The reform group and the archbishop: A rising tide runs into a wall

[Newark, NJ] -- The ban that Newark Archbishop John J. Myers directed last month at the New Jersey chapter of a burgeoning national Catholic reform group was about as cut and dried as an edict can get.

To Myers, the group Voice of the Faithful was "anti- Church and, ultimately, anti-Catholic," and in no uncertain terms he said its members could not meet on church property anywhere in the four counties of the Newark archdiocese.

But Voice of the Faithful leaders are nothing if not patient, and their persistent-charm offensive -- "Kill'em with kindness," as one VOTF official put it -- is complicating the efforts of conservative churchmen like Myers to wall off large tracts of church tradition from debate.

The outcome of this struggle is important because both the hierarchy and its critics say the clergy sexual abuse scandal that has rocked the church this year and spawned reform movements like VOTF is now mutating into a wider debate about the role of laypeople, women and a married priesthood.

Those are highly sensitive topics that many bishops say are not subject to popular approval.

But some bishops are sympathetic to opening dialogue, while others have been forced to bow to the outrage embodied in VOTF.

The group was born in Boston and spontaneously erupted into a national movement with 25,000 members in 40 states, by far the largest and most influential new reform organization.

Initially, Boston's Cardinal Bernard Law saw the group as a liberal Trojan horse and banned it despite VOTF's claim to be a loyally Catholic group that wanted to attract a broad range of Catholics. Several like-minded conservative bishops followed Law's lead, including Myers and Camden Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio.

Then on Oct. 29, under public pressure and after repeated invitations from VOTF, Law said he would meet with its leaders.

Other bishops, notably Bishop Daniel P. Reilly of the Diocese of Worcester, Mass., have opened their own channels to VOTF, while many, like New York's Cardinal Edward Egan -- no liberal -- have raised no objections to the group meeting in their dioceses.

In New Jersey, bishops in three of the state's five dioceses have so far taken a wait-and-see approach to Voice of the Faithful, which has been most active in the three counties of the Paterson diocese: Morris, Passaic and Sussex.

The Northern New Jersey chapter of VOTF first organized in August with a few dozen members, and after its fourth monthly meeting last week at St. Mary's Church in Pompton Lakes, the group numbered 250 and counting.

So far, VOTF's rising fortunes and the mixed signals from Myers' fellow bishops do not appear to have softened the opposition by the Newark archbishop, who has taken the most hard-line position of the handful of East Coast prelates who have barred VOTF.

"There are no plans to meet with them," Myers' spokesman James Goodness said last week. "I don't expect that to change."

But the group has diligently kept the channels of communication open. After Myers issued his ban, the New Jersey chapter wrote him to encourage a dialogue.

"We are brothers and sisters in Christ and we walk our faith journey together," the letter said. The group is sending videotapes of all its meetings to Myers (as well as the state's other bishops). And in a subsequent letter earlier this month, the group invited Myers to address it and reiterated that it seeks "assent, not dissent, to the teaching authority of the Church."

"The whole concern of Voice of the Faithful is to try to establish a dialogue so that the laity has a voice in the church," said Ann Zouvelekis, a mother of two and "very traditional Catholic" from Whippany who has been galvanized by the scandal to join VOTF.

"I'm a complete novice at this," said Zouvelekis, an accountant. "I've never been involved in politics or anything. So I'm coming at this from the perspective of someone who doesn't understand where the bishops are coming from. ...

"I actually had to look up the word 'dissident,' I'm so unfamiliar with all this," she said with a laugh.

It does not appear that VOTF will be going away anytime soon. Its numbers keep rising. Zouvelekis and another New Jersey VOTF leader, Maria Cleary, were among VOTF speakers featured on Phil Donahue's television show two days ago.

VOTF's efforts did prompt an indirect response of sorts from Myers, who in last week's archdiocesan paper wrote a column addressed to Catholics who "have been considering the idea of dialogue within the Church."

Without mentioning any group, Myers stressed, "There is no such thing as a 'dumb' question if it is one honestly asked." But he warned that "a heated religious argument is almost always a waste of time and effort, and can even be destructive."

He finished with an open-ended statement: "If you are looking to believe what the Church believes, then we can readily work together. If you have problems with what the Church believes, then our discussions will take longer."

Myers' only direct contact with members of VOTF came last month when he sent them, in response to their first entreaty, a copy of an anti-VOTF article written by the conservative Catholic editor of CRISIS magazine. Myers' business card was attached to it -- no note.

VOTF reacted adroitly: Members contacted the CRISIS editor, Deal Hudson -- whose article called the group "a wolf in sheep's clothing" -- and persuaded him to speak at their February meeting in New Jersey.

"If they want to meet face to face, I give them credit for that," Hudson said when contacted last week at his Washington offices. "I have been a vocal critic of theirs, and it is only fair that if they invite me that I respond."

Hudson said that if he were a bishop he would do exactly what Myers did and ban the group. He said that when he speaks to VOTF he will stipulate that it not be on church property within the Newark archdiocese in respect of Myers' ban.

Asked whether opening dialogue with the group is violating the spirit of Myers' edict and his own support for Myers' position, Hudson agreed he is engaging in "a balancing act."

"I am definitely going to call Archbishop Myers to see if it is all right with him," Hudson said. "It is always possible that they are using me for cover."

Judging by last week's VOTF gathering in Pompton Lakes, the group may have all it can handle with some of the laypeople who show up for the meetings.

After a lecture on ways to increase lay participation in the church, the speaker, Catholic author and theologian Anthony Massimini, was peppered with angry challenges by a small group of disputatious conservatives who crowded out any questions from the other 150 people who attended.

One protester stood up in the middle of the session and began shouting that Massimini was preaching heresy. The man had to be led from the room. Another man demanded to know whether VOTF supported the ordination of homosexuals as priests (an issue the Vatican is currently debating), while another said the group should focus on fighting abortion and supporting the bishops. And an elderly woman went on a long disquisition about the Virgin Mary.

"It's going to happen this way," Massimini said later. "There were no surprises tonight. It's like sausage and scrapple -- you don't want to see how it's made."

"a wolf in sheep's clothing"

that's exactly what it is. Kudos to Bishop Egan.

http://www.northjersey.com/cgi-bin/page.pl?id=5281268
http://www.northjersey.com/cgi-bin/page.pl?id=5432207
http://www.northjersey.com/cgi-bin/page.pl?id=5304004
http://www.northjersey.com/cgi-bin/page.pl?id=5432207
http://thewandererpress.com/b9-19-02.htm

The Largest and most liberal Church in the Paterson Diocese
http://www.stmarys-pompton.org/index.cfm supports VOTF.

The Following were invited to a VOTF meeting:

** Leonard Swidler, professor of Catholic thought at Temple University. Well-known for his work in the formation of a "global ethic" with dissenting theologian Hans Kung, Swidler is also the founder of the Association for the Rights of Catholics in the Church (www.arcc-catholic-rights.org). As the chair of the association's constitution international drafting committee, he's responsible for drawing up a constitution for a more "democratic" church which includes the proposal for elected leaders; term limits for those leaders; a legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government; and opening up leadership positions to all people, including "women and minorities."

** James Carroll, columnist for the Boston Globe. Carroll, a self-proclaimed Catholic, was ordained a priest in 1969 but left the priesthood in 1974 and married before his laicization, effectively excommunicating himself. His columns in the Globe confirm that he believes in contraception, abortion, and women's ordination. Additionally, he rejects numerous fundamental Church teachings, such as the divinity of Jesus Christ. In a July 16 column, Carroll stated that at the VOTF convention, "deeper questions must be confronted as well -- the role of the laity in church governance, assumptions of sexual morality, the place of women, the pathologies of clericallism, the 'creeping infallibility' that corrupts church teaching."

** Debra Haffner, a member and former president of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS). SIECUS promotes guidelines for sex education for children grades K-12, guidelines which approve of children ages 5-8 being taught that masturbation and homosexuality are acceptable practices. Not only that, they also urge that 12- to 15-year-olds be taught how to obtain and use contraceptives.

Haffner is also the cofounder of the Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing (www.religionproject.org). The institute's "Religious Declaration on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing" calls for "theological reflection that integrates the wisdom of excluded, often silenced peoples, and insights about sexuality from medicine, social science, the arts and humanities; full inclusion of women and sexual minorities in congregational life, including their ordination and the blessing of same sex unions...[and] support for those who challenge sexual oppression and who work for justice within their congregations and denomination." Haffner has also been quoted as saying, "No matter what gender orientation you have -- bisexual, transgender -- no matter what sex you are, no matter what age you are, no matter what marital status you are, no matter what sexual orientation you are, you have a right to sex."

** Tom Groome, professor of theology at Boston College. Groome gave an interview to BBC 4 World Forum on the sex-abuse scandal in which he commented on the Church: "Catholic Christians are...distinguishing between their faith in the tradition and their faith in the institution.... The Church is terribly important to us, but we won't exaggerate the importance, as it were, of the institution." On priestly celibacy and women's ordination: "I think that [priestly celibacy] has to be revisited, likewise the exclusion of women from ministry has to be rethought. But that's not a liberal position...." On ecclesial hierarchy: "I would love to see an overhaul in how our bishops are chosen because right now they're chosen by a kind of subterfuge -- a kind of backroom politics." And finally, on the pope: "I do think that the problem of an enfeebled pope becomes fairly trransparent, especially when the Church faces such a tragedy in a crisis time as we are in at the moment."

** Michele Dillon, professor of sociology at the University of New Hampshire. Dillon has published several books, including Debating Divorce: Moral Conflict in Ireland; Gay and Lesbian Catholics; and Catholic Identity: Balancing Reason, Faith, and Power, a work focusing on why "pro-change" Catholics (such as those who support abortion, women's ordination, and homosexuality) remain in the Church.

"[For an alternate view of what these meetings are like: Another Look At Voice Of The Faithful]"

Another Look At Voice Of The Faithful

by Deal Hudson, Editor of Crisis Magazine

The president of Voice of the Faithful (VOTF), Jim Post, recently issued a letter to its members concerning their "policies and positions." The letter, as Post explains, was meant as a response to criticisms being leveled against the organization, charging it with being a dissident group.

Post even mentions that "one commentator has gone so far as to call VOTF a 'wolf in sheep's clothing.'"

That commentator, of course, would be yours truly. I must admit that I take a little satisfaction in knowing that our report on VOTF forced Post to respond. And I was looking forward to seeing how he was going to explain some of VOTF's more questionable stances.

I shouldn't have gotten my hopes up.

The letter actually does very little to answer our charges. While Post does back off on some of the more contentious issues, the letter doesn't even begin to address the myriad other problems that we raised in our special report.

In fact, I finished reading his letter more convinced of VOTF's dissident status than I did when I started.

Post claims that there has been "a serious misunderstanding, or deliberate distortion, of the mission, objectives, and philosophy of Voice of the Faithful" and that he wants "to set the record straight as to these allegations."

Well, let's see if he succeeded...

I've talked with several people who attended VOTF meetings. Contrary to what Post claims, they didn't find the open and welcoming atmosphere that VOTF touts; rather, when they tried to voice their traditional Catholic views, they were either silenced or booed right out of the meeting. Others found a similar dead-end on the VOTF message board, which was shut down shortly after criticism of the organization was raised. If anyone should be charged with "distortion," it's VOTF itself, whose claims of openness to all opinions are demonstrably untrue.

As for the organization's policies and positions, Post claims that "those who are a part of Voice of the Faithful represent a spectrum of traditional, mainstream, and progressive views on many subjects," but that VOTF itself has "taken no position on the many other issues that divide Catholics in 2002, [including] the end of priestly celibacy, the exclusion of homosexuals from the priesthood, the ordination of women, or any of the other remedies that some have proposed."

It may be true that members of VOTF represent a wide variety of beliefs and positions, and I'm sure that most of its members have joined in a sincere desire to address the painful situation at hand. However, it's simply untrue that VOTF itself hasn't taken a stand one way or the other in these issues. Its official positions are benign in themselves (i.e., support the abused, support good priests, etc.), but its many "unofficial" comments and actions give the organization away.

For example, the VOTF website (www.votf.org) lists some "highly recommended" reading for people struggling with the scandal, including Anthony Massimini's "Discerning the Spirit: A Guide to Renewing and Restructuring the Church." Massimini has an agenda, make no mistake about it. Take, for example, his comments on the defining characteristics of the Church hierarchy. He states that the present scandal has evolved from the hierarchy's "ignorance of the human body and sex; a mindset that degrades women and marriage; [and] a spiritually distorted, psychologically troubled view of celibacy."

If Jim Post wants to see a "deliberate distortion," he doesn't need to look any further than Massimini's comments -- a direct affront to Church teaching.

It's impossible for VOTF to support people like Massimini -- even going so far as to "highly recommend" his writings -- and then to try to distance itself from the dissenting views that these people hold. If it wanted to prove that it takes no sides on this issue, it wouldn't have recommended him, or at the very least, would have provided an authentic Catholic response to his comments.

Case in point: the July 20th VOTF convention. In our special report, we listed the names of several speakers who were invited to the convention, only one of whom is addressed in Post's letter: Debra Haffner, a Unitarian and former member of the Sexuality Information & Education Council of the U.S.

Post now admits that asking Haffner to appear at their convention was wrong. She was invited to speak on how to create a "sexually safe parish" based on her "special expertise regarding the protection of school-age children" -- expertise that involves endorsing a sex-ed program that would make most Catholic parents highly uncomfortable. It's good that VOTF now recognizes their lapse in judgment.

However, as Post admits in his letter, Haffner HERSELF had misgivings about speaking at the VOTF convention, thinking her contributions would be inappropriate for a Catholic crowd. In spite of her concerns, the leaders at VOTF insisted she appear. After the criticism started to roll in, though, VOTF shifted their position and, in the process, hung her out to dry.

Not surprisingly, she's angry. I know, because she called me yesterday. While we disagree over the nature of sex education and sexuality, she's an intelligent and engaging person who deserved better than the treatment she received from VOTF. They should have listened to her concerns at the very beginning, instead of pulling her in and then spitting her out.

Haffner did set me straight on one very important point, though. She pointed out an error in our special report on VOTF. In it, we quoted Haffner as having said that she holds an "anything goes" mentality where everyone "has a right to sex." We got the quote from a column in the Jewish World Review. However, the quote is incorrect and Haffner doesn't subscribe to that position at all. I apologize for the error.

Now, back to Post's letter...

After his two-faced repudiation of Haffner, Post moves onto Thomas Arens, president of the German "We Are Church" -- a group widely known for their dissent. Post explains, "We did not restrict attendance to VOTF members or to card-carrying Catholics. Rather, we invited people who wished to be a part of the 'Response of the Faithful.'"

Once again, they beg the question: Who are the faithful? If your panelists aren't even Catholic, what are they faithful to? How faithful will they be to Church teaching when it comes time to "change the Church"?

If Arens supports the message of "We Are Church," his ideas are completely out of line with faithful Catholicism. Simply calling himself Catholic doesn't make his positions any more valid. Again, a better representation of "centrist" Catholic thought could have been made without resorting to the railings of known dissenters.

To Jim Post and the leaders of VOTF, I say this: You're known by the company you keep. If VOTF wants to entertain the ideas of dissenting theologians and non-Catholics, that's its right. However, it cannot then expect us to overlook these associations when we're forming our opinions of the "mission" of VOTF. I, for one, can't trust an organization that claims to represent all Catholics but limits itself to one ideological view. It would demonstrate far more integrity for VOTF to simply acknowledge and defend their liberal theological agenda.

It's a long-held American value to mean what you say and say what you mean. Unfortunately, thus far, VOTF has done neither.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.