Voice of the Faithful

I followed the group from their beginnings. I read about them in the media. I even decided that I would see what they were about for myself, when a chapter began here in Santa Barbara, by attending a couple meetings. The question was always asked with surprise, Shouldn't there be more young adults in VOTF?. The implication here is that young adults should want to share their cause because we're young, right? We want to change the old Church, right? No - perhaps for the same reasons why there are not more young adults in groups like Call To Action which I will briefly address here.

After observing comments and presentations by a few of the members, I got a sense that for many VOTF members, the old Church was not just the Church that fostered an environment where sexual abuse could occur and be covered up, but it was also the Church that persists in antiquated modes of operating and thinking, particularly in the realm of sexuality, authority, women, and the involvement of the laity in doctrinal (not just disciplinary) matters. Certainly, this definition isn't explicity evident in the vague language often seen on the charter and the VOTF web page, but it is how I perceived many members interpret it. It is this attitude that I feel perpetuates an us versus them mentality. In misunderstanding doctrine and authority, it denies doctrinal truth, and in a spirit of rebellion, attempts to change whatever it can in the name of all lay Catholics. This, in spite of its longterm goals, is neither constructive nor healing for the Church as a whole.

It is wrong to assume that young adults will want to be part of a group such as this simply because we're young and are often judged to be anti-establishment or anti-hierarchy. We are not the hippies of the 21st century. While many of us do not oppose ensuring a lay voice in matters of Church governance, I think we have different ideas about what that means - that not only does it involve collaboration, but it also involves obedience. I have no problem with supporting pastoral and finance councils that include lay Catholics.

Generally speaking, I grow weary of those who like to think they're more catholic than the pope, and this is why the us versus them attitude really made me sick to my stomach. And just who them is often varies depending on who you are talking with. I'm not even fully convinced the individual members of VOTF are united in how to define the type of reform they seek. But such is the language of ambiguity. To one, a statement could appear perfectly orthodox, and to another, it could appear anything but orthodox. The goal for structural change is one that I find particularly vague. First, they state this:

VOTF does not seek any change in church doctrine. The problems which have come to light in the present crisis are more truly cultural than structural in nature.

They do not seek to change doctrine, but this statement is flimsy given how each person chooses to define what doctrine is and what it isn't. And how is it cultural? And not truly structural in nature? Then why the emphasis on structural change?They then go on to state this:

We respect the teaching authority of the Church and recognize the role that the hierarchy should exercise in discernment. It is essential, however, that all the people of God be involved in this process of discernment. We will, therefore, devote ourselves to advancing meaningful and active engagement of the laity in the life of the Church.

What does this mean? How does this relate to what they previously stated? Discernment in what? They also state this:

In order to move toward the vision of the Second Vatican Council, we believe it is vitally important that the faithful of each parish engage in, and enthusiastically support, the formation and actions of Pastoral and Finance Councils and Safety Committees. We must empower the laity to protect our children and all the people of God.

I do not agree that we have ignored the teachings of the Second Vatican Council. But what is this vision that they refer to? They never really explicitly define this. This is significant. Also, does this statement imply that lay Catholics will be more capable of protecting children? Last time I checked, we were all sinners, clergy and laity both. And sexual abuse is pretty widespread amongst non-ordained clergy - Approx. 90% occurs within families. No, this goal misses the point of reform.

There are other things, like in their FAQ:

Q. What does Voice of the Faithful feel will be the effect of bringing laity into the governance structure of the Church?

A. The Church hierarchy can learn much from the Catholic laity. We have intellectual, emotional and spiritual contributions to make and knowledge to impart on myriad real-life issues. These include, but are not limited to: human sexuality, women's rights, democratic processes, and the contextual roles of science and history in the healthy life of the Church.

This is just crying out for elaboration.

I feel I speak for many young adults in saying that we don't want a group that is divisive - us versus them - and has an underlying agenda that presumes to be more catholic than the local diocesan bishop or the pope. And even if it isn't said explicitly, I perceive it as an agenda which would, given the opportunity, certainly include doctrinal change. We want to be a part of something that celebrates the Catholic Faith and has a more realistic and positive message about what true reform really is. A message that addresses the spiritual roots of reform. True reform comes in the person of Jesus Christ, and this is what the Church should be preaching, and is what our Holy Father is preaching right now.