My prediction -- within a year they will make "diversity" a goal (for their own membership, not the CHurch's), and end up spending half of their time and effort attempting to recruit a more "deiverse" membership, which is good and all, but will prevent them from accomplishing anything.
John McGuinness | Homepage | 12.30.02 - 1:51 pm | #

Notice that the logo on the "Christmas" card is ambiguous (and no mention of Christ, either). Is it "Change Faith," "Keep Church" or "Keep Change," "Church Faith" or --- never mind, I'm confused already!

The new logo makes me feel like my head is spinning.

These guys aren't players at all (but don't tell them that!), but they have encouraged open dissent, which I think is a good thing.
Colleen | 12.30.02 - 4:48 pm | #

I like your nickname for VOTF. I plan to use it on my own site with due credit to you. Voice of the Fuddled will be a recapitulation of all the farces of the past 40 years. Marx's famous quote: "Hegel says somewhere that all great events and personalities in world history reappear in one fashion or another. He forgot to add: the first times as tragedy, the second as farce."
Oswald Sobrino | Homepage | 12.30.02 - 6:30 pm | #

Typo in my comment: "the first time as tragedy, the second as farce."
Oswald Sobrino | Homepage | 12.30.02 - 6:37 pm | #

Any chance they might sell religious VOTiF candles?
Paul Scheibmeir | 12.31.02 - 12:02 am | #

Voice of the "Faithful"? Hah!

They may be fuddled and unclear on a lot of things, but one thing they are very clear. They "take no stand" regarding the issues of celibacy, homosexual conduct, woman priests, etc., within the Church. In effect, this means that they *decline* to uphold Church teachings on these issues.

Not very "faithful", in my book! I have heard that Catholics defending Church teachings have been censored on VOTF bulletin boards.

I suspect that this group will collapse soon.



Jim Goodluck | Homepage | 12.31.02 - 8:23 am | #

"I suspect that this group will collapse soon."

Only if their financial backers pull the plug.

If we follow the money trail, will it lead back to the liberal bishops?


Colin Pye | 01.02.03 - 12:59 pm | #

If the only thing VOTF stands for is that they don't take a stand on major issues ... doesn't that make them pretty much Unitarians?
Christopher Wong | 01.02.03 - 3:24 pm | #

Peace, all.

Seems to me a lot of posts piling on VOTF are a lot of fussing about nothing. Anyone can go to the web site and read clearly enough what the group is aiming at. You complain about their mission being unclear, but try to read any diocesan newspaper or web site and find what they believe in. Odds are you'll find a publicity calendar for the local bishop, news of chicken dinners and bingo, and the 6539th chapter of some parareligious organization meeting to fete some cleric.

We have a group fighting a (dis)spirited disinformation campaign by bishops wanting to skirt canon law, yet when the group says they take no position in favor of many controversial liberal issues, something is found to be damned.

If you don't want to join the group, fine; march in the parade behind your local bishop and his pedophiles. See where it gets you. Mark, I think your cute organization should be used for a parallel group supporting bishops, who have done little more than fuddle the seriousness of clergy predators for years. They didn't get it right in 1985 and they're still mostly befuddled today.

I think as long as the sharks smell episcopal blood in the water, there will be groups like VOTF. Certainly the cash flow to the chanceries is taking a hit. Is that clear enough for you?
Todd | 01.02.03 - 11:31 pm | #

Todd, my comment was tongue-in-cheek but I do find VOTF rather evasive in their goals, much as I find some Unitarians being emphatic about what they do NOT stand for. So what are VOTF's goals?

"1. To support those who have been abused"

By pooling a piddly little fund, writing a sympathetic letter, and not doing much of anything else?

"2. To support priests of integrity"

By naming a grand total of ONE "priest of integrity" after all this time? Yeah, sure.

"3. To shape structural change within Church"

Their document does not go much beyond hazy details about parish councils. Gee, you mean parish councils did not exist before VOTF?

So: no, I don't really see much of what they stand for -- or do -- in concrete terms. Best I can see is some vague notion of a power grab.

Christopher Wong | 01.03.03 - 12:04 pm | #

Peace, Christopher.

Well, unlike Mark, you do have some points to discuss. Thanks. I'm not a member of VOTF, though I do subscribe to their e-mail reports and I check the web site somewhat often.

My take on their philosophy would suggest that individual members do the supporting. You and I really have no idea what kinds of things members of the different groups in different locations are doing. That there's not a national letter-writing campaign to victims ... I find that a relief.

I think VOTF has met in enough parishes to find "priests of integrity." Seems that clergy have to cooperate in some way here. Again, I'm glad they don't have an application process like the institution has for candidates for orders. That would be quite icky.

And change. Ah, yes. I've heard VOTF publicly say something about Law's replacement, how that should be determined. I have no fear about going on record to say just about every active bishop in the US was chosen by a process that reeks of the worst of modernism.

I think the notion of "change" can be scary to the good boys and girls who consider themselves "orthodox" Catholics. I've been through a lot of change in my life. You get used to it. It's good for the soul and keeps us from getting too full of ourselves. Anytime Rome wants to ask me what I think needs changing, I'll give them a liberal, but orthodox earful.
Todd | 01.03.03 - 9:49 pm | #

Todd,

Support of victims: if individuals do the supporting, then VOTF is irrelevant. You don't need an organization then.

Priests of integrity: if supporting priests of integrity means meeting in their parishes, and if they are priests of integrity because they let VOTF meet, then we are in a pointless little circle here. Again, they have named a grand total of ONE "priest of integrity", whom some find questionable.

So on 2/3 of their stated goals, VOTF is really irrelevant. It really is just "structural change", a vague term that they have yet to define.
Christopher Wong | 01.04.03 - 2:49 pm | #

Peace, Christopher.

If the organization is irrelevant, then apparently Myers and a few other bishops are getting their shorts in arrears for nothing, eh?

I don't suppose VOTF will win on the "structural change" any way they play it. If they make suggestions, they will be accused of being high-handed, if not heterodox. If they offer to dialogue with bishops, they can be stonewalled, then criticized for having nothing concrete to offer. I think the Boston area VOTF has indeed suggested more local input into Law's replacement. I don't know that VOTF hasn't supported less Rome and more local clergy and laity in selecting bishops. That would be a start back to a very good tradition, wouldn't it?
Todd | 01.05.03 - 10:27 pm | #