Catholic Charities Emergency Meeting Carol McKinley, 7Apr.03
In the Bay State, members of the pro-church Faithful Voice
plan to attend an April 8 2003
emergency meeting of the Catholic Charities
board, in which the Boston Archdiocese's social service
arm will decide whether to accept a $35,000 gift
from VOTF that was rejected by interim administrator
Bishop Richard G. Lennon.
Catholic
Charities has graciously agreed to distribute the following statement at their
emergency meeting on Tuesday, April 8th, and enter it into the meeting minutes.
An
additional appendix which supports the information will be made available to
the press and to Mr. Doolin and others on the Board.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
To:
Joseph Doolin, Peter Meade, Neal Finnegan, Catholic Charities Board of Trustees
From:
Carol McKinley, representing Faithful Voice and faithful Boston-area Catholics
Date:
April 7, 2003
Subj:
Voice of the Faithful (VOTF) Donation
On
behalf of many faithful Boston-area Catholics, we are interceding to urge the
Board of Trustees to decline Voice of the Faithful's $35,000
donation.
How
can the Board vote to defy the directive of the Bishop and expect the moral
integrity of Catholic Charities to remain intact, in favor of a group which has
been banned nationally by many Bishops?
A
decision to accept the donation would put Catholic Charities in a role of
propagating divisiveness in the Church at a time when Church unity is sorely
needed. Funds should be declined for the following reasons:
1)
Acceptance would fracture Catholic Charities' union with the Archdiocese of
Boston.
2)
According to statements made by VOTF founder, Jim Muller, and others, the funds
were raised to give VOTF control over "the oxygen of the church".
3)
The public activities and practices of VOTF are contradictory with Church
teachings and its mission.
While
the donor and donation may appear well-intentioned, this appeal and the
supporting documents exemplify the practices which have caused many U.S.
Bishops to forbid VOTF's printed materials, theologians and moral teachings
from reaching their flock. These include a VOTF slide show and a
"Constitution of Laity" describing a model of church whose moral
authority is directed from laity concensus and a Pope elected by the people.
VOTF's "priest of integrity", Rev. Thomas Doyle refers to
"erroneous" thinking about the sacraments, saying, "we can no
longer depend on a magical notion of the sacraments and the priests and bishops
who administer them." A group obviously struggling for power in the
Roman Catholic Church is now offering their collected funds to Catholic
Charities. Future disclosures could humiliate Catholic Charities and
negatively impact its mission, reputation and contributions.
Charities
such as Oxfam International and the Salvation Army have recently declined
donations from individuals or groups when their public statements and actions
were contrary to the charity's mission. Catholic Charities should do the
same.
1)
Avoid divisive fracturing of Catholic Charities' union with the Archdiocese of
Boston.
Independent
of the sentiments many may have about the past management of the child abuse
crisis by the Archdiocese of Boston or about Bishop Lennon's recent directive
regarding VOTF's donation, as the social justice arm of Christ's Mystical Body,
Catholic Charities cannot function independent of its head.
According
to Catholic Charities USA's "10 ways Catholic Charities are
Catholic": "Catholic charitable works and institutions have their
formal Catholic identity in relationship to the Church and the diocesan
bishop… While there is great organizational variety, the diocesan bishop
ordinarily is positioned within the civil law structure - even of a separately
incorporated Charities - to allow him to exercise his canonical
responsibilities for the apostolate."
Does
the Boston Board of Trustees want to be in direct opposition to the Church
teachings and Canon law code that Catholic Charities' mission unequivocally
accepts?
Simply
put, Catholic Charities is authorized to exercise their ministry by the
diocesan bishop. If the Board wishes to no longer follow the direction of
the Bishop and instead operate outside of the Catholic Church as
"Massachusetts Charities" or "Boston Charities", then this
should be a first decision made-independent of the VOTF donation.
However,
if Catholic Charities does wish to maintain its Catholic identity, then it is
clearly wrong to consider taking a vote to defy the Bishop.
2)
According to statements made by VOTF founder, Jim Muller, and others, the funds
were raised to give VOTF control over "the oxygen of the church".
The
publicly-stated intentions and practices of VOTF in raising funds are focused
on gaining "control" and "power," and are clearly at odds
with the mission of the Church and Catholic Charities, as evidenced by the
following examples:
Notre
Dame Magazine (Winter-2002-03 Issue): "Muller points to the one area in
which the laity is in complete control -- money. Some VOTF members call it
"the oxygen of the church." Muller would invoke the leverage of
financial support…"
Catholic
Citizens of IL 04/02/03: "Muller contends that the laity needs a
stronger voice in the Church…To address this problem, it was VOTF's
intention to become big enough to impact the flow of funding to the Church. He
spoke of the power of the purse and economic power to force change."
Boston
Globe (7/21/2002): "… most significantly, the group has begun
collecting money. 'No more donation without representation,' Muller said.
''We have to gain financial power in this church…"
VOTF
Meeting February 18, 2002, Discussion Group Summary; "Theme: Mode of
Action"
"Using
money to get the Cardinal's attention, especially withholding donations"
If
the primary goal of the Voice of Compassion fund was to encourage support and
outreach to the poor and needy (independent of the Archdiocesan appeal), why wouldn't
VOTF simply urge individual contributors to donate directly to Catholic
Charities or other Catholic agencies? VOTF's ongoing public posture--over
a relatively small donation--serves to create disunity between Catholic
Charities and the Boston Archdiocese, laity and their Bishop.
3)
The public activities and practices of VOTF are contradictory with Church
teachings.
The
attached appendix offers some of the most egregious examples of VOTF's efforts
to undermine Church teaching. C. J. Doyle of the Catholic Action
League has criticized VOTF for "unfaithfulness to Catholic
principles," saying:
"It
is grotesque hypocrisy for an organization which claims to be Catholic to
promote the views of those who reject Catholic doctrine and repudiate Christian
morality. These adversaries of the Papacy and Catholic tradition are seeking
the admission of women, married men and active homosexuals to the priesthood,
the repeal of Catholic moral prohibitions against abortion, contraception,
homosexuality, and divorce, and in some cases, the separation of the Catholic
Church in America from Rome. As an organization marketing itself as Catholic,
Voice of the Faithful is engaged in consumer fraud." (Mass News,
7/22/02)
Supporting
documents (attached) include documentation of following:
·
The VOTF slide show and "Constitution of Laity" demonstrate a model
of church whose moral authority is derived from consensus discussions with the
laity and democratic election of priests, Bishops and the Pope by the laity
·
Eight months after VOTF publicly stated that the organization "accepts the
teaching authority of the Church," VOTF's website continues to propagate
information contrary to Church teachings
·
Organizations and individuals well-known for their opposition to Church teachings
(e.g. Call to Action, CORPUS, Women's Ordination movement, and others) are
tightly integrated with the leadership of VOTF and are regularly featured at
meetings and presentations.
·
Orthodox Catholics who attend VOTF meetings and question the discussion
of views contrary to Church teaching have been silenced and had their presence
rejected
Because
Catholic Charities is required to collaborate only around issues and programs
compatible with a Christian value system and to be faithful in its practices to
the teachings of the Church, acceptance of funds from an organization whose
activities run contrary to Church teaching would imply an endorsement for that
organization and would violate Catholic Charities own Code of Ethics.
In
summary, a vote to accept the donation in defiance of the bishop's directive
would convey a message that the trustees of the Board of Catholic Charities
wish to further divide the Church by giving credibility to the tactics of VOTF,
or are comfortable undermining the Catholic Church's financial, moral and
spiritual authority under the mission of a charitable organization.
We
propose that the Board of Trustees has several options on April 8:
i)
Vote to divorce the Catholic Charitable Bureau of Boston from the Archdiocese of
Boston, as a potential precursor to subsequent discussion about defying the
bishop. The dropping of association with the Catholic Church obviously
has broad implications and may require additional discussion and research.
ii)
Delay a decision on accepting the VOTF funds, and immediately engage in
additional mediated discussions with the Bishop to resolve the conflict
situation
iii)
Vote to refuse the VOTF donation, and ask VOTF to advise their donors to send
contributions directly to specific Catholic agencies in need.
With
such a challenging situation facing Catholic Charities, we urge you to remember
the need for unity, and the need, in all our actions, to place Jesus Christ
above all. We trust that the Holy Spirit will guide the Trustees to a
decision that helps to unify the Body of Christ, and in the process will also
help advance the social service mission of Catholic Charities in the coming
months and years.
From Crisis Magazine Deal Hudson April 2003
You
might have heard that Bishop Richard Lennon, the interim replacement for
Cardinal
Law in Boston, has refused to accept money from the fundraising arm of
Voice
of the Faithful (VOTF), as his predecessor did. But Lennon is going a step
further
and barring Catholic Charities from receiving any of the money, either.
This
may seem a bit severe in an archdiocese that is suffering financially as
Boston
is, but I have to applaud Bishop Lennon's decision. VOTF has always
insisted
on giving with strings attached, refusing to allow their donations to go
to
administrative costs of running the archdiocese.
And
the archdiocese has suffered as a result. Lennon has been forced to close
Catholic
schools, end programs, and lay off employees -- all things that fall
under
"administrative" costs of the diocese that VOTF wants no part of.
Both
Cardinal
Law and Bishop Lennon voiced their concern over VOTF's "Voice of
Compassion"
fund, saying that it undermined fundraising efforts of the
archdiocese.
Now it seems they were right.
Jim
Post, president of VOTF, reacted quickly: "[These] actions will contribute
to
the
creation of a new wave of victims from the ongoing Church scandal who suffer
from
the pain of church closings, school closings, layoffs and program cuts."
But
by
refusing to let VOTF funds go to such administrative needs, the organization
has
only made the situation worse.
But
more than just undermining the archdiocese's fundraising is the idea that
VOTF
is undermining the importance of the Church's structure. The Church is a
body,
with all parts connected to all others, requiring that these parts work
together
for the body to function. VOTF is essentially giving to the hand while
insisting
that their gift doesn't go to help the foot. How is that Catholic
charity?
Believe
me... as the director of a non-profit organization, I can appreciate the
struggle
of working on a tight budget largely supplied through fundraising
efforts.
But if all of the donations we received went strictly to the magazine
itself,
our organization would fold within a week. The magazine couldn't exist
without
employees to put it together, others to raise funds, an office for us to
work
in... Without any of these parts, the whole would collapse.
And
that's what VOTF is essentially doing. If Bishop Lennon -- or Catholic
Charities
-- were to accept VOTF's money, they'd be giving credibility to an
organization
that's effectively denying the important structure of the Church.
This
simply cannot happen.
Of
course, don't be surprised by VOTF's vocal indignation. Every time their
contributions
-- whether monetary or advisory -- are overlooked, they rant and
rave
about how the Church is ignoring the laity. In the April 1st on-line edition
of
the Chicago Sun-Times, Jim Muller, a co-founder of VOTF, was quoted as saying
to
Francis Cardinal George, "We represent 99.9 percent of the church, yet
we've
had
little way to represent our voices."
99.9
percent? That's quite a tall order for a group with only 25,000 members,
especially
since Catholics number more than 65 million in the US and over 1
billion
worldwide. And what about other groups, like the Knights of Columbus,
Legion
of Mary, or Opus Dei? These groups have numbers in the hundreds of
thousands
-- even millions -- and yet they don't presume to be the sole
mouthpiece
for their Church.
It
seems that VOTF has a bit of a Napoleon complex. They've already gotten far
more
attention -- from media and clergy alike -- than their numbers warrant, and
yet
still they aren't content. This doesn't sound like the behavior of a group
that
claims it wants only to help.
Maybe
it's time for VOTF to go back and think about its stated goals of working
with
the Church. Right now, all I see is a desire to work against it.
However,
the real question that remains is this: Will Catholic Charities take
VOTF's
money in spite of the bishop's warning? The offer must be tempting, but I
sincerely
hope they'll turn it down. There are some things that are more
important
than money, and maintaining the integrity of their organization -- and
the
Church -- is one of them.
Either
way, we'll all know soon. Catholic Charities will be announcing its
decision
tomorrow. I'll let you know what happens.
Talk
soon,
Deal
Man to defend self over his arrest in McCormack protest
by
Robin Washington ,Boston Herald , Monday, April 7, 2003
A
Wellesley man arrested for refusing to ``keep moving'' at a Feb. 3 protest
against Manchester, N.H.,
Bishop
John B. McCormack will have his day in court tomorrow, appearing before a judge
who ruled against demonstrators passing out leaflets to mall shoppers in a
high-profile First Amendment case.
Rick
Webb,
50, who was charged with disorderly conduct for violating a city ordinance
prohibiting persons ``encumbering'' a sidewalk, will represent himself before
Manchester District Court Judge William Lyons.
``The
charge says I knowingly refused to comply with the lawful order of a peace
officer to move from
standing
on a sidewalk,'' Webb said. ``I'm saying that's not a lawful order.''
Webb
has eschewed the advice of his supporters - including his wife, Ann Hagan Webb
of the Survivors
Network
of Those Abused by Priests - to get a lawyer.
He
also declined to accept a plea bargain for a $100 fine and said he is prepared to go to jail for his
First
Amendment rights.
The
Class A misdemeanor carries a possible one-year prison term and a $2,000 fine.
In 1998, Lyons sentenced eight protesters who leafleted a Nike store to 30 days
in jail and a $117 fine each. After the protestors lost an appeal in 2000,
their sentences were suspended for two years.
``I
found him very fair,'' Nike protester Jim Giddings said of Lyons.
Manchester
police Lt. Jim Stankiewicz told the Herald in February he arrested Webb for
``safety reasons,'' citing snowbanks outside St. Catherine's Church.
Also
in the Granite State, members of the lay Catholic group Voice of the Faithful
yesterday called for the resignations of McCormack and Auxiliary Bishop Francis
Christian.
``This
expressed the views of Voice affiliates around the state,'' Merrimack's Carolyn
Disco said of the 14-1 vote, which followed a similar call last week by the
newly formed New Hampshire Catholics for Moral
Leadership.
Saturday,
the Nashua Telegraph editorialized for the pair to step down.
In the Bay State, members of the pro-church Faithful Voice plan to attend tomorrow's emergency meeting of the Catholic Charities board, in which the Boston Archdiocese's social service arm will decide whether to accept a $35,000 gift from VOTF that was rejected by interim administrator Bishop Richard G. Lennon.