www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News News Article: A Better Way to Work for Change

There have been numerous discussions on the Forum about what individuals can do to help right the wrongs and work towards making sure the scandals plaguing the Catholic Church don�t happen in the future.

I read an article in the weekend paper that reported the efforts of a man in the Boston Archdiocese who is trying to effect change by working with Church leaders by strengthening parishes and invigorating the Church. He has met some resistance (and I am sorry for that) but this new organization seems to be off to the right start. [And, no, I don�t know enough about the group to endorse it. I am just bringing attention to groups that are working to effect change and not just document and call attention to the problems.]

The story can be found at:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020815/ap_on_re/religion_today_1

Selected paragraphs are:

Zizik said his new group would be distinct from the fast-growing Voice of the Faithful, the lay organization trying to effect change but not necessarily in concert with church leaders. Law has publicly tussled with that group as well, over whether archdiocese charities should accept donations from the reformers.

Despite Law's directive on the parish association, Zizik was not deterred. He and others who support his approach have decided to move ahead anyway, and are working under a new name � Parish Leadership Forum.

They continue to discuss their goals with the archdiocese and feel they have allayed some of church officials' fears.

"We need to strengthen parishes. That's how to reinvigorate the church, that's where the action is," Zizik said. "We need to pool resources, provide support, provide a forum for ideas and concerns within parishes that mobilizes parish leaders."

Dear Administrator,

An empowered Laity that is taken seriously by the Hierarchy is just what the doctor ordered!

(And I did, last week . . .).

Alex

Clearly, nothing that ever happens in the Catholic Church is immune to controversy and criticism. Including the above, which indicates that not everyone will agree with the Administrator's assertion that their way is necessarily "A Better Way."

----------
"Keep the Faith, Change the Church"
by Francis X. Altiere
http://www.seattlecatholic.com/article_20020820_Keep_the_Faith_Change_the_Church.html

This is the chirpy little slogan that the lay Catholic group "Voice of the Faithful" have chosen as their motto. What is an honest, believing Roman Catholic to think of this? We have all been dismayed by the horrors of the priestly molestation scandal ? priests abusing members of their flocks in sinful homosexual affairs while their bishops obfuscate and move them from parish to parish. This sort of corruption must be rooted out, and every abuse must be punished. But, there is always a universe of difference between an abuse and the thing abused. One must be very careful before callously embarking on a mission to "shape structural change within the Church," as the Voice mission statement proposes to do. This clamorous group has certainly earned the distinction of being called "Voice." We shall investigate whether or not it can honestly be called "Faithful."

The major point that should be borne in mind when evaluating the goal of this group is that within the space of six little words ? "Keep the faith, Change the Church" ? they completely undermine the very essence of the Catholic faith.
------------------
There's more:

What Is VOTF's Real Agenda?
Fred Martinez
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/8/11/172152.shtml

Monday, Aug. 12, 2002 Recently, Voice of the Faithful (VOTF) became the news media's favorite "Catholic" lay organization to cure the Catholic Church of its sex-abuse scandal.

The New York Times and Boston Globe wrote glowing articles about this new "mainstream" Catholic organization. Even in Ireland and on the European landmass, newspapers were covering this "grassroots" group that started from a humble church basement.

VOTF claims it wants to democratize and subordinate the bishops to "lay participation." It also claims to be mainstream and conservative.

I received this e-mail from one of my readers asking me about VOTF's claims:

"Could you please direct me to a reliable assessment of the group Voice of the Faithful? A local 'chapter' is meeting this afternoon in Nashville, and it has been characterized by a local priest as 'just conservative Catholics who want some changes."

Voice of the Faithful and Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation
...
One must examine the "mainstream" and "conservative Catholic" priests that are supporting VOTF before making any judgments about that group. Unfortunately, not one single mainstream and conservative orthodox Catholic priest supports the group.

Voice of the Faithful and the Liberal Richard P. McBrien
...

A Large Percentage of the Liberal U.S. Priests Are Homosexual
...

VOTF and Liberals Use Church Scandal as a Power Grab
...
These statements on VOTF and homosexuality by the most respected liberal U.S. Catholic newspaper and the Rev. McBrien, the respected liberal theologian, show that VOTF is not mainstream, as James Likoudis says.

"Richard P. McBrien oozes with admiration for this group [Voice of the Faithful] seeking to restructure the Church, democratize it, gain financial control of it, and subordinate our Bishops to this new lay class of secular feudal lords and professionals," Catholics United for the Faith's Likoudis said.

"It's a power grab under the guise of more 'lay participation' and is made up of those dissenting liberals and radicals who do not like Catholic moral teaching but do like Dignity and GLAAD [radical homosexual organizations]."
------------
With heading titles like those, you don't even need to read the article. Comments, Mr. Administrator? I'm sure some of the folks over at (sour-grapes website URL omitted) are having a field day with your suggestion that Voice of the Faithful is a "Better Way."

Dear Lemko,

Yes, this type of reaction is all too . . . you know . . .

But these individuals who write like this won't be able to stop the snowball of greater lay participation from expanding as it progresses with greater speed down the mountain toward the hierarchy.

The hierarchy failed the laity in the Latin Church.

The laity's voice will be heard and felt, epithets and accusations notwithstanding.

Alex

We Orthodox have a model for you, and it would be a big improvement from, at least, what is being suffered in the Archdiocese of Boston right now.

Axios

There are tons of Orthodox priests who are gay.

So, which model do we go by? Orthodox Church? Catholic Church? ORRRRRR Jesus Christ?

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

Oh, I know that better than you.

Axios

It appears that the Administrator has taken a positive step by admitting there is a problem in the church and is suggesting ways to correct that problem. I will take the time to study the post given in this thread before I make any more comments. I think the church is going through a "Spring Time" of renewal. This can be compared to spring-cleaning.

When we do spring-cleaning at are house we take everything out clean the house and put only the good back in. Perhaps this is what the church needs.

I find it very encouraging when other Catholics admit there is a problem and present traditional Catholic ways of handling the problems. I will say this I am against greater Laity involvement. The Bishops got us into this mess and they should get us out of it!

I would like to suggest a special prayer thread be opened and we ALL pray for the Renewal of the Church. Not changing the Church but renewing it with a greater love for Christ and the Blessed Sacrament.

Yours in IC XC!

This is a perfect example of internet flaming.

Ray, (aka ExCatholic@work, Christian@Work) makes an accusation that is false and then asks people to join him in prayer against whatever he considers to be the great evil of the particular day. He did this in another thread in which he announced he would never again take the Eucharist from a celibate priest and, in the thread about Jews and salvation, by purposefully misinterpreting the contents of a working document of a subcommittee of the USCCB. In these and many other cases he has never bothered to determine what the actual teaching of the Church was. He has just falsely accused others and condemned them while at the same time setting himself up as sole judge, jury and executioner.

I invite people not to respond to his flame and strongly recommend to him that he print out his posts and sit down with his spiritual father to discuss them.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I'm sorry Mr. Administrator,

But I don't see a false accusation in his post, would you mind pointing it out, since you have stated that he has?

And Ray, you were RomanCatholic@Work and then Ex-Catholic@Work and now Christian@Work, would you mind sharing with the group what specific denomination you are now?

Thanks to both of you & God Bless!

IC XC NIKA,
-Nik!

Nik,

Thank you for your post. First, I speak to @Work's general posting style. He tends to post a highly sensationalized, distorted charge, accuse someone of changing Church teaching and then asking people to join him in prayer to combat the issue. In the thread regarding the evangelization of the Jews he excerpted a paragraph from a subcommittee working document, accused the bishops of abandoning the Church's teaching of 2,000 years, asked if this means that the Church is no longer infallible and then gave people the opportunity to find a way to prove that the bishops were not guilty. There are numerous examples in other threads he has participated in. @Work's posts are meant purely to sensationalize and have not real discussions of issues with the intent of finding answers.

In the example above he starts with the accusation: "that the Administrator has taken a positive step by admitting there is a problem in the church". This in nothing short of flaming and the equivalent of the old "are you still beating your wife?" type of question [in a previous thread he announced that he would no longer take the Eucharist from priests who have pledged to live a celibate life because none of them could be trusted]. It is a technique used by flamers to start arguments rather than engage in serious, adult discussion. He then goes on to state that he "find[s] it very encouraging when other Catholics admit there is a problem" as if he has finally convinced everyone that he and he alone has been right all along. This, in light of the fact that there have been numerous fruitful discussions on the Forum over the past years regarding all types of problems in the Church.

In short, participants need to participate in this Forum as they would participate in a parish Bible Study or other education and social event. Anything less than charity at all times is unacceptable. @Work has crossed the line too many times.

Administrator

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Here is one of the better articles on the whole issue that we are speaking of:

---

America�s Bishops: No Jews Invited
By J.P. Zmirak
FrontPageMagazine.com | August 22, 2002

The Catholic bishops of the U.S. are playing a risky game with America�s Jews. In their attempt to heal old wounds caused by bigotry aimed at Jews, they run the risk of patronizing them, and weaving an ugly new form of anti-Semitism, through subtle, malign neglect. In their recent accord reached with leaders of liberal Jewish congregations, Reflections On Covenant And Mission, a subcommittee of the U.S. Catholic Conference cites the liberal Cardinal Walter Kasper, to declare that initiatives inviting conversion and baptism �are not appropriately directed at Jews.� On its face, this seems to break with 2000 years of Christian faith and tradition by renouncing the mission to Jews � and it has exploded into a controversy.

This accord is unlikely to satisfy those Jews who see Christianity primarily as an ongoing, anti-Semitic enterprise, which must be criticized and hemmed in at every turn, and driven out of the �public square.� In the August/September issue of the ecumenical journal First Things, the Jewish writer Allan Mittleman documents how the (well-grounded) fear of anti-Semitism led many Jewish organizations to support the radical secularization of America�s public schools and other institutions � something which now dismays Orthodox Jews, who�d rather not see the Ten Commandments torn down from courthouses, and who�d prefer to put up a menorah in the park than tear down a Nativity Scene. Jews who see in the face of Christ only the old hatred perpetrated by Christians will not be satisfied by this new piece of paper.

The accord has achieved something, however: It has ignited a firestorm of condemnation by faithful Catholics � leading a theologian at the usually temperate Eternal World Television Network to say the following about the document:

�[P]arts of it strike me as contrary to divine revelation, and I predict that it will not be approved by the Vatican, or perhaps the bishops themselves. As I understand it, this draft was put together by a committee, and it does not have approval by the body of bishops. It is an embarrassment, lacks any teaching authority, and serves to reveal the thinking of some people who hold powerful positions in the national conference. If a document such as this gains approval, as it currently stands, I will seriously consider the prospect that we are moving into one of the signs of the end times, namely, apostasy.� �Father John Paul Echert.

I�m not sure that�s too strong a response. Christians are called to evangelize all human beings, especially the proper heirs of the Old Testament; the first people on earth to accept the truth that there is but One God; the people who endured millennia of abuse and persecution for cleaving to that God; the first and irrevocably chosen People of God � the Jews. It is awfully ironic that the very bishops who have covered themselves with �glory� in their treatment of pedophiles now feel empowered to revise the most fundamental mission of the Christian religion. You�d think they might sit back for while, preserve a decent silence, and wait for a decade or so before trying to assert their moral authority. Instead, they�ve acted like Bill Clinton, who greeted each �bimbo eruption� by showing up the next day at a black church, hamming it up for the cameras and apologizing for the slave trade.

What is more, by offering to compromise a basic tenet of Christianity, in order to paper over the real religious differences that divide Jews from Christians, the bishops risk undoing the good work this Pope and his immediate predecessors have undertaken to purge Christian culture and theology of anti-Semitism. If Christians come to see that the price of good relations with the Jewish people is abandoning their core beliefs, how likely are many of them to simply dismiss the whole attempt, to decide that the old, anti-Jewish theologies were correct, and revert to a hostile stance? They could well reason: �If (as some say) the New Testament and the attempt to convert Jews to Christ is anti-Semitic, then anti-Semitism must be acceptable.� It�s a serious risk, to which the bishops have clearly not given a second�s thought. The Second Vatican Council and the current pope made enormous strides to disentangle from historic abuses and distortions the true, charitable, respectful (and above all grateful) attitude which Christians should have towards their elder brothers in the heritage of Abraham; I pray that their achievements are not recklessly undone.

Why do I care so much? In part, because my girlfriend is a Catholic of Jewish descent. In part because I know several other Jewish Catholics, whose faith journeys I respect. It helps that I know many other Jews of varying degrees of religiosity, whose friendship I value. I live in New York City, a place immensely enriched by Jewish Americans. In the United States, more Jewish people have lived in safety and well-being for more years than almost anywhere else, and I want this to continue. So I have plenty of reasons to stick my nose into this question�apart from my obvious concern that my bishops not distort the orthodox teachings of my faith.

One excellent summary of that faith comes in the recent Vatican document Dominus Iesus, which Rabbi David Berger sums up fairly and accurately as follows:

The declaration maintains that the salvific grace of God is given only by means of Jesus and the Church. Though "individual non-Christians" can attain this grace in a manner that remains difficult to define, it is a certainty that the process cannot take place without "a mysterious relationship with the Church." (p. 32) This appears to mean that other religions, presumably including Judaism, have no independent salvific power. The text goes on to emphasize (p. 33) that although "followers of other religions can receive divine grace, ... objectively speaking [emphasis in the original] they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation." Thus, Jews, if they are included in this assertion, are apparently far less likely to be saved than Catholics.

Precisely. Because Catholics believe this, and because we wish all human beings to follow the easiest and most secure road to eternal union with a loving God, we have an absolute duty to evangelize Jews (along with Protestants and all God�s other children). If we did anything less, it would deny their fundamental humanity. Period.

Cardinal William Keeler, archbishop of Baltimore and the U.S. bishops� moderator for Catholic-Jewish relations, knows this�and came out yesterday with a statement denying that his subordinates� document represents an official position of the U.S. bishops. I�m glad to hear it, but the public confusion caused by this document remains.

Even as we recognize that the bishops have got one basic thing dead wrong, we should also recognize what they got right. In the document, the bishops do a good job of recalling and deploring two millennia of anti-Semitic practice on the part of Christians � much of it restrained by Church authorities, but still partly inspired by a flawed, anti-Judaic theology, which the Church corrected finally at Vatican II. They mirror Pope John Paul�s 1999 apology to Jews, in recognizing that social restrictions, discrimination, segregation and physical persecutions aimed by Christians against Jews over the centuries were not simply aberrations, but the natural outcome of the theory held by most Christians that the Church, as the New Israel, superseded the first Israel, nullifying its claims to divine blessing and protection � this despite the clear statement of St. Paul in Romans 11:

For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery � so that you will not be wise in your own estimation�that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; �and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written,
���������"THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION,
������ ��HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB.
� ������THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM,
���� ���WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS."
From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience, so these also now have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy. For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all. Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways.

For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, OR WHO BECAME HIS COUNSELOR?�Or WHO HAS FIRST GIVEN TO HIM THAT IT MIGHT BE PAID BACK TO HIM AGAIN?

For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.

This passage makes clear � as Cardinal Ratzinger explains in his new book, Many Religions � One Covenant, that Christians should not seek to dissolve the Jewish people through conversion into the Church (as they spent the whole Middle Ages attempting to do through fair means and foul). St. Paul himself teaches that the ongoing existence of a separate Jewish people is part of God�s will, a prophetic witness to His operation in history. And yet Christians are called to invite every soul into the Church. How to square this circle?

This bishops attempt to solve the question by writing off Jews as outside the Christian mission�radioactive, perhaps, too hot to touch, in the wake of the Holocaust. Their solution is well-meaning, but wrong. A better one is offered by�no surprise�a group of Jewish converts to Catholicism, who seek to keep their identity as Jews, the Association of Hebrew Catholics. As they explain:

Until now, the admission of Jews into the Church has been governed by a regime of assimilation. Under this regime, ignoring their special theological status defined by Vatican Council II, as �secundum electionem� (Lumen Gentium, � 16), converts enter a Gentile Catholic Community, where they are progressively alienated from participation in the destiny of their people. Their children, should there be any, grow up to be Gentiles, as daily experience goes to prove. The effects of the regime of assimilation on the families of converts and their brother-Jews are no less destructive. The converts are commonly regarded as traitors to their people, preparing its destruction. In particular, Jews observe with dismay the loss of the children of converts, for if all Jews were to convert only to be assimilated, then the people would, ipso facto, cease to exist. The lessons of history bear out their fears. In turn, Jews, both religious and non-religious, are prompted to make common cause in their opposition to the Christian Mission.

These Jewish Catholics seek to end this unhappy situation, to end �the alienation of Catholics of Jewish origin from their heritage as Israelites. The AHC intends to petition the Holy See to approve the establishment of an Israelite Community in the Church, based on the special registration of converts at baptism and of their descendants. Once constituted, the Community will serve as a sign of the times.�

In other words, the people with the best claim to speak about Jewish conversion � the Jewish converts � are asking Rome not to abandon their fellow Jews, not to establish a �two-track,� �separate but equal� plan of salvation that violates the New Testament and isolates Jews in an evangelical ghetto, but to create for Jewish converts a rite which they may choose (or not) to enter, akin to the 14 other separate rites of the Catholic Church (others include Ukrainian, Coptic, Syrian, Lebanese, along with the well-known Latin rite). Those Jews who wish to convert would be offered the option of maintaining their distinct identity in this rite, or joining some other rite of the Church, as they wish. It would be an entirely individual decision, which should be entirely free from pressure of any kind.

Centuries of coercive attempts to convert the Jews and dissolve them into the mass of Gentile Christendom should teach us to tread very lightly here. Whatever their motives, Christians from the early Middle Ages on demanded of Jews who converted absolute assimilation, and began to treat �backsliding� as a form of heresy. The most infamous examples of this occurred during the Inquisition in Spain � which popes of the day condemned but were unable to control. Repeated statements by popes and theologians � not infallible, but highly influential statements � suggested that the survival of the Jews as a separate entity was a rebuke to Christianity, that their purpose had been served 2000 years before, and they ought simply to convert and disappear into the mass of the New Israel, assimilating without a trace.

Now we have begun to understand that this is not true, that a deeper, more beautiful mystery marks the destiny of Jews and Christians as forever intertwined in God�s love and Western history. I hope that well-meaning but dunderheaded efforts by America�s bishops don�t shove this mystery into a �politically correct� pigeonhole.

Dear Nik,

Fascinating!

I knew a member of the Hebrew Catholic Association.

In fact, the one Church whose rights we never seem to want to talk about is that of the Apostles of Jerusalem where Judaism blended with Christian faith.

And what's one more Particular Church in our midst?

Alex

I have offered Father Echert and others if they want to put some money on thier prediction the Bishops Conference or the Vatican will disapprove this statement. I bet not, given that other Episcopal conferences have made similiar statements without objection from the Holy See.

Axios