Talk:Voice of the Faithful

}} The external links give plenty more information if anyone feels like expanding the article.Barbara Shack 15:41, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

POV Issues

I would question the objectivity of this page a bit. It reads like it is a VOTF brochure. There are many questions about the groups real goals and the veracity of its membership claims.

I agree. This page has major POV issues that need to be addressed, including the questions of genuineness and membership numbers that you pointed out.-Onward ND 08:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you give an actual source of what you two are saying? Can it be someone who isn't blanatly opposing the VOTF and who isn't the catholic church?

The article linked to the third citation does not support the assertation that VOTF supports making women deacons. The liked article is to an op-ed, written by the chairman of VOTF who supports making women deacons; however, no where does he state that this is a VOTF oppinion, nor does he refference his role in VOTF. Likewise the link to the proposal that Bishops be elected, goes to the VOTF-Bridgeport, rather than the main VOTF website. There is therefor no way of knowing if this a minority position held by some VOTF charters or a view held by the entire VOTF movement.

Sourcing issues

While I did not understand User:Tucard's reversions to versions with poorer wording, that issue has been made irrelevant by some good reworking and content additions by User:Mgradel. I have chipped in as well, mostly for organization, minor POV tempering, and wording style.

There is one issue that hounds this page now though. Many of the sources are from the New York Times, and after a week or so they become subscription only. Per external links policy, those are not good links to use. Let's make an effort to replace them with ones which will stand the test of time. Otherwise, a lot of this material becomes unsourced. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

---

I reformatted the refs to a central section at the bottom (non sequitor intended) and updated some redirects. But note that several are still subscription only. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Good news: those NYT articles can be resourced, as they have discontinued their subscription only web access. Now we have to figure out what the new links ore to those articles... Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for NPOV

I have a few suggestions for change: Change the use of 'survivor' to 'victim'. Although those sexually abused have suffered genuine harm, the term 'survivor' is generally used to describe someone who faced a direct, substantial risk to their life, for example, those that escape a car accident, or a massacre or a catastrophe of some kind such as the Titanic disaster. Organisations are free in incorporate the term into their own documentation for rhetorical effect but this unique usage of the term is not generally accepted.

Agreed. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

VOTF began when a small group of parishioners met in the basement of St. John the Evangelist church in Wellesley, Massachusetts, United States, to pray over revelations that a priest has abused local youngsters.

Were these 'revelations' or allegations? Was this individual convicted? Is there a source?

"Allegations" is indeed a better word choice. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The group demonstrated its influence in American Catholicism when it held a conference in July 2002 that attracted over 4,000 lay Catholics, survivors of clergy sexual abuse, theologians, priests and religious from around the U.S. and the world.

Arguably the word 'influence' should be changed to 'popularity'. Raw numbers really only prove popularity and something more is required before you can claim that the numbers are indicative of influence.

Good point. In fact, that whole phrase is synthy and should probably be removed unless analogous language can be sourced from somewhere about that conference. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Jim Muller, one of VOTF's co-founders and its first president (as well as a prominent cardiologist and Nobel Peace Prize winner for his work in launching International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW)), has written a book about the group's founding called "Keep the Faith, Change the Church."

This doesn't seem relevant. If the content of the book is being referred to then list it in the references.

Without having read the book, I would assume this is relevant. But if anyone who has read it disagrees, I defer. Yes, a mention of the book should go in the references, or at least a "further reading" section, regardless. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

VOTF's mission statement is: "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." It has articulated three goals: 1. To support survivors of clergy sexual abuse; 2. To support priests of integrity; and 3. To shape structural change within Church.

If these are direct quotes then they should be properly quoted. If they are paraphrases then they will need to be rephrased in a more neutral manner.

Or at least sourced to demonstrate they are a fair paraphrasing, I agree. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Voice of the Faithful works to support victims of clergy sexual abuse and advocates that bishops should be held accountable for covering up and mishandling complaints of abuse by clergy.

I can't imagine anyone that does not support these things. Given everyone supports them there should be some attempt to identify how VOTF differs from all of the others.

I suspect the key here is "works to support" and "advocates" (emph mine). Additional clarification would be useful, but I find this acceptable. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

VOTF advocates for structural change in the Church—in general, for lay members to have a greater voice, and especially to have financial oversight in their parishes and dioceses.

'Voice' and 'oversight' are too vague. If we are talking about a shift in control and power then just say that.

This wording could probably be improved, but it is less clear that your suggestion is an improvement (even if reliably sourced), at least at this point in the article. Somewhere else in it would be better, it seems. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Members of the organization in several states have worked to extend the Statute of Limitations for crimes of abuse against minors - often working in opposition to the institutional Church, which has sought to block this kind of criminal reform. One of the more visible victories was the effort to extend the SOL in Massachusetts. That effort was lead by a group called the Coalition to Reform Sex Abuse Lawsbut included many prominent members of Voice of the Faithful.

There's no explanation for why VOTF thought extending the SoL was a good idea and that there are a variety of good reasons to oppose such reforms. Also, I believe that the SoL changes were in relation to civil matters not criminal matters.

If so (civil not criminal) that should be changed. If you know of an explanation regarding their reasons, it could be added. This isn't the proper venue for legislative debates however, so I would avoid the theoretical discussions regarding the merits of those changes. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

A two year study conducted by Catholic University of America found that VOTF members "share a deep and highly involved commitment to their Church."[7] and the group has been endorsed by an extensive list of American Catholic theologians.[8] An article in Commonweal called the group "one of the most interesting and hopeful developments to come out of the Catholic Church’s sexual-abuse crisis."[9]

Are Catholic University of America and Commonweal considered neutral sources on this matter? I don't know enough about US Roman Catholicism to answer this but I've heard allegations that Catholic Univeristy and Commonweal are ideologically aligned with VOTF and therefore issues of bias might arise.

They may or may not be considered neutral, but for this purpose they should be considered reliable, I would think. Given that they are made explicit as the source of this content, I do not see this as objectionable. If it is undue weight (which I think you might see it as), it should be really easy to find equally reliable, but less sympathetic, sources with relevant balancing commentary. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The group has hosted many speakers not in favor with the hierarchy, such as Eugene Kennedy, a long-time observer of the Roman Catholic Church, professor emeritus of psychology at Loyola University in Chicago and author of the book "The Unhealed Wound: The Church and Human Sexuality"; and Rev. Thomas P. Doyle, O.P., J.C.D., an advocate for obtaining justice for victims of sexual abuse by Catholic priests, who has been reprimanded for failing to implement liturgical guidelines.

Again, everyone supports 'obtaining justice for victims of sexual abuse by Catholic priests'. People differ on how to achieve this. How does Doyle seek to achieve it?

Again, I think the operative part of that description is "advocate". Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be good if someone could rewrite the whole article from a NPOV if possible. I don't have enough time to do it myself, but the above points might be helpful. GuyIncognito (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the insightful comments. I would hope a whole rewrite is not necessary, but several of your suggestions have a lot of merit. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Update I made some of these suggested changes, as well as a few more in the same spirit of neutrality. I left in the mention of Muller's book, but removed his bio info as it read a little fluffy and no one has seen it fit to write an article about him based on the notability of his bio. I may do a little more tweaking in this manner. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Update 2 After almost four months of little if any discussion or editing after I tried to address the above POV concerns, I am going to take the step of removing the neutrality tag. Plaese feel free to return it, but if so please be explicit on the Talk page here why. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Views on ban of homosexual seminarians

The article should maybe explain what was the initial reaction of Voice of the Faithful when the Vatican announced a ban on gay seminarians (see Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders). As I seem to recall, Voice of the Faithful was not entirely satisfied, and some in Rome were apparently criticizing Voice of the Faithful for hypocrisy, for wanting on one hand an end to clerical pedophilia, and on the other for being slightly opposed to a ban on gay seminarians. ADM (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't heard of their interest in such matters, but if you have good sources, give it a go. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

POV

The article's factual content may be correct, but the wording is very subjective and unencyclopedic for instance "shocking revelations" or "the moral, governance, and pastoral failures of Catholic bishops". Hence the POV-tag. --— Erik Jr. 00:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)