it does not recurr. This is just the good old "progressive" element using any opportunity it can find to ruin another part of the Church.

Surely you recognize this? Even if you think priestesses are a good idea, how is that a "mechanism...to assure that that [abusive priests] does not happen"?

SD

[sinkspur]

So where does the agitating for married priests and "priestesses" come into the picture?

I read only three objectives from VOTF, and married priests or "priestesses" are not among those objectives. Or do you think that any time a group of Catholic laymen get together they inevitably start talking about women priests?

For now, the VOTF is focusing on the sexual scandal. That's where it should stay: holding bishops accountable for the kind of men who they send into parishes. If it goes off into the weeds like Call to Action did, it will splinter and lose all effectiveness.

[sitetest]

Dear sinkspur,

If the article cited at the beginning of this thread is accurate, the VOTF folks are either serious dissenters or not very bright.

If it is true that they have invited a speaker from Planned Parenthood, then their Catholicity is legitimately called into questioned. If it is true that they have invited a speaker from Women's Ordination Conference and Call to Action, then their Catholicity is legitimately called into questioned.

If they are truly trying to focus on helping to alleviate the damage from the problems of priestly pederasty and the criminal cover-up by some bishops, why are they even inviting these groups? What does pro-murder Planned Parenthood have to do with holding bishops accountable with regard to covering predator priests? What does the Women's Ordination Conference or Call to Action have to do with holding the bishops accountable?

Even giving the greatest benefit of the doubt to the VOTF organizers, that they themselves are not dissenters, inviting these other groups seems, then, just plain stupid. And frankly, the stupidity of some is a significant cause of the current mess.

I'd be willing to hear another side to this, why they view it as necessary to invite the most anti-Catholic folks to meetings of Catholic laypeople. If you have any insight, I'd love to hear it. But honestly, sinkspur, I have my doubts that even upon hearing their "side" I'd think that any of this was a good idea.

sitetest

[american colleen]

Here is a bit of reading material not found in the Boston Globe. "Voice of the Faithful makes me squirm". The column has been written by a member of the Boston Archdiocese of Boston - I can show you many similar printed sentiments that reflect what this columnist says. I am on the VOTF mailing list and get a weekly update from them, so I guess I am one of the "10,000 members, worldwide." I joined months ago hoping for a sane voice in the maelstrom here in Boston and shortly found that the sane voice wasn't VOTF. This group is just a well-heeled "Call to Action" group under a different moniker. Do some research on their site Voice of the Faithful , check out their message boards, and you will find that this group espouses "structural change within the Church" (their stated #3 goal) including, but not limited to, the ordination of women and married clergy all around.

[american colleen]

Regarding the spectrum of speakers at the recent VOTF convention. It has been observed that they:
1. Appeal to the "left."
2. Having captured the "left," reconfigure themselves to draw in the "right."
3. Avoid any discussion of divisive issues until everybody’s in the new "fold."

[Aquinasfan]

They're not schismatics.

I have nothing against Catholic lay organizations or apostolates, but I think you're engaging in wishful thinking here. These people are the usual suspects. We have a lot of them in Massachusetts. Believe me now or believe me later.

And I have no sympathy for Law either.

[SoothingDave]

I read only three objectives from VOTF, and married priests or "priestesses" are not among those objectives. Or do you think that any time a group of Catholic laymen get together they inevitably start talking about women priests?

Did you even read the article?

C. J. Doyle noted that the list of invited speakers was comprised of prominent Catholic dissenters, including proponents of women's ordination, opponents of Catholic sexual ethics, and Debra Haffner, former Director of Counseling, Education, and Public Affairs for Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington.

Now where do you suppose I could get the idea that this group intends to agitate for priestesses? Could it be from the fact that they invited priestesses agitators to speak at their little convention?

(And if having a Planned Parenthood person doesn't wake you up, I don't know what will.)

Duh.

SD