Archbishop in Newark bans group Organization formed following sex scandal

New Jersey Star Ledger ^ | October 11, 2002 | DAVID GIBSON

[ultima ratio]

You are right, I am anti-hierarchy--since it is consistently anti-Catholic in its collective mindset. Nor am I a great fan of the new religion it has been trying to foist on unwitting Catholics for the past thirty or forty years. But I am also a paid-up member of Roman Catholic Faithful and have been since its beginning. Your claim that I am aligned with Call to Action is ludicrous. As I see it Voice of the Faithful is a recent phenomenon, organized spontaneously as a result of lay anger. I can identify with that and wish them well.

[patent]

>>>What is the proof they were liberals from the start?

Take a look at the people who organized it, the people who run the committee, etc., and do some research on them. They are not orthodox catholic even by my standards, much less by yours. There isn't a single shred of proof, anywhere, that they are orthodox Catholics. There is a ton of proof in the other direction. Yet, because they attack the Church heirarchy, you oppose them.

It speaks volumes.

patent

[ultima ratio]

Yes, it sounds very traditional--and imperative, given the present mess. This is not to say they would actually select their own bishops. But they would have at the very least the same sort of advisory input the great nobles had in the Church in the not so distant past. The present shut-out of the laity is entirely unreasonable, particularly in the first world, given its general level of education and sophistication. Surely the laity would do no worse as advisors than the Mahoneys and the Bernadins--and I would guess probably infinitely better since it is closer to the action and has a vested interest in morally sound and orthodox bishops, not in the accretion of ecclesiastic power. Lay participation would not in any way be contrary to Catholic doctrine.

[ELS]

An Archbishop Myers bump

[ultima ratio]

I am not willing to go to the mat on this since I haven't followed the progress of this organization lately. I did read it had been unfortunate in its choice of liberal speakers recently and backed-off being identified with their agenda. I'll let it go at that.

[ELS]

A direct link to the article

[ZULU]

Although I am a conservative Christian, I'm not Catholic.
If VOTF is a bunch of pansy-loving liberals, I have no use for them and the Archbishop was right in his actions. These people infect the Protestant faiths also, especially the Methodists, Episcopalians and mainstream Presbyterians.

The Catholic Church has long been a conservative bulwark for principles of basic Christianity that are admirable - like the Right to Life, the sanctity of marriage between man and woman, etc. It would be a great loss to see it collapse over the failure to purge the few homosexual, pedophilic perverts in its midst and those who protect them.

[livius]

Yes, VOTF definitely has that agenda. And they used the sex scandals to slip into the limelight.

We all have to hang onto true Christianity. We (faithful Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants, no matter how we disagree on certain issues) know what it is, and it's sure NOT the plan that VOTF has in mind!