Apart from the fact that the New York Daily News botched the name of the group, calling Voice of the Faithful, Faithful Voice, which is a completely different group, why is anyone surprised the Archdiocese of New York denied VOTF the ability to advertise in the diocesan newspaper for its conference. Did everyone forget that VOTF is a divisive, controversial group? Did the people at VOTF forget that they are at odds with the bishops? A VOTF spokesman was quoted:
“It has been a surprise to us that we have been denied access to this means of reaching our fellow Catholics in the New York area.
“And I hope that eventually the church will come to trust Catholics to make good choices about which events they want to attend.”
I see, so if a white supremacist church wanted to advertise would that be okay? How about a Catholic group that demands that wives be oppressed by their husbands based on their misinterpretation of the Scripture?
The diocesan newspaper has a duty to vet its advertisers to be sure that it’s not seen to be endorsing a group or event that is at odds with the teachings and mission of the Church. And evidently, the Archdiocese of New York thinks VOTF fits that description.
While one may understand why some misinformed people join VOTF, it doesn’t make VOTF a good thing. The goals and principles that underlie the group’s foundation are at odds with the teachings of the Church.
John, you say you are opposed to the Bernardin followers. Well, that’s just who the VOTF leadership are; the are born and bred in the mold of Bernardin.
Some people may be mislead into believing that VOTF is just a place to seek authentic reform, but they are being fooled by a leadership that speaks vaguely, while stealthily advancing a heterodox agenda.
John,
I have documented on this web site numerous times over the past two years that Voice of the Faithful has actively subverted the teachings of the Church. If you look at their web site, you will see essays by people who have been censured by the Vatican for false teaching, and others who advocate things that are at odds with the teaching of the Church: women’s ordination, okaying any kind of sexuality, and the like. At their convention last year, at least one of the speakers headed a group that advocates sex for children and a priest who celebrated Mass for the convention openly expressed the hope that a woman would be celebrating Mass in his place soon.
I think Cardinal Law had to go mainly because he had become an obstacle to resolving the problem, but I don’t think he was an evil man. I think he had many admirable qualities and if he had never become a bishop, he would have made an excellent pastor of a parish and would have been a good priest for the rest of his days.
If you are using AmChurch as your source, then be aware tha Paul Likoudis would support my contention that VOTF is part and parcel of AmChurch. They are Call to Action in sheep’s clothing.
No, I don’t see a need for me to read it. I know what it says. What question about Phil?