VOTF withdraws from CTA conference
Citing the women-priests’ planned eucharistic celebration at the Call to Action (CTA) conference this weekend, the officers of Voice of the Faithful (VOTF) have decided to withdraw the from the meeting. Here’s the full text of the letter from VOTF President Mary Pat Fox explaining the withdrawal:
Dear
Friends,
It is with
deep regret that Voice of the Faithful must withdraw from the Call to Action
Conference this week. We had a productive association last year with CTA. And
back in the Spring when we agreed to participate in the conference this year we
were focused on the goals we have in common. Since that time VOTF’s
participation in the CTA conference has been discussed on and off the list
serves. These discussions along with recent newspaper articles highlighting the
women priests’ planned celebration of the Eucharist, and more media attention
expected in the coming days, has led the Officers to this decision.
We are a mainstream, centrist,
Catholic lay organization with our mission and goals focused on working within
the Church to gain the laity a voice in the governance of the Church, supporting
survivors of clergy sex abuse and priests of integrity. Our obligations to our
membership, to survivors and to priests of integrity require us to maintain our
sense of purpose and not to be associated with issues that go against the
teachings and doctrines of our Catholicism.
As we have recently with Future
Church on the vibrant parishes initiatives, our hope is that we can collaborate
with CTA and other church reform groups on issues where we have common ground.
This requires a very delicate balance. We will continue to seek that balance
and common ground.
Sincerely,
Mary Pat
Fox
President, Voice of the
Faithful
on November 2nd, 2006 at 1:27 pm
As both a contributor and one who’s read postings inside the website of VOTF folowers, it’s clear this decision was made by the excutive team and that there were strong feelings pro and con among mebers about the decision
What’s important here for discussion, I think, is that in trying not to appear “dissident,” the centrists have ceded the high ground to those who appropriate the term “orthodox” for themselves.
It’s hard for me to see that, if that’s the case, how we’ll get to a vibrant centrist Church wher eall are welcomed at the table (as again I remember fondly the late Msgr. Phil Murnion.)
on November 2nd, 2006 at 4:53 pm
In making the decision announced VOTF hews to the position that it has always taken. Personally I admire consistency of approach. I don’t see that in doing this they are ceding the “high ground” to anyone. least of all to the orthodox of the lower case.
on November 2nd, 2006 at 5:27 pm
VOTF has consistently and strictly adhered to their three-fold mission ever since being founded. They knew early on that, if they wanted any credibiliity with the Ontologically Favored clerical set, they, being simple little layfolk who were getting uppity, needed to be adamant about their official positions. Individual members are free to espouse any other positions on a variety of subjects but, when acting on behalf of VOTF, they adhere to the group’s positions.
The detractors of VOTF who view the organization as the Spawn of the Liberal Devil have tried to misquote, misrepresent and generally torpedo the organization. It hasn’t worked and it won’t work.
The sad thing is that the masses of sheeplike Pew Potatoes simply can’t be energized to take their roles seriously, so the harvest remains large but the laborers few.
on November 2nd, 2006 at 8:04 pm
Indeed it has been the strength of VOTF in that its goals have been focused. Bishop Gregory tried to associate VOTF with all the other issues like Women’s Ordination and Married Priesthood.
Second, CTA runs a successful conference. Its problem is it does not know what to do the rest of the year. Notices, instructions, and updates are rare with CTA. With VOTF they are a weakly occurence. And CTA does get mired in smaller issues to the detriment of the common good.
VOTF’s focus is admirable. The problem is that too many liberals do not see how it is the best chance for reform since the Reformation.
CTA is important. But its hurt feelings over VOTF is a real negative.
on November 2nd, 2006 at 10:15 pm
VOTF is indeed an unusually disciplined and focused organization, and this has proven to be one of its great strengths. It is very much aware of its mission, which as Mary Pat Fox says, is “working within the Church to gain the laity a voice in the governance of the Church, supporting survivors of clergy sex abuse and priests of integrity.” The issues VOTF works on are very sensitive and likely to lead to frequent confrontation with Church authorities. But because the group’s centrist, respectful, earnest posture toward the institutional church has given VOTF a certain credibility, it is hard for opponents to demonize them. That is a small but important tactical advantage in a difficult situation. (Think about the tone of press coverage whenever some cranky Pastor refuses to let a VOTF chapter meet on Church premises and they have to get together in a Protestant church hall.) Members of VOTF may have diverse views about the CTA conference, and no doubt some will choose to attend the CTA conference as individuals, but I think the organization made a prudent call on this one.
on November 3rd, 2006 at 10:05 am
I found this article about VOTF interesting. I hope nobody will attack this article ad hominem.
I have no firsthand knowledge of the group; nor do I know anybody involved in it. I’m not even sure it’s operative here in Chicago.
[www.catholicity.com/commentary/hudson/voiceofthefaithful.html]
on November 3rd, 2006 at 10:14 am
I’m sorry, but I think all of this talk of how consistent they have been in their “moderate” stance begs the question of why they got involved with CTA in the first place. As active and informed Catholics, they knew what CTA’s agenda was. In this letter Ms. Fox in as much admits that they changed their minds because of public pressure.
In other words, I think their decision is more about looking moderate than it is about actually being moderate.
on November 3rd, 2006 at 10:44 am
Sorry about the URL weirdness. I had to put brackets around M.’s link to the Hudson article to keep the system from hot linking the whole page.
I almost linked to the Hudson article myself. One certainly doesn’t need to deploy ad hominem attacks to criticize it as a piece of bad reporting. The first thing to note about Hudson and VOTF is that he was once nominated for its presidency. He declined the nomination.
The second is that this article is long on bluster (talk about ad hominem) and short on facts. VOTF detractors, including a few bishops, naturally homed on on the “change the church” part of the group’s slogan, despite its leadership constantly saying “change the church” means working for accountability. His attack on “being faithful to the Spirit” is equally dim. Presumably, the Spirit works within the magisterium too. As a former philosophy teacher, he ought to be able to put that together on his own. Of course, he’s more interested in innuendo. “Being attentive to the spirit sounds a lot like…” That’s not an argument.
And while this was composed well before the NCR article on his indiscretions at Fordham, it’s awfully difficult to take seriously his smear-by-association tactics (especially when he goes after Haffner over sexual issues). His attack on Dillon doesn’t hold water either. She wrote a book about why “prochange Catholics” stay in the church? And? What Deal leaves out, of course, are the many invitations extended to people he would consider “orthodox” enough (as I mentioned, including himself).
None of this is to say the group hasn’t made mistakes. It continues to struggle with several tensions: How can a large group be run by consensus decisions? How to deal with conflicts between the national office and local affiliates?
Here is what they actually say about themselves: [http://votf.org/VOTF_Positions/positions.html]. Sorry again, for the brackets.
I am particularly intrigued by Sean H’s unwillingness to say the disentanglement from CTA is a good thing. Who cares? he says. We must judge them on the earlier decision. Sorry, we can only take your first answer.
on November 3rd, 2006 at 1:04 pm
Sean H
I doubt that your are truly “sorry” and you still haven’t grasped what “begging the question” means, but let that go. I am an informed and active Catholic, and I have heard of CTA, but I am not quite clear what their “agenda” is. To assume that their agenda is so sinister, like that of certain other associations not to be mentioned, that no person of good will could see any good in any of it, is actually rather like what careful writers do call “begging the question”. Perhaps you could point me to a URL where they lay out their agenda in something like a mission statement. We would all then be in a better position to judge whether VOTF had been reckless intitially.
on November 3rd, 2006 at 2:23 pm
Here
http://www.cta-usa.org/index2.php?dest=vision.html
This URL lists what CTA calls their vision and list talks and documents that serve as their foundation.
Or you could read any one of their many posted monthly newsletters -
http://www.cta-usa.org/index2.php?dest=ctanews.html
Certainly, you could read their mission statement, which is vague enough that if you don’t go any farther, you really don’t know what they stand for -
http://www.cta-usa.org/index2.php?dest=mission.html
No one, other than you said anything about being sinister, or that people of good faith could not agree with them. This is not about them being evil - I never said it was.
My point is that VOTF consistently tries to appear neutral on Church doctrine issues, but they aren’t. They know that their ability to function will be hindered if they are viewed as dissenters, so they try hard to hide the fact that most of their membership and leadership hold dissenting views.
VOTF was founded here in Boston, and are most active here. Although I will buy that much of the movement was born by the abuse crisis, it has progressively become the home for anyone with an axe to grind - whether it’s about women priests, SSM, or parish closings.
For those of us who are not dissenters, it makes an awful lot of difference whether those who are advocating greater lay control in the Church actually agree with Church doctrine. It is them who wants to take greater control of the Church, and it matters to me what they want to do with it.
I beg your pardon for not correctly applying “beg the question,” but what do you expect, I’m a veteran, and too stupid to know the difference.
Grant - of course it matters what they did in the first place - and it matters more. When I was a prosecutor, the guy pleading guilty was always sorry when he was sentenced, but you always asked whether he was sorry about what he did, or sorry he got caught. I’m glad they had the sense to correct their mistake, and I will give them credit for doing it, but not too much credit. I think their first inclination, to hook up with CTA, reflects an awful lot about them.
on November 3rd, 2006 at 2:39 pm
Lawyers and the blogosphere. Someone write a dissertation about that, quick.
Sean H, don’t import ridiculous GOP talking points into this debate. No one thinks you make bad arguments or misspeak by virtue of your time in the service. Again, and again, and again you begin in bad faith. You presume your interlocutors here believe you’re “stupid,” just as you presume VOTF has nothing other than PR in mind. Giving the appearance of scandal wasn’t invented yesterday. They want seat at the table.
Your legal-adversarial schema for judging moral agents is devoid of Christian content. Do you judge yourself primarily by your past mistakes?
on November 3rd, 2006 at 3:02 pm
Lacking appreciation for VOTF does not bode well for Sean H and M. How do the two of you, and Janice Kraus, propose to assure accountability in the church?
on November 3rd, 2006 at 3:52 pm
“VOTF was founded here in Boston, and are most active here. Although I will buy that much of the movement was born by the abuse crisis, it has progressively become the home for anyone with an axe to grind - whether it’s about women priests, SSM, or parish closings.”
While I am not a member of VOTF, the experience I have had with the organization in terms of e-mails forwarded to me from others and through discussions with others who are members, this sounds like a fair description to me. At least that’s what I’ve gotten out of it and why I’ve shied away from getting involved in it.
I want to see more accountability from church leaders as well, but I often view VOTF’s activities as being similar to riders attached to bills going through Congress. I can’t vote “yes” for more accountability without also voting “yes” for a bunch of stuff I don’t agree with or want.
If I was a member of VOTF and they chose to participate in these “Eucharistic liturgies” performed by women dressing up as priests, I’d be pretty pissed off about that. It only deepens the divide and forces people to choose what side they’re on. We have all complained of the “us” vs. “them” mentality and as far as I’m concerned, these faux ordinations only add unnecessary fuel to the fire.
“For those of us who are not dissenters, it makes an awful lot of difference whether those who are advocating greater lay control in the Church actually agree with Church doctrine. It is them who wants to take greater control of the Church, and it matters to me what they want to do with it.”
I have to agree even though compared to Sean H, I guess I am a dissenter. But dissenter or not, it is offensive to me to see VOTF members or CTA members simply take matters into their own hands. If they impose their will upon the church, is it supposed to feel different to me just because I agree with some of their complaints?
I can tell you now that it doesn’t.
on November 3rd, 2006 at 4:52 pm
First, thanks to Grant for letting Sean know that dragging in the veteran/stupidity reference was uncalled for -gee, I’m tempted to say “stupid.”
Now, is this thread about VOTF or CTA?
A little history helps. CTA was originally a creature of our hierachy Then Andrew Greeley described the first actors as a bunch of “wackos.” It’s true that many issues were put on the table and some were probably not seemly to the hierarchy to say the least. An outcome of this was the attempt by cardinal Bernadin to found the Common Ground project, which he suffered greivously for at the hands of that preeminent theologian, Bernard Law.
CTA continues til today made up of a wide variety of groups protesting for various changes in the Church, some of which are against curent discipline and, some would say, doctrine.
I note that at the convention from Nov.3-5, Barbara Blaine of SNAP and victim advocate Fr. Tom Doyle will be present and it would not have shocked me if VOTF had been ther e with them, protesting for victim rights for those abused by priests and covered up by bishops,
If someob\ne thinks they’re unorthodox, they need to have their head realighned or perhaps removed from another part of their anatomy,
VOTF certainly grew up in Boston (post Bernard Law and his wonder henchmen like Murphy and McCormack.)
But Votf is strong eleswhere and not monlithic. It sees itself as centrist, but there is division therein on what that means.
If one takes the Sean broad brush, guilt by association a priori approach, it’s easy to see why leaders have withdrawn.
That’s what I meant by the center being coopted by the so called orthdox, whose idea is only their way and are truly clueless as to what an expansive center means; again I return to the late Phil Murnion and his idea of a church where Chitister ( a major presenter at CTA, by the way) and then Cardinal ratzinger would worship comfortablt together.
on November 3rd, 2006 at 8:20 pm
Donna,
Your dilemna, if I may call it tht, is an honest one. I can tell you that in the VOTF I attend in Larchmont New York is the unlikeliest group of reformers you would ever see.
Conservative on the whole they are incensed at the pedophilia abuse and lack of concern of the bishops.
In any renewal group there will be people who just jump in. One might say the same for the church.
We cannot abandon our church just because there are elements in reform who take things too far.
As for the bishops their only recourse is to try to discredit VOTF rather than be accountable.
on November 3rd, 2006 at 9:37 pm
If I were to judge VOTF by several comments on this thread, I’d have to say it is damned if it does, damned if it doesn’t — which, of course, supports my perception that the bishops remain comfortably in charge.
As long as folks talk, talk, talk, ain’t nothin’ gonna’ happen. And our bishops know this fact of life. At some point, people need to act.
Can the folks in VOTF and those in CTA agree on some common objectives to secure — or take! — from the bishops? Until this step occurs, I see no hope for real change.
As things stand, the bishops are united, and the loyal opposition is splintered. Not conducive to change.
on November 3rd, 2006 at 10:02 pm
Sean H
As I understand it, and I am not a member of VOTF, that organization is primarily concerned about accountability in Church governance. Given recent history, not to mention the more remote past, I do not see how anyone of good will could oppose this. Of course it presupposes the possibility of change, but no one with the slightest knowledge of Church history can imagine that change is of itself inevitably out of order. I do not claim to know what other ideas the members of VOTF may privately entertain. I do not know what Ideas you may privately entertain. I judge people, to the extent that I judge them at all, by their public professions and by their public actions taken as a whole.
That is why I thought that VOTF did well to disassociate itself from CTA insofar as that organization supports ordination for women, and that apparently not only as a theoretical possibiilty. But CTA has a broad range of interests, and I can see how VOTF might envisage cooperation in some areas. As for dissent, history shows that it sometimes turns out to be justified. And mere practice, however surprisingly, can change dramatically. There was a time, not so long ago, when a subdeacon would greately fear to let his hand touch a paten, and anyone who read a book on a religious subject written by anyone but a Catholic might be subject to extreme penalties. Those were the days, were they not?
on November 3rd, 2006 at 11:12 pm
I must be person of ill will, because I utterly and completely oppose “accountability” as the VTOF defines it. What do they mean, other than having things their way? I have found that by participating in the daily life of the Church I have far more say and influence than I do in other venues where there is allegedly more “accountability.”
Public schools have elected school boards and PTAs and so forth. Are kids any safer with public school employees than they are with a priest? Statistically no, they’re not. Are schools less wasteful? More efficient?
I have many Protestant friends, and they have accountability coming out their ears. They hire and fire their pastors, and the employees of the church. They decide how all the money is spent. In fact, they have so much accountability that they even start their own church’s when the one they are in isn’t accountable enough.
As far as change, I want it, I crave it. It just isn’t the kind of change the VOTF wants. Change is not a neutral value. Change, if it isn’t chaos, means you are changing to something or toward something. This is why I say it matters what they actually believe. You will have to excuse me if I am more comfortable with the hierarchy of the church with all its flaws than I am with a bunch of self-appointed, upper-middle class, suburban, white, “progressives” running things. If I want that, there is a Unitarian Church accross the street from me.
on November 3rd, 2006 at 11:35 pm
Sean, you ask, “Are kids any safer with public school employees than they are with a priest?”
I do not know the answer, but I thought I saw information not long ago that stated either:
a. Public school kids are safer (vis-a-vis sexual abuse), or
b. There is no evidence to show that public schools are less safe than Catholic/private schools for kids re: sexual abuse.
As I said, I do not know the answer, but I’m not sure your answer is correct. Do you have any “cites?”
Thanks.
on November 3rd, 2006 at 11:55 pm
You can start here. Unfortunately there is no comprehensive study like the John Jay for Catholic priests, but there are some studies that indicate as many as 10% of public school children experience some sexual conduct with a school empolyee. The American Association of University Women has looked at this a number of times and there is a lot of evidence that it is a significant problem. There is a study that might be cited in this document that looked at 224 cases of sexual misconduct by teachers in the city of NY alone.
http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/misconductreview/report.pdf
on November 4th, 2006 at 9:47 am
Concerning accountability, this posting by Ben Witherington on the Ted Haggard story, might be of interest. http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/
on November 4th, 2006 at 3:24 pm
“They know that their ability to function will be hindered if they are viewed as dissenters, so they try hard to hide the fact that most of their membership and leadership hold dissenting views.”
An interesting statement, especially when applied to bishops whose mismanagement of clergy spawned the VOTF phenomenon. The bishops continue to flail in the eyes of many laity, and have yet to recover any substantial credibility with the sheep. How many think the bishops are talking the talk publicly and continuing to do as they please when the lay people go home?
Let’s face it: the Catholic Church is bogged down by a hermeneutic of suspicion. Priests and laity distrust bishops. Clergy distrust laity. Self-styled orthodox distrust progressives and vice versa.
It’s probably not as sexy, but somebody needs to call a conference or form an organization to heal the rifts and find common ground.
Oh, wait … somebody did that and Cardinal Law and other bishops dissed that, too.
on November 4th, 2006 at 10:08 pm
Let me make clear that I’m not qualified to debate statistics on the sexual abuse of children in the Catholic Church or in our nation’s public schools. I must rely on the findings of “experts,” and I gather even they do not have a handle on the problem.
Prof. Carol Shakeshaft, the author of the Education Department study you cite above, is quoted by National Catholic Reporter (3/26/04) as saying that “the issue ‘is woefully understudied.’” The article notes that Shakeshaft “base[d] her projection on statistics from a national survey…conducted by the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation in 2000.” The article quotes from Education Week’s look at a draft of the report: “‘We have scant data on incidence and even less on descriptions of predators and targets. There are many questions that call for answers.’”
In a response to Catholic League’s William Donahue, NCR (7/14/06) noted: “We have read and reported on [Shakeshaft’s] 2004 study [for the Education Department], ‘Educator Sexual Misconduct: A Synthesis of Existing Literature’…..While it contains useful information that might provide the basis for additional research, it is hardly authoritative or even particularly rigorous. The claim that ‘it is estimated that the rate of sexual abuse of public school students is more than 100 times the abuse by priests’ is based on an extrapolation of data collected by the American Association of University Women for surveys whose purpose ‘was not specifically to document educator sexual misconduct.’”
Given all the variables governing reporting, definitions, etc., I am reluctant as an outside observer to draw any conclusions from studies.
Which takes us back to the need in church and society for transparency and accountability. If I’ve learned anything during my years in government and in our church, it is the need for ongoing independent reviews and, if necessary, investigations to maintain a healthy “check” on our leaders, both civil and ecclesial. “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” I would rather have the “messiness” that often comes with efforts at transparency and accountability than place my confidence in leaders to police themselves. Better to have several/many hands in the pot than only one. I simply don’t see the ecclesial status quo as a healthy alternative.
on November 5th, 2006 at 7:53 am
Joe,
As I said, there is no comprehensive study, and probably won’t ever be one because there is no demand for one. How is that for accountability? in 1998, Education Week, did a review of media reporting and found over 200 cases of sexual misconduct by public school employees in just six months! Remember, this is just what made it to the papers. Anecdotally, people here in Boston may remember (but may not since it was in and out of the papers in less than a week) the Magnon case, where a high school teacher in Maynard, MA has been abusing teenage boys for more than 40 years! They haven’t even finished finding the victims, but it may be dozens. His case is as bad or worse than any of the Boston priest cases, but unlike them has not become a cause celeb.
This is not to minimize the priest abuse situation, and I do understand that the religious nature of the abusers makes the issue more grave, and therefore more widely reported. What bothers me is the underlying assumption that the priest abusers are abusers because they are priests or that the Catholic Church is somehow completely unlike other institutions in this regard - and worse. Schools have also had abusers quietly transferred rather than punished - a study of cases in NY City showed this.
As I said, I am not for the status quo, but I am certainly not for the VOTF model. Please tell me why I should trust my fellow Catholic laymen to run matters any better than the bishops? More importantly, tell me why such “accountability” will not devolve into infighting about politics, doctrine, and governance? Look at our Protestant brethren - why would we be any different? At least in today’s Church people like you and I can both belong, but will that be true if lay people start calling the shots?