What Do You Think?

[The January 2004 question: What do you think bishops should do to effect positive change in our Church? For a jump-start, see correspondent Bill Breidenbach’s suggestions below. Please respond to leaderpub@votf.org ]

Last month’s inquiry, about models for the VOTF future, generally supported the third model, incorporating VOTF members at all levels of local Church life while maintaining a supportive organizational framework. Here are some of your comments:

“It is a wasted effort to battle Bishops or whomever to meet on Church property. If you want to get things done, meet on secular property where perhaps you will draw more interest as well from the OUTSIDE. After all, the younger generation doesn't hang around Church. Staying networked electronically, through mainstream media, newsletters and constantly bringing a new friend into the fold is the way. University papers are also a great venue. Why not Vanity Fair, Marie Claire, Teen Beat, Magnum, whatever – fill the whole shelf on VOTF's behalf ? THIS IS MY CHURCH TOO – I want to see it change to make sense with the times but not cast aside our beautiful traditions and rich history.”
Michelle

“BRAVO to Paul Kendrick on his humble assessment of what truly matters. We should not take on the same hierarchical behavior in demanding to use Church property. Disappointed, yes – but not stopped.”
Anne Manning

“I think one item on the agenda for national VOTF should be to support the local VOTFs. Each diocese has a different set of problems. Sex-abuse may not have been a large issue in one diocese but theft by the clergy and/or bishop may be. Or the shoddy treatment of lay employees may be the issue in one diocese and not the other. Some dioceses encourage parish councils and finance committees, some discourage them. The best thing we do is provide listening sessions in order to know what the problems are. By strengthening VOTF in general, you can give hope to the laity in local parishes and dioceses that they CAN do something! They do have a voice!”
Betty Clermont

“I choose the third model - incorporation into parish life, but filled with the commitment to accomplish VOTF's goals. I confess, however, that my choice may be more rooted in my personality than in my belief that it will achieve the best success.

Since the beginning of VOTF (I attended the first conference in Boston), I have intended to start an affiliate but acknowledged ‘differences of opinion’ between the pastor and me, prevented my moving forth. I continued my stewardship in the parish – teaching religious education, producing the children's Christmas pageant, organizing the altar servers – but with an openness about my support for VOTF and its goal, not in a militant way but in the hope that VOTF will be viewed as less of an ‘in your face’ organization. I believe a few people have checked out the Web site after conversations with me, but I don't know the extent of their involvement because I don't ‘check back’ with them.

I don't want to ask for permission so I simply espouse VOTF's mission in the context of the existing opportunities. I also think that other approaches are valid and needed. Each of us in our own way – infusing our values via many avenues – is continuing the work. Keep the faith!”
Sharon Powers St. Dorothy's Parish, Wilmington, MA

“…there's nothing like using the Church’s own rules, or documents like Lumen Gentium, when dealing with the hierarchy. Also I think employing the Ghandian Method when dealing with those in power is a very good idea/methodology.”
Marian

“The hierarchy are a disgrace on the whole. VOTF on a local level would be individual advocacy of whatever that group considered important. Would it produce better clergy and a stronger Faith? I think VOTF and each of us has to get our act together or we will be nothing more than empty words. Work beside the willing clergy to restore the simple beauty of our Church. It doesn't mean no altar girls or a restoration of altar railings. It means respect, discipline and becoming more like innocent children. Simplify, beautify and stand beside our good leaders to share the real value of our church.” Patricia

“Please ask for a definition of CHURCH PROPERTY! When we give to building funds are we not giving to communal property!?? If not, why not meet at the YMCA or boro building.”

(Good question: See more on how Church property is defined in our next issue.)

“In its wisdom as VOTF formed, the three basic goals/purposes were primarily focused on the clergy sex abuse issue, avoiding opening up discussion on any controversial issues on many persons' minds, in order to evoke as little automatic censure from the hierarchy as feasible or contentious discussions among ourselves. However, as we ‘play by the rules’ and not express even our diverse opinions on other concerns, many of which are taboo to talk about, I wonder if the importance and usefulness of VOTF will seem to wane?”
Janette Cranshaw, Belmont, MA

” Thank you for the wonderful editorial from Paul Kendrick. His thoughts seem most congruent with Fr. Rausch's third model for VOTF. I participate in many ministries at my local parish in Darien CT. I tell everyone that I am a member of VOTF. My bishop, William Lori, prohibits VOTF meetings on church grounds in the Diocese of Bridgeport. Big deal! Bishop Lori so far has proved to be a wonderful bishop in many ways. I believe he is just mistaken on VOTF. He doesn't really know us.

We go forward each of us, as God leads us, in our parishes and we are not afraid to mention that we belong to VOTF. Our energies go into serving God and one another. They must never go into ‘fighting’ the bishop. There is a certain power in marginality, in powerlessness. You see it in Jesus. You see it all through the history of Christianity. The temptation is for us to disagree and then divide as the Protestant denominations continue to do. Then the spirit of evil wins. We are the Church. Its not about winning or power, or power-sharing, it's about proclaiming and doing. By our fruits, the bishops and the laity will know us. We don't need to take charge. It is heartening to know that all you VOTF people are speaking out, teaching religious education, serving, writing, singing and distributing our Lord's sacred Body and Blood to your fellow Catholic Christians, and that you harbor no grudges toward anyone.”
Maryann Knag

“There may well be a combination of 'models' for VOTF. It does help to have a strong support group of people who are concerned and who keep each other informed. At times, VOTF might have some group pressure to bear beyond the individual. Yet many individuals informed and inspired by VOTF may have the most effectual influence just working in their parishes and any other 'structures' without proclaiming their VOTF membership. Anything and everything, just so that the job gets done!”

“I am not a historian so I am not able to outline the particulars, however I would suggest that VOTF resemble the Church's structure before the Catholic Church became equated with ‘Empire’ (pre-Constantine). I believe that is where most of our present problems began.”
Lynn Norris. Hamilton, GA

“We of VOTF still have no place at the table and the victims still have no place at the table. We advocate setting up our table somewhere else and having a member of Voice of the Ordained be with us on a Sunday morning. We need more than meetings together...we need to worship together.”
Don and Diane Otten

“I believe that we should not ask permission as if we were children, as the article reiterated. I, too, regret the passivity of the Catholic people and I have been in that group. I don't think we should be part of a parallel structure since it will force people to choose and might be divisive. Being an advocacy group might involve the cajoling to persuade, which won't work because power in the hierarchy will not be relinquished. The third option is not helpful either. So, I think we need to meet in small groups and study the gospels for the development of a rich spiritual life and also read all the good books available. These will inform us about the present state of the Church. If we change from within and are passionate about positive change, according to the Spirit, we will change the Church.”

“In response to Rausch's comments I would say, let us be the leaven in the diocese. The last thing we need is another structure or pressure group. We, as was pointed out, are already very active parish participants. Let us use that as our leverage and leaven to raise our churches to new bread. We do need to be vocal, watchful, educated and when needed, confrontational, to move the hierarchy back to the role of shepherds rather than lords of the manor.

However, that said, I believe we should and have every right to meet on Church property, as it is there by our sweat and equity! We are that Church and those bishops that don't acknowledge this need to be reminded publicly they are wrong denying a member of the Church an inherent right. Make duplicate keys and 'keep the light on for us'.”

Occasionally, a reader’s letter to the Vineyard is such that his/her entire text contributes to our collective effort to understand the crisis in which all Catholics find themselves. In that light, we publish the following letter from a Washington, DC correspondent. Bill Breidenbach responds here to the America article by Thomas Rausch, S. J., noted in this column’s November issue.

Rausch seems to perceive the problem as entirely one of governance. The basic problem, I suggest, is the loss of trust in Church officials by the faithful, which the May 22 Woodstock forum highlights so well(http://www.georgetown.edu/centers/woodstock/publications/article26.htm) . This loss of trust goes well beyond governance, and began long before the pedophila/coverup scandal emerged. It encompasses most particularly the teaching authority of Church officials and began with "Humanae Vitae." "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis," in which we are told that the Church has no authority to ordain women, further contributed to the general disregard for official teaching.

The Church structure that most needs to be changed, I believe, is the mode of discourse. It must go from monologue to dialogue. It is the only way we can break out of this surreal environment in which the hierarchy act as if we were following, when in fact we are not.

Rausch paints a generally accurate picture of bishops who are wary of VOTF, wary perhaps of the laity in general, and opposed to dissent. He implies, however, that this situation is fixed, that it will perdure, or only slowly be re-shaped by participation in Church governance by a greater number of individual lay people. He may, of course, be right, but I am more optimistic.

There are probably a number of bishops who are so insulated from reality that they do not understand the nature and depth of the crisis facing the Church. However, I am inclined to believe that there are many who, in varying degrees, recognize that the problem goes beyond pedophilia and that at least some important change is necessary. It seems to me that it is urgent for us to seize on this potential receptivity to change by making proposals that are meaningful and constructive.

Rausch, pointing out that not all Church members belong to VOTF or support its methods, states "it is unlikely that most bishops would be ready to enter into dialogue with such a group." This misses the point. The need for dialogue is not with this or that, or several particular groups. The need for dialogue is with the faithful as a whole, potentially at least, all the members, say, in a given diocese. This sounds impossible, but actually is not.

Here are four ways, in increasing order of reach and intensity, in which a bishop can join in dialogue with his diocese. There are undoubtedly many more.

1) Conduct weekly half-hour, or hourly, discussions with parishioners on the diocesan Website. Questions and answers appear on the screen for all to read.

2) Conduct semi-annual, or at least annual, surveys of every member of the diocese. The surveys should deal with questions of faith and particularly of trust. Bishops should be urged to take realistic stock of the degree to which they influence the faithful of their dioceses. One question that should always be included is: "What questions should be included in the next survey?" It is essential that the results of these surveys be published in their entirety. In this way both the hierarchy and the faithful will begin to understand the true state of the faith, and be able to take remedial action where necessary.

3) Institute a general discussion forum on the diocesan Website in which the faithful can engage with each other and with the priests and bishop(s) of the diocese on all faith-related matters. Again, the dialogue will be there for all to see, and if the bishop and priests participate actively, it could be an extraordinary teaching device.

4) Conduct a diocesan synod that is prepared for over one to three years in all the parishes, and that includes laypersons selected by the members of the parishes. Bishop Matthew Clark did this in his Rochester diocese, and it has reportedly had a profound effect on diocesan life. (See the diocesan weekly's Website, www.CatholicCourier.com.)

Finally, I suggest that evolutionary measures alone are not enough. The crisis is real. In fact, it has been real for quite a while. How many of us with adult children can say that all, or even the majority of them, are serious members of the Catholic Church? Discussions with those of my age group, very much including devout Catholic couples, lead me to believe that the record is a sorry one. Our Church urgently needs change, most particularly toward openness and honesty. Dialogue, I believe, is the key.”
Bill Breidenbach, Washington, DC

So…what do YOU think? Send your thoughts to Editor at leaderpub@votf.org. Please indicate Vineyard response in your subject line.

Voice of the Faithful, VOTF, "Keep the Faith, Change the Church,"
Voice of Compassion, VOTF logo(s), Parish Voice, and
Prayerful Voice are trademarks of Voice of the Faithful, Inc.

Voice of the Faithful is a 501(c) 3 tax-exempt organization.