VOTF’s
End Kevin Symonds, Franciscan University, Steubenville, OH
VOTF has
turned Fundamentalist on us by taking Canon 215 out of context
and
presenting it like it was the end-all authority.
Hello and
thank you for reading this second part of my article on Voice of the
Faithful. First, I would like to
thank the founders of this web page for allowing me to post this
‘essay’ up on their site.
I have known the founders for some time now and I admire their passion
for the Faith and willingness to fight for it—despite the odds.
This
second part has a few sections to it and I’m hoping that it will be easy
to follow. This essay is meant to
offer a commentary and reflections on key texts surrounding Voice of the
Faithful (VOTF) from a regular ‘everyday’ common layperson with
some theological background. I
will not focus in on Vatican II’s document Lumen Gentium so much as I
will be focusing on the other key texts of Voice of the Faithful.
Let me also say that this essay was not easy for me to write. My field in Evangelization is more of dialoging with Protestants and anti-Catholics online. However, I could not sit idly back and hear about VOTF without some natural curiosity coming to my mind. I decided to try educating myself on what VOTF believes and stands for. The results of my search are now in front of you. Much thought, time (I didn’t write it overnight) and prayer has gone into this writing and I hope that you, the reader, will find it educational in some way.
To
begin, I would like to re-focus on something that I had put in my first
article. The accusations against
priests in the Catholic Church have caused a lot of people to become very
concerned for the Church that they either grew up in or have converted to. These genuine people have a true
concern for the problem in the Church today and they want to do something about
it. I commend these people for
wanting this. Yet, I believe that
VOTF members have disillusioned these innocent people. I have grave reservations about VOTF as
an organization and my difficulties are with their end and the means they use
to accomplish this end.
Bearing all of the above in mind, I would like to begin with a look on VOTF’s “End”.
VOTF’s
motto is “Keep the Faith, Change the Church” and this is basically
a paraphrasing of three specific ‘credos’ that they believe
in. Their credos are as follows:[1]
1.) Support those who have been
abused.
2.) Support priests of integrity.
3.) Shape structural change within
the Church.
Objectively speaking, who couldn’t agree with the
first two? The problem that lies
with VOTF is the third Credo that suggests we “Shape structural change
within the Church.” This
forms the crux of what VOTF is about.
As of the date of this publication, VOTF has their motto up on their
web-site in a slogan type format, so I believe that it is safe to assume that
we are to take this particular motto seriously. But, the question about the motto is what do they mean about
it?
While
attending a VOTF meeting and speaking to its chair of the chapter about this motto,
it became apparent to me that this motto is extremely ambiguous. There is offered no formal explanation
or definition of what they mean by it.
So the person is at a loss to understand it, except through viewing
VOTF’s actions—which I shall get to a little bit later.
Why
is this term ambiguous and why don’t they define what they mean? I think that the answer can be found in
what defining something is and does.
If you define something, you are specifically articulating in words what
the nature of something is. In the
case of Catholic associations, how you define yourself is extremely tricky
because it tells people if you are an orthodox Catholic or a dissenting
heretic. The same is true for
VOTF. If they defined what they
meant by this third credo, then we would be able to know if they are heretical
or orthodox to the Faith.
I
don’t believe that they will define their meaning because they depend
upon its ambiguity. By the credo
remaining ambiguous, interested people in VOTF can make of it what they
may—hence causing VOTF to grow in numbers because innocent people are
joining it after being lured by the first two Credos. Location and placement means a lot (even Christ knew this).
I would like
for you to consider this possibility—why not say “Keep the Faith,
Change the Church by supporting priests of integrity and those who have been
abused” instead of the way VOTF currently words it? Grammatically speaking, by using the
word “by”, we would understand VOTF that their aim to “keep
the Faith, change the church” would be by supporting priests of integrity
and the abused, period and nothing else.
This would more clearly demonstrate what they mean by “Changing
the Church” as meaning that the Bishops need to “clean house”
so to speak.[2] This would be noble and nothing to
which anyone would object. I
openly challenge VOTF to define what they mean by their third credo for all to
see and judge the actions of the group by.
Unless this essay sparks their fury, I do not think they
will define it. We are then left
to our own devices and must observe what they do. In an address to the Boston Globe, the Chairman (and
founder) of VOTF, Mr. Jim Muller said,
“If I had a dream of what this [‘this’
referring back to his dream of the role of the laity as Mr. Muller sees fit]
would look like three years from now, our enrollment would be half the
Catholics in the world, every parish would have a chapter, and every diocese,
every nation, and the world would, too, and that organization would be a
counterbalance to the power of the hierarchy—it would have a permanent
role, a bit like Congress.”[3]
A counterbalance to the power of the hierarchy? Jesus, in instituting His Church, did
not endow the lay faithful with that authority. The kind of authority that Mr. Muller speaks of was
communicated by Christ to the Apostles and their successors the Bishops. Thus, it is plainly seen that Mr.
Muller wants to create an organization that would run parallel to the
Bishops’ Authority as the Divinely instituted Shepherds of the Church. St. Ignatius of Antioch, a contemporary
of St. John the Apostle, wrote to the Magnesians c.a. 110AD the following:
“For when you are in subjection to the bishop as to
Jesus Christ it is clear to me that you are living not after men, but after
Jesus Christ, who died for our sake.
Therefore it is necessary that you should do nothing without the Bishop,
but be also in subjection to the presbytery, as to the Apostles of Jesus Christ
our hope…Without these [the Bishop and presbyters] the name of
“Church” is not given.”[4]
I had sent to the founders of www.faithfulvoice.com an article from www.zenit.org about a statement that Pope John
Paul II had said to Brazilian Bishops during their ad limina visit. In that document, the Pope warned
against “the proposals of some groups in that country [Brazil] that want
to create a lay conference parallel to the Bishops’ Conference.”
Further he said, “To attempt to create an autonomous body, representative
of the laity, without reference to the hierarchical communion of Bishops,
constitutes an ecclesiological defect of grave implications that are easy to
foresee.”[5] The rest of this article contains
materials that are nearly direct citations of Canon Law 215 (the famous Canon
that VOTF likes to cite in its defense).
I will discuss Canon 215 in a moment.
But to the Voice of the Faithful member, a quote like that
from John Paul II would be ‘invalid’ of sorts because it
didn’t involve VOTF or even the laity. Hence, they wouldn’t listen to it—effecting a
nullification (in the mindset of a VOTF member that is) of any authoritative
measure of the Holy Father to properly instruct the Bishops as is proper to his
Petrine Ministry (“You in turn must strengthen your brothers” Luke
22:32). With that line of thought,
it sounds like VOTF would already be acting like their ‘organization that
would counterbalance the power of the hierarchy’ was already in
existence! VOTF is undermining
Church authority.
Let
me ask two questions for reflection.
From the evidences cited above, does it seem like VOTF is an orthodox
group? Based on the kind of
priests that are known to flock to VOTF, what does VOTF mean by “Priests
of Integrity?”[6]
I
am sure that after visiting VOTF’s web-site or attending a meeting of a
local chapter, one will have seen VOTF cite Canon Law #215 as its own defense
for existing. While a total
examination of Canon Law would be irrelevant to this discussion on VOTF, I would
like to point out something.
Simply put, VOTF does not look at Canon 215 in its context, and it is
apparent that it hasn’t taken seriously a Commentary on Canon Law. Instead, they look to Fr. William
Clark, S.J. as their ‘commentary’ of sorts.[7] Remember also that much like the
Church’s doctrine, there is an organic unity to Canon Law and one Canon
can easily refer or hinge on another one in order to support itself.
It
is clear from the context of Canon 215, that the wording of Canon 215 has a
specific meaning and is part of an organic whole. The axiom “words mean
something” is worthy to remember here. Here is the citation of Canon 215,
“The Christian Faithful are at liberty freely to found
and direct associations for purposes of charity or piety or for the promotion
of the Christian vocation in the world and to hold meetings for the common
pursuit of these purposes.”
The
surrounding verses of Canon Law are as follows:
“Conscious
of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with
Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they
represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of
the Church.
-2
The Christian Faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their
needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires.
-3
According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they
have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors
their opinion on matters, which pertain to the good of the Church and to make
their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to
the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and
attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons” (Canon 212).
Canon
216 specifically states, “…no undertaking is to claim the name
Catholic without the consent of competent ecclesiastical authority.”
It
is already demonstrated that VOTF is not in line with Church teachings. Jim Post, President of VOTF has said,
“We take no position on any sex or gender issues and have no interest in
doing so.” [8] Is this in keeping with the above Canon
‘without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals’ when
Catholicism is very specific in her doctrines on sex and sexuality? Logically, I am obliged to say no.
As per their direct citation of Canon 215, I charge that
they misuse it. Later on in Canons
298-329, we find an elaboration of this particular Canon. “The latter canons (298-329)
reiterate the right articulated here [in Canon 215] but more clearly situate
it within the context of the supervisory role of competent ecclesiastical
authority and the varying degrees of recognition, support, or encouragement
given to a particular association by the Church.”[9] This clarification of Canon 215 is
telling us that Canon 215 is in connection with Canons 298-329 and upholds that
these associations are subordinate to the hierarchy. Not parallel to it as
VOTF’s founder would have it.
VOTF is guilty of taking Canon 215 and isolating it from the
rest of Canon Law, thereby separating an organic unity that there is to the
law. It seems as though VOTF has
turned Fundamentalist on us by taking Canon 215 out of context and presenting
it like it was the end-all authority.
One
other point that I’d like to mention refers back to the ambiguity of
their third credo that I mentioned earlier. In keeping it ambiguous, VOTF is drawing more and more
people to themselves who are not researching these things and only see the
exterior of the group. More
numbers means more say and more sway is added. Remember the axiom, “there is strength in
numbers” and “a three-ply cord is not easily broken.” VOTF uses this influence of its numbers
and therefore use the people as a means to achieve their ends. In short—they are using the
people as a means to achieve their end as summarized by Mr. Muller in my
earlier citation. How can this be
proven? I’d like to answer
that on a literal level--If everyone saw VOTF for what it truly is, then
innocent Catholics would not join VOTF or leave altogether and it would lose
any sway they’d have. They
would be reduced to a small handful of people and no one would take them
seriously.
I would like to conclude this essay with a challenge. I ask everyone who reads this to take the evidence for themselves and judge VOTF. If you come to a different conclusion than I, then so be it. Perhaps someday we’ll meet and discuss our views. However, until that time when it is proven that VOTF is a good organization, I charge that it is not in keeping with the Catholic Church and is actually in effect a community of people who do have different views than those of the Church. The greatest reforms were enacted from orthodoxy to the One True Faith, not from people with agendas who aspire to change Catholicism’s inviolable doctrine.
mailto:KevinS@FaithfulVoice.com
Date: Tue Feb 11 22:17:18 2003 (PST)
To: KevinS@FaithfulVoice.com
Subject: Votf
's End
God
Bless You Kevin,....may your work bear much good fruit...
in Jesus name I pray...Ann, LI,NY.
[1] Source: A handout I was given at the VOTF meeting I attended. Please also note that the terms “Third Credo” and “Motto” will be used interchangeably as they, in reality, signify the same thing.
[2] I realize that this can be very misconstrued so
I’ll clarify. By
“clean house” I am not saying that Bishops are heretical to the
Faith. What I mean by “clean
house” is that the people would stand up for orthodoxy to the Faith and
the Bishops would clear out a lot of garbage that has been going on within the
Dioceses in the U.S. and promote orthodoxy and orthopraxis (a “right
practicing” of the Faith).
[3] Source: http://www.nd.edu/%7Endmag/w2002-03/muller.html
[4] Lake, Kirsopp The Apostolic Fathers Volume 1. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1998. Pgs. 214-215.
[5] Source: www.zenit.org
[6] C.f. the comment in my first article about the priest
who is known to be a dissenter as well as the other pages on www.faithfulvoice.com
that demonstrate the caliber of priests who are involved with VOTF.
[7] With all due respect to Fr. Clark as he has a doctorate in the field of Canon Law.
[9] Beal, John P. New Commentary On The Code of Canon Law. Mahwah: Paulist Press, 2000. Pg. 270.