"VOICE OF THE FAITHFUL" MAKES ME SQUIRM

(does that make me "unfaithful?")

First, a disclaimer.

One of my many sinful tendencies is an automatic suspicion of anybody who wants to lead anything. In my school days, I distrusted kids aspiring to be on the student counsel. These days, I distrust anybody who runs for any leadership position: local, state, national, and, especially, parish council. Happily, my distrust has proved erroneous on many occasions. In fact, some of my best friends are parish council members. Now that you’ve had your grain of salt, I’ll get started.

So many aspects of what appears to be an enormously popular movement discomfort me that it’s hard to know where to begin.

Read self-described abuse victim Susan Renahan’s proclamation at a recent meeting of the upscale Wellesley, Massachusetts-based organization:

"You are having your own 9/11 ­ you’ve been betrayed just as we were," she said, "and I stand beside you as you take back the church."

See, now right there, I see a major problem. I don’t want to "take back" the Church. The Church belongs, not to the hierarchy, and not to the large donors, and certainly not to me.

The Church belongs to Jesus Christ. Doesn’t it?

What’s with this "take back?" No doubt a figure of speech, but figures of speech have an often nasty way of becoming perceived as gospel.

(As an example, the violent destruction of children in the womb isn’t called that at all...it’s prettily worded as "a woman’s right to choose.")

The "Voice of the Faithful" (VOTF) Mission Statement reads rather nicely: "To provide a prayerful voice, attentive to the Spirit, through which the Faithful can actively participate in the governance and guidance of the Catholic Church."

("Faithful" means "laity.")

The group’s goals appear to be three-fold and, again, the first two sound nice:

1. Support those who have been abused

2. Support priests of integrity

That’s pretty clever, I think. I mean, who could argue with Goals 1 and 2? If one does, one risks becoming unpopular, to put it mildly.

What the heck. I’ll risk unpopularity.

There’s something terribly wrong with the above two goals. Why? Because there’s something essential that’s missing. I see nothing about the concept of "forgiveness." That’s a bad sign.

Supporting "priests of integrity" is all well and good. It’s also a no-brainer. It’s easy to love priests when they look and act like Bing Crosby. What about forgiveness? What about the priests ­ and the lay people (why doesn’t anybody seem to want to admit that Lay People Have Been Known To Be Rape Kid?) who have offended you and have offended me? Do we simply ditch them?

And, incidentally, how exactly does one define "integrity?" At first glance, it would appear that, especially when coupled with the mention of abuse victims, that a priest of "integrity" is one who does not abuse people. But what if a priest decides that he does not condone the "Voice of the Faithful" agenda? Is he, by definition, one lacking in integrity?

Goal number 3 gets to the nitty-gritty:

“Shape structural change within Church”

Oh, boy. First, get a sympathetic ear by supporting abuse victims and nice priests. Then, reveal what you’re really after. Why not just put Goal #3 at the top of the list?

"Sexuality, representative democracy, and the equality of women"

A better understanding of these concepts: that’s what the group’s founder, cardiologist and Nobelist Dr. Jim Muller believes the laity can provide. And according to the group’s slide presentation (downloadable at www.votf.org) understanding these concepts is key to resurrecting the Church.

I say "resurrecting" because, apparently, in the eyes of VOTF, the Church is now dead. Slide 1 is, essentially, a death certificate. Don’t take my word for it, if you’re skeptical. Visit the site yourself!

A Church based on the United States Constitution

"The Constitution of the United States, familiar to all, provides an excellent example of the checks and balances required for the safe exercise of power," captions a simple chart which explains how U.S. checks and balances actually work.

Yikes.

Am I the only one who sees this as arrogant in the extreme? I mean, I’m as patriotic as the next person, but if you’re going to tell me that we ought to structure the Church of Jesus Christ based on the United States system of government, you’ve lost me completely.

Yes, indeed, the Constitution of the United States is familiar to me. It’s a wonderful system...for earthly government.

However, in preparing one for his (or her...hey, I’m as hip to the equality of women as the next guy...or girl...or, uh, woman) for the place the Father has prepared for him (or her), it’s ­ well, "totally lame" is about as kindly as I can describe it.

We The People have managed to accomplish many terrific things. We’ve also managed to legalize child killing, make it cool to cheer at executions, congressionally persecute anybody suspected of subscribing to a different form of government, , blow entire cultures into smithereens...well, you get my point.

And...uh...what about other countries?

I don’t live in Wellesley, but I’ve visited the town a few times. Being a city rat, my experience was a little eerie...everybody looked alike. That is to say, everybody seemed to be Caucasian. And well-heeled.

Now, personally, I admire Caucasians and well-heeled people. Someday I’d like to be well-heeled myself. (Although from what I gather, my aspiration requires work, and since I’m a dyed-in-the-wool sloth, that’s not likely to happen.)

Anyway, I imagine if you live in Wellesley, it’s easy to fall into the chauvinistic notion that the world revolves around white, upper middle-class America. As I see it, this notion presents a bit of a problem for VOTF.

The organization has global visions. My question is this: who’s going to introduce, say, the Catholic in Korea, or Uganda, or Egypt, or China to the Gospel according to Uncle Sam?

"Change the Church...how?" ­ Bernard Cardinal Law, at the recent convocation

Good question, Your Eminence! But you won’t get any specifics, because as far as specifics, VOTF isn’t talking. Not yet. (Although if you haven’t gotten a major clue from the group’s determination to educate the Church on the "equality of women:" Hello!!!)

Here’s the VOTF plan. (The italicized text is straight from the VOTF on-line presentation.)

First, the organization plans to "speak for the majority of catholics." In order to do this, it plans to "convince catholics of conservative, liberal, and moderate views that the organization is required."

Okay, so recruiting is Job 1. Somehow, the organization has to convince the majority of Catholics that the organization is, in fact, necessary. The plan continues, with the comment:

"Since VOTF itself is change and decentralization of power, its appeal may be more readily apparent to those on the Left."

What does that mean? That this is going to be a "leftist" organization? Not according to the plan.

"It [VOTF] must configure itself in such a manner that it is also seen as valued by those on the Right."

Why do I feel like I’m privy to the campaign strategy of Al Gore, for heaven’s sake? Look, I get the fact that VOTF wants the lay folks to call the shots. But what does it actually want?

"This will be possible if it [VOTF] remains focused on the single goal of finding a voice for the laity, and leaves the discussion of divisive issues for the period when a representative democracy of the laity is functioning." [emphasis mine]

So that’s it. We won’t know how the Church will be changed until, presumably, the majority of lay people tell us how She will be changed. (Again, keep in mind that educating us on "the equality of women" thing.)

These people are not crazies. And the organizers are actually faithful Catholics.

They’re well-meaning, educated, and apparently have some priests (of "integrity," one assumes) who are helping them out. They have taken a pro-active stance in the wake of what they perceive to be a "Church in Crisis."

That’s what troubles the hell out of me.

Because for many disenchanted Catholics, "Voice of the Faithful" must seem like a lifeline. If you can believe their web-site and press claims ­ and I have no reason not to ­ then their rolls are increasing exponentially. In July, a VOTF "Continental Congress" is planned and expected to draw over 5,000 participants.

The term "Continental Congress," by the way, is another allusion to the United States Constitution formation. Indeed, founding member Dr. Muller uses the fact that the "crisis" started in the Boston area to rationalize the organization’s desire to imitate our founding fathers.

"Over 200 years ago, when there was an abuse of power through `taxation without representation,’ Bostonians spurred a revolution with the Tea Party," he said in a recent Christian Science Monitor article. "We need to do that again. This crisis has revealed another abuse of power born of autocracy, and what is needed is a representative structure for the laity."

They’re a motivated group, and I believe, for the most part, that their motives are among the best in the world: preserving the Church.

But, as just a run-of-the-mill, garden-variety lady in the pew, I tremble at their vision.

I tremble at the notion of people trying to "take" the Church that Jesus built. The Church that is His, not mine or yours or even the citizens of Wellesley or the people who are following them.

I fear for the eternal future of those who would attempt to turn the Church that Jesus built ­ one, holy, catholic and apostolic ­ into a system of checks, balances, and, God help us all: majority rule.

It concerns me that the group is, to my mind, inordinately concerned with money...who gets it, who doesn’t, and, let’s not forget, the tax benefits involved.

"Keep the faith ­ change the Church!"

That’s their slogan.

I don’t know. To me it’s just a spin on another slogan:

"Have your cake ­ eat it too!

It’s troubling. But not at all scary. Jesus promised us He’d be with us until the end of time.

That’s good enough for me.