Epistles to the "Enemy": II

This is the second of two essays that were posted on the message board of the VOTF, provided here in response to Mike Hardy of Enemy of the Church? (Anybody know what's up with this guy? I have days like that too, you know?)

+ + +

QUO VADIS?

+ + +

June 5 2002 (Memorial of Saint Boniface)

Greetings in Christ!

In the Old Testament, the Israelite leader Joshua admonished his people, in dissuading them from their errant ways:

"[I]f you be unwilling to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell; but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." (Joshua 24:15)

One might easily confuse this with what has already been called a "litmus test."

Closer to the present, there has been a call in this forum for some clarification, regarding the position of VOTF on the traditional teaching of the Church. I will not simply repeat the demands of others for an answer. Rather, I would elaborate on the question itself, in the hopes of demonstrating its relevance.

First, in defense of the VOTF leadership, they may be genuinely concerned with alienating those who would otherwise support them. This is best expressed, I believe, in the following:

"As far as I can see (and all this is there for you to see, too), Voice of the Faithful accepts the teachings of the Church. It's animating principle isn't about the teachings of the Church. It's not about abortion, it's not about ordaining women; it's not about the Trinity, the Assumption, or the virgin birth. Its about the behavior of its clerical leadership, about accountability, about rightful, legitimate 'voice' for the non-ordained, about matters of administration of temporal affairs in the Church, about criminal acts perhaps facilitated and surely covered up. VOTF leadership seems to understand quite well that taking positions on matters of theology and doctrine can only get in the way of its goals.

"Now I grant you that people who sign on to this board (like you and me) may have all kinds of crazy and heretical ideas. But it is only fair to attribute to VOTF only what the documents, positions, and official announcements of the VOTF say. Frankly, I cannot blame the organization for not responding to incessant queries about its orthodoxy. It stands for what it says it stands for."

The above appears reasonable enough. There are those whose difficulty with some Church beliefs, or whose leaving the Church altogether, may be due in large part to those unfortunate actions which gave rise to VOTF being started in the first place. "We who are strong in faith should be patient with the scruples of those whose faith is weak; we must not be selfish. Each should please his neighbor so as to do him good by building up his spirit. Thus, in accord with Scripture, Christ did not please himself: 'The reproaches they uttered against you fell on me.'"(Romans 15:1-3) When I read the very sad accounts in this forum, of those who have been injured by church authority figures, or whose resolve has otherwise been weakened, I can see myself in their shoes. I tell myself, that could be me. I am tempted to reach out to those people, maybe cut a few corners if necessary.

On the other hand, the history of the Church is filled with saints who were rejected by those around them. Many of us would look to Francis of Assisi as a model of one who called for change in the Church. Few of us know the cost to him. In founding his "little band of brothers," he gave up all his material wealth, his family inheritance, and most if not all of his friends. In the final years of his life, Francis was ousted from the order he himself founded, at the hands of his successor. He died in the company of a few loyal followers. His successor ultimately left the priesthood and the Church.

It is all well and good to espouse the "centrist" position. But is the place between two extremes a definitive center, or a vacuum? Either could be the case, and there is a difference. Whatever our disagreements, we can all say together, "priests molesting young boys is a bad thing." But what happens with the inevitable question: "What is to be done?" One side will call for married priests or woman priests, the other for a return to the Old Latin Mass -- each prepared to state at length (as their respective partisans have already done elsewhere) why theirs is the remedy for all concerned. It is at that point, that chaos rears its ugly head, and "the best laid plans of mice and men" to build a coalition, turn out to be for naught.

I have discussed before how the scandal of clerical sexual abuse cannot be looked upon in isolation from the other scandals in the Church -- false teaching, irreverent worship, and so on (Whose Voice? Which Faithful?? What Vision???, see entry from previous day). To insist upon isolating the problem, for the reasons already given, may ultimately doom an otherwise well-intentioned effort to failure.

Francis of Assisi, by the way, started out as a layman, and was eventually made a deacon, but was never a priest. Whatever his state in life, he is considered one of the great reformers of the Church. And yet, by the standards that many of us employ in facing the issues of the Church today, he could also be branded a pathetic loser who was unable to gain a consensus.

"First of all, VOTF is a grass roots organization. It is not hierarchial in nature."

"Where does one get the impression that Jim Muller has been made the focus of VOTF. Certainly not from Jim, a most humble man."

"Well, gee, just offhand I'd say maybe because instead of posting here himself [Dr Muller], someone... posted for him! That looks rather like there's a hierarchy in VOTF on the face of it, doesn't it? As in 'I'll have my girl call your girl...'

"Grass roots." "Hierarchy." If we are going to keep falling back on these words, we have to agree on what they mean.

"Grass roots: NOUN 1. People or society at a local level rather than at the center of major political activity. Often used with [i]the[/i]. 2. The groundwork or source of something."

"Hierarchy: NOUN 1. A body of persons having authority. 2a. Categorization of a group of people according to ability or status. b. The group so categorized. 3. A series in which each element is graded or ranked: put honesty first in her hierarchy of values. 4a. A body of clergy organized into successive ranks or grades with each level subordinate to the one above. b. Religious rule by a group of ranked clergy. 5. One of the divisions of angels."

(American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, Online)

We see that the VOTF has officers -- a president, a vice-president, a secretary, a treasurer, and what appears to be an officer "at-large." It has a "steering committee" of dozens of members. It has individuals identified as "media contacts." They have a collection of local chapters, the number of which is growing steadily. While the VOTF has not had centuries to develop an organization as complex as the Roman Curia, it has in a few months set up more than one level of organization, with a clear system of leaders and followers. We have a word to describe this phenomenon -- "hierarchy." It is not a bad word, but one that denotes those in authority over others. But like any sort of title or position, that authority can be abused. Were it not, none of us would be participants in a forum such as this.

It is bad enough that bishops hide behind the prestige of their titles to justify abhorrent behavior, or delay in the restitution for the damage caused by such. Shall those of us who claim to oppose such behavior appear to emulate it (as in refusing to give a straight answer to a question) without expecting an occasional reality check? There is nothing audacious or ad hominem in pointing any of this out. It is a big part of the hard work, in building up one another, as in the Body of Christ. The nature of VOTF, and the manner in which the organization would operate, is very much germaine to what it might hope to accomplish. It has up to now offered little more in a solution, than a schematic of a secular democratic government. (Dare we call this a "hierarchy"?)

If one is going to maintain a "centrist" position, it helps to know the view from both ends, not just the one where one feels the most comfortable.

"Up to this point [the VOTF] has neither disclaimed nor endorsed particular 'teachings of the Church.' It believes in the Catholic Church and works toward the vision of the Catholic Church in the future as it can be, having incorporated into it the viable voice of the laity....To some extent, you are asking the cat to chase its own tail here. VOTF's banner is keep the faith, change the Church. The faith that is kept is Catholic."

This begs the question; how are we supposed to "believe" something without having to "endorse" it? It is not "asking the cat to chase its own tail" to raise that question. Quite the opposite, in fact.

"This is a message board, not a press conference. VOTF has clearly stated its mission, which arose from the horrors of recently disclosed events and the response from church leadership. VOTF is NOT trying to be Vatican III. Your raising issues for comment and thought of the message board community is appropriate; however, your pounding the shoe on the table demanding responses from VOTF leadership is not."

But what is it trying to be? The primary characteristic of a leader, is that he has a follower. The leaders of VOTF have invited individuals like myself to follow them. What manner of leadership am I being invited to follow? Where are those leaders taking me? By claiming to represent "the faithful," it is more than fair to call issues of belief into question -- as if to ask, "To whom, or to what, are you claiming to be faithful?" This can be done without having to be confused with Nikita Kruschev.

+ + +

And so, for the reasons stated above, I would now, in this forum, personally address those identified as the officers of The Voice of the Faithful:

I respectfully submit that your best interests would be served, in choosing whether The Voice of the Faithful is to go on the record, in declaring its support of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, and loyalty to the Holy Father and the Magisterium.

To do so is not to approve or acquiesce to the behavior of any of her office-holders. In two thousand years, it never has been.

Neither is it a claim to one's personal success in leading a totally virtuous life (or I am in bigger trouble than most of you). It implies, ultimately, a recognition of being a sinner, and aspiring to virtue, in spite of oneself. It is not about any one of us; it is about a belief, a way of life.

In addition, it is not enough simply to make general references to "Vatican II." The latest ecumenical council (not the only one we ever had, nor the most important) has been cited by many who do not read its documents, to justify all manner of agenda that was never intended by the Council Fathers. Those who were present at its proceedings have said as much.

Also, there is no cause for concern, that those who challenge "particular 'teachings of the Church'" would be further alienated by such a declaration. By affiliating themselves with a body that officially believes differently than they do, they have freely assumed this status, although with great personal difficulty. As such, they would certainly be counted among the members of VOTF in working toward a common goal, while struggling with their own journey of faith, as all of us do.

Finally, with a public declaration, people who are identified in your material as "conservatives" or on the "right" may be able to lend their support with greater enthusiasm. For my own part, I realize that not everyone has laid this down as a condition for participating. But for me to use leave time from my place of employment, and travel at my own expense to attend a national meeting, it is perfectly reasonable to ask outright exactly who you are, and where you stand.

Otherwise, I can serve you just as well from here, at this workstation -- you know, out here in the "grass roots."

You, the officers of The Voice of the Faithful, are not being judged. You are being asked a question. Please answer the question, at your earliest convenience.

DLA

+ + +

fini

+ + +

I should say in closing, that these two essays were among the most widely read on the VOTF message board. Ironically, while several individuals connected to the top leadership did respond favorably to either or both, not one elected officer responded to either essay, whether by private e-mail, or on the message board.