Fr. Robert J. Fox

[iheartjp2]

I think I've heard the name someplace, but I don't know exactly who he is. I was talking with some friends of mine who just came into the church this year after mass today (well, technically, yesterday), and they were talking about some pamplets that they were reading by him. They include those such as, "Why Only 30% Believe?", "Isn't It Crazy?", "Submission", "The Working Mom", and "The Veil". It may look good just looking at the cover, but if you actually read it, it just sounds like a bunch of rad trad carp that someone's trying to pull. One of the last things I noticed about the pamphlets (stupidly) is that not one has an impramatur or a nihil obstat on them, meaning ths guys bishop didn't even put his seal of approval on his stuff, which makes me think that this guy really can't be trusted. He's right for the most part, but some of his claims sound out of whack. Some of them are absolutely outlandish and false. He doesn't site ANY sources for his stuff, and the stuff he does site, he doesn't put in it's proper context so that his sited sources can actually be shown to line up with what he's pushing in his literature. Does anyone know anything about this guy?

[missionseeker]

If he's the guy I'm thinking of, he's pretty orthodox. he does a lot of stuff at a retreat house in Birmingham and he writes a lot about fatima. i think ewtn sells some of his books and pamphlets

[Jeff]

"Sorry, no items match your search. Please try again."
-ewtn.com

[cappie]

[url="http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/2000May/rjfox100.htm"]http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/2000May/rjfox100.htm[/url]

[Norseman82]

Google says he's with the Fatima Family Apostolate.

[iheartjp2]

Thanks for all your info. What I'd really like to get at is his pamphlet called, "The Veil". It's basically saying that the covering of a woman's head is a church teaching (which it isn't) that goes back to the beginning of the Church (pretty far back, even into biblical times, but not from the beginning), and that it was in the official Code of Canon Law (at some point, but as he admitted, it's not in the current issue, which was issued in 1983), yet he doesn't cite anywhere in the Code of Canon Law that was issued at the time, whenever that was, where it's actually stated.

On page 7 of the pamplet titled, "The Veil", he gives this under the heading [i]"Facts to be Considered"[/i]

[quote name='Fr. Robert J. Fox' date=' "The Veil"'] In the new [i]Code of Canon Law[/i], Can.21, we read: [i]In doubt, the revoction of a previous law is not presumed; rather, later laws are to be related to earlier ones, as far as possible, harmonized with them[/i]. My dear reader, if the law concerning the veil had been revoked, which is was not, you would still have to harmonize with the later, which was to wear the veil. Then from Can. 27, we read: [i]Custom is the best interpreter of law[/i].[/quote]

First of all, if the wearing of a headcovering by women was a law, and it had been revoked, according to these previously stated citings of Canon Law, you wouldn't necessarily still have to wear the veil. It would probably be encouraged and still viewed as a sign of respect to have women cover their heads while in a church or a mass anywhere, but it would not be required as it allegedly was before. Revocating a church law is not necessarily doing a complete 180 degree turn is what I'm saying.

Not only that, on page 13 of the pamphlet, he talks about feminism and how it's destroying the Church by getting women to take off their veils. Here, he says, quoting the [i]N.O.W.[/i] (National Organization of Women) [i]Handbook[/i]:

[quote name='Fr. Robert J. Fox' date=' "The Veil"'] We read under [b][i]A. Religion Resolutions,[/i][/b] [i] "Because the wearing of a head covering by women at religious services is a symbol of subjection within many churches, [b]NOW[/b] recommends that all chapters undertake an effort to have all women participate in the "national unveiling" by sending their head coverings to the task force chairman. At the Pring meeting of the taks for of women and religion, thise veils will be publicly brned to protest the second class status of women in all churches (Dec., 1968)"[/i]
Well, one must concede, these feminists were extremely successful in getting Catholic women to not only [b]break Canon Law[/b], but to go directly against Holy Scripture.[/quote]

Where does it say that in any previously issued Code of Canon Law? I don't know, and obviously, neither does he because he cites no source whatsoever to it being there.

What do you guys think?

Edited July 24, 2006 by iheartjp2

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='cappie' post='1029754' date='Jul 23 2006, 09:39 PM']
[url="http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/2000May/rjfox100.htm"]http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/2000May/rjfox100.htm[/url]
[/quote]

I read the page that you gave me, and I don't doubt that he could be a good priest, but it seems that he's an enemy of the Charismatic Renewal, to which the current pope and those past, John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II have given their blessing and approval. He seems to take a objectively conservative view on how one must dress in a church at all times and doesn't approve of clapping in a church, even at the end of a liturgy when people are named for recognition. My parish is one of the 5 charismatic parishes in the world, where the probably most orthodox Catholic priest in my city is pastor, and he has no associate pastor to help him out. He is one of the most inspirational priests I've ever heard give a homily and could probably chew out this old fogie any day. I really don't like some of the things he says. He has it right for the most part, but some of his personal views he takes too seriously. In one of his pamplets, he says that women would do better to not go to college to get an education because women should aspire to be mothers and stay at home to learn how to take care of their family, at least he says that's how they did it in his day. Going off to college would only weaken their faith and their purity, and working mothers usually end up being bad mothers. That's a load of bull because there are great mothers in my parish who work outside of the home. There are also situations that he isn't really addressing. What if your husband leaves you and you have kids you need to take care of? What will you do if you don't have an education or working experience. What of the women who had to go out and work during WWII because not only were we just getting over a depression (and it took some time for people to actually bounce back), men were going off to war left and right and someone needed to make the money so their families could survive. Men didn't put money on the table by getting themselves killed in Europe and widowing their wives. What of the Vietnam war, where men were DRAFTED, and women needed to support their families. Some of the things he says are just plain dumb and a lot of his liturature, in my opinion, should be retracted because it was clearly not well-thought-out.

[OLAM Dad]

From the link posted...

[quote]He returned home that summer of 74 to build a shrine to Our Lady of Fatima and begin his famous youth apostolate in which each summer he would spend six weeks in Portugal conducting [b]spirit-filled and prayer-oriented pilgrimages for youth[/b]. Out of those pilgrimages great fruits have blossomed under Father Fox's nurturing care. Today, after twenty-five years of pilgrimages, over 200 young men have either become priests or are presently in the seminary!

In 1987 Father Fox hosted the first National Marian Congress which is, in essence, the mother of spiritual Marian and Eucharistic conferences that blossomed in the late eighties and throughout the nineties with the interest in Our Lady's apparitions and devotion to Divine Mercy.[/quote]

He doesn't sound like an enemy to the charismatic renewal to me.

This 'old fogie' is currently semi-retired living in Hanceville, Alabama. He was in a very bad accident a couple of years ago and has a hard time getting around like he used to. He says daily Mass at the Shrine of the Most Blessed Sacrament in the lower Church. My daughter has been the sacristan in the lower Church since last year and she says that he is a wonderful, holy Priest. Of course, my daughter wears a veil to all his Masses so maybe that's why she likes him. :

Regarding your questions about the veil and Fr. Fox's position in regards to wearing a veil here is his response...

[url="http://www.fatimafamily.org/articles/VeilCanonLaw.html"]http://www.fatimafamily.org/articles/VeilCanonLaw.html[/url]

[jiyoung]

whoops, double post

Edited July 24, 2006 by jiyoung

[jiyoung]

What's wrong with wearing a veil? It's a beautiful sign of modesty and submission. I wear one. I think you're looking around the wrong parts if you're looking for people who are gonna be all indignant about a priest who promotes wearing a veil. I've read that because veils aren't mentioned at all in the current Code of Canon Law, from 1983, the previous laws still hold, so he might still have a valid point.

If you look at the NOW excerpt, you'll notice it's from when veils were still required, so they were breaking canon law--this was in 1968, and the Code of Canon Law we have now is from 1983. I think the previous one was from 1917? Anyway, I'm pretty sure that he would've simply assumed it to be common knowledge that this was canon law, since until then women did wear veils. I believe the intended audience would have known, anyhow--my generation wouldn't have. I wouldn't cite certain things if they were common knowledge.

Also, I think NOW was more promoting removing veils as a statement, not trying to destroy the Church itself through it. Removing the veil would mean no longer being submissive. But do you agree with NOW and what it stands for, in general? Because honestly NOW is very much militant feminism, abortion and sexual deviations and everything. I would much rather stand with this priest than with NOW because at least he's going with traditional Catholic beliefs rather than radical liberal feminism. Not to say that you're supporting NOW or something. But...I think he's right in standing against NOW.

You mentioned that veils probably wouldn't have been common in the beginnings of the Church--I believe that Jewish women were required to wear veils, so I'd assume it would have carried over.

Also--does everything require an imprimatur? I read once that certain things do require one, but other documents don't, but you could still get one just to ensure that people know that you're not shoving heresy at them. I'd guess that the kinds of pamphlets and articles he's writing don't really require one. You can't say that "CLEARLY" his bishop thinks he's crazy because he won't give him an imprimatur. His literature, looking at the titles, seem to be closer to instructions in Christian conduct and other things he would commonly address in a homily or something rather than doctrinal issues, and that might possibly fall under the heading of not needing an imprimatur.

It seems to me--hopefully I'm wrong--that you do in fact know who he is, and are pretty intent on making him look like a bad guy. Is it bad to be objectively conservative? The fact that he advocates women being stay-at-home moms doesnt make him a heretic. It's pastoral advice in general, without thinking about specific situations--at worst, unwise.

You said that you're from one of "the 5 charismatic parishes in the world"--what do you mean? I'd venture that there are a whole lot more than just five. The charismatic movement is pretty dang big--have you been to SCRC out here in California? I'm pretty sure there are way more than 5 charismatic parishes in the world--I'm pretty sure there are more than that in a 20 mile radius of my house.

[Seven77]

[quote name='iheartjp2' post='1029780' date='Jul 23 2006, 11:31 PM']
...I don't doubt that he could be a good priest, but it seems that he's an enemy of the Charismatic Renewal
[/quote]

enemy? how on earth did you come to that conclusion?

[thessalonian]

Fr. Fox is pretty much the leading expert on Fatima in this country. He's quite orthodox. I've heard him speak a few times.

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='jiyoung' post='1029794' date='Jul 24 2006, 02:57 AM']
What's wrong with wearing a veil? It's a beautiful sign of modesty and submission. I wear one. I think you're looking around the wrong parts if you're looking for people who are gonna be all indignant about a priest who promotes wearing a veil. I've read that because veils aren't mentioned at all in the current Code of Canon Law, from 1983, the previous laws still hold, so he might still have a valid point.

If you look at the NOW excerpt, you'll notice it's from when veils were still required, so they were breaking canon law--this was in 1968, and the Code of Canon Law we have now is from 1983. I think the previous one was from 1917? Anyway, I'm pretty sure that he would've simply assumed it to be common knowledge that this was canon law, since until then women did wear veils. I believe the intended audience would have known, anyhow--my generation wouldn't have. I wouldn't cite certain things if they were common knowledge.

Also, I think NOW was more promoting removing veils as a statement, not trying to destroy the Church itself through it. Removing the veil would mean no longer being submissive. But do you agree with NOW and what it stands for, in general? Because honestly NOW is very much militant feminism, abortion and sexual deviations and everything. I would much rather stand with this priest than with NOW because at least he's going with traditional Catholic beliefs rather than radical liberal feminism. Not to say that you're supporting NOW or something. But...I think he's right in standing against NOW.

You mentioned that veils probably wouldn't have been common in the beginnings of the Church--I believe that Jewish women were required to wear veils, so I'd assume it would have carried over.

Also--does everything require an imprimatur? I read once that certain things do require one, but other documents don't, but you could still get one just to ensure that people know that you're not shoving heresy at them. I'd guess that the kinds of pamphlets and articles he's writing don't really require one. You can't say that "CLEARLY" his bishop thinks he's crazy because he won't give him an imprimatur. His literature, looking at the titles, seem to be closer to instructions in Christian conduct and other things he would commonly address in a homily or something rather than doctrinal issues, and that might possibly fall under the heading of not needing an imprimatur.

It seems to me--hopefully I'm wrong--that you do in fact know who he is, and are pretty intent on making him look like a bad guy. Is it bad to be objectively conservative? The fact that he advocates women being stay-at-home moms doesnt make him a heretic. It's pastoral advice in general, without thinking about specific situations--at worst, unwise.

[/quote]

I never said there was anything wrong with wearing a veil. I agree that a veil is a good sign of respect in the house of God and that it's a very good thing to see a woman with a veil on in mass. I just think Fr. Rob goes too far with it.

[quote name='jiyoung' post='1029794' date='Jul 24 2006, 02:57 AM']You said that you're from one of "the 5 charismatic parishes in the world"--what do you mean? I'd venture that there are a whole lot more than just five. The charismatic movement is pretty dang big--have you been to SCRC out here in California? I'm pretty sure there are way more than 5 charismatic parishes in the world--I'm pretty sure there are more than that in a 20 mile radius of my house.
[/quote]

What I meant is just what I said. There have been only 5 parishes in the world that have been granted permission by their bishops to be charismatic parishes, that is, to have the charismatic gifts and the renewal present in every part of the very life of the parish. A large part of the group of Catholics that are in my parish have been in the charismatic renewal from the days of it's beginning at Duchesne. They were a Catholic fellowship of charismatics even before their group gained parish status. That's what I mean. Having a guitar mass, having people raise their hands to rah-rah praise the Lord music, doesn't make a parish charismatic. Having the charismatic gifts of the spirit present in your parish body and having the permission of the bishop to use them in the mass, is what makes a parish charismatic.

Edited July 25, 2006 by iheartjp2

[brendan1104]

The Holy Spirit will do whatever the heck It wants without a bishop's permission to be a so-called "charismatic" parish, or people faking gifts/fruits/whatever other phony dropping-to-the-ground making-up-words carp they do.

Edited July 25, 2006 by brendan1104

[iheartjp2]

Just to clear something up, I'm not saying that he's necessarily a bad guy. I'm just saying that some of the things he's saying are absolutely out of whack. My pastor is very well versed in his faith and if women really needed to wear veils, he would've said something about it by now. He speaks out against everything under the sun that people talk about these days, abortion, contraception, "homosexual marriage", how parents need to take up the responsibility of being the primary catechists of their children, and moreover, to follow God and to know what the truth is, that it's not a feeling, that it is subjective. If the veil really HAD to be worn, why hasn't he said a single word? Why would he agree so strongly about the true role of women in the church, the reality of the three enemies we all face (the world, the flesh, and the devil, which he continuously quotes in his homilies relentlessly), and then not agree to something as trivial as wearing a piece of cloth over one's head if it were to reverence God? It makes absolutely no sense and I've never heard anyone else ever speak of veil wearing and why it MUST be done besides rad trads. What has the church issued about the wearing of the veil since it was first written in the Code of Canon Law in 1917? The church has reiterated it's position on every single aspect of the Catholic faith, even that which has not been attacked so much. Why not that on the law concerning the covering of women's heads when in a church? I still don't see how he is the final authority one should look to concerning this law. I'm not saying he's too conservative, I'm just saying he's flat out incorrect about something. Am I being a liberal for saying that I think a priest is wrong on certain grounds and provide valid reasoning? It's not like I'm staring the truth, as it were, in the face and flat out rejecting it. Even if I'm wrong on this, and I just may be, since I'm far from an authority on anything, there are other things in his literature which are just flat out not well-thought-out.

[quote name='brendan1104' post='1030187' date='Jul 24 2006, 06:31 PM']
The Holy Spirit will do whatever the heck It wants without a bishop's permission to be a so-called "charismatic" parish, or people faking gifts/fruits/whatever other phony dropping-to-the-ground making-up-words carp they do.
[/quote]

What I meant by charismatic parish, the sense I was using the term in was a classificational sense, if you will. A parish is formally identified by the church as charismatic when it has the bishops permission to practice the charismatic gifts in it's parish life. Sorry about the confusion, which I assume it was.

[catholicinsd]

Don't knock Father Fox!!! He's a native of my home parish.

[Socrates]

Fr. Fox is a good and orthodox priest.

[iheartjp2]

I don't deny that he's a good and orthodox priest, and I don't mock him, I just believe with good reason that he's a little misled in some of his teaching. For starters, the veil, as I said, is a church (t)TRADITION, and not a church TEACHING which he claims in one of his pamplets. He's saying that women still must wear these or else they're sinning, basically. That's not true and he has nothing substantial to back it up, he's just being more orthodox than the pope and superimposing his well meant and directed, yet false opinion on actual church teaching, or rather in this case, law.

I talked to my well-educated priest tonight after a prayer meeting (I told you my parish was charismatic, right?), and he told me that he's heard of him, and I assume that he doesn't really know that much about him, but listened to my question. I asked him if it was mandatory for women to wear veils in church and asked him to back it up with church teaching. He said that if a law was not specifically stated in a new Code of Canon Law, that it had been abrogated (literally, it wasn't asked of you anymore). It's still encouraged and practiced by many, but it's not mandatory and you're not going against Canon Law since the older Code of Canon Law was replaced with the new in 1983, therefore, we have no more need of it or what it holds. The newer Code, as Fr. Rob admitted, does not have this written out, therefore, his teaching about the veil is well meant, but false. That's all I'm saying. My friends gave me these pamplets and said that they were distressed and confused about what to do since they didn't know if he was right or wrong. See what unnecessary confusion is caused by this "good and orthodox priest"? He may be good and orthodox, but you have to admit, some of the things he says are out of whack, consider my last post, please. Women, he's telling you that you would do better to not go to college because it endagers your faith and your purity (which could be true), and you'd do better to stay home and learn to be good wives and mothers (he leaves out those considering religious life), but it really depends on where you go. There are tons of good Catholic colleges that you could go to and find a good husband and a good degree, and not endager your faith and your purity, but in the cases of Universities like Ave Maria, Dallas, and Franciscan, you can strengthen it and you can strengthen someone elses. If you want me to actually quote his pamplets for these accusations against them, I can give them to you, I have seven of them in my possession that will gladly quote directly from. I don't know what you guys have heard, but if he sounds anything like his pamplets when he's in person, I don't know how you can stand to hear him.

[quote name='Seven77' post='1029915' date='Jul 24 2006, 08:46 AM']
enemy? how on earth did you come to that conclusion?
[/quote]

By reading his pamplets. That's what I've been talking about the whole time.

Edited July 26, 2006 by iheartjp2

[iheartjp2]

OLAM dad, I read the article that Fr. Rob wrote in rebuttal to comments about his position and his teaching on wearing head coverings. It makes absolutely no sense. Just because it's in scripture, doesn't mean it's a church TEACHING. It was merely church law that was issued by Paul in the early church, giving us proof that even the early church had canonical laws by which the faithful abided, but it is NOT the same as an official teaching of the church that has been held since the beginning. What did Christ have to say about a veil? Nothing, according to Sacred Tradition. If it's not in Sacred Tradition, it's not to be held as teaching, but merely as discipline. What this man is doing is as I said before, superimposing his strong opinion on Church law, and with no shame at that. Just look at his assertions:

[quote name='Fr. Robert J. Fox "The Veil and Canon Law"']The debate you describe smacks of legalism. The concern should be the desire to have special reverence in the presence of God Incarnate sacramentally present and perpetuating the Sacrifice of the Cross. From apostolic times head coverings, as mentioned by St. Paul have been a sign of reverence and submission.

If one goes only according to Canon Law and says it no longer applies then would it be acceptable for men and boys now to wear head coverings in church since present Canon Law does not require that they should be bare-headed? Or would it now be proper for woman to come to church immodestly dressed?[/quote]

[color="#3333FF"]Q:Just because something has been a traditional practice since apostolic times, does it mean that it equates to the level of Church teaching and should be done throughout the ages?[/color]

Absolutely not. There are practical apostolic traditions that have gone out of style as time goes by. The tradition that will not is Sacred Tradition, and wearing a veil doesn't equate.

[color="#3333FF"]Q:Is the issue of modest dress in question since it was in the 1917 issue of the Code of Canon Law, but that one was replaced?[/color]

No, it isn't. Modesty is never in question because it's not just a Church law, as is a head covering. The only instance of obligated modest dress that this law in the 1917 issue of the CCL (Code of Canon Law) is in the confines of the liturgy. The need to be modestly dressed goes beyond the liturgy. It's a way of life. You don't dress modestly ONLY out of respect for the Lord, but also for respect for yourself and for the body that the Lord gave you. That argument abslolutely twists the true heart of the matter. The heart of the matter is that since the law was not explicitely stated in the newer issue, it's abrogated. The older code is obsolete. We don't follow Codes of the dirt-old early Church, yet the laws that are held to this day are in the present Code of Canon Law in one way or another. Previous codes don't just compilate into one schmere of legalistic mess. New ones replace old ones. Fr. Rob in this instance, and in others from what I've read in his literature, has it wrong. I'm not saying he's bad, I'm just saying he's wrong. What's so bad about pointing out a flaw or two when it leads to the confusion of another, as it did with my friends who gave me the pamplets to look at anyway?

[jiyoung]

It doesn't sound like you're simply pointing out flaws when you call him an enemy of the charismatic movement. I think it's honestly a little weird calling attention to a priest who's being *too* orthodox rather than to one who's celebrating clown masses and such. When you look at the other kinds of priests around, this is sort of small fries. Wearing a veil is a commendable action. Why condemn a priest who advocates this rather than a priest who advocates the gay lifestyle, or a "free choice" or something? He doesn't strike me to be saying that not wearing a veil would be such a serious sin to merit Hell, but lamenting the loss of the use of the veil. The veil is used in reverence, and I really don't think it's bad that he's ADVOCATING REVERENCE OF THE BLESSED SACRAMENT. Again: he's advocating REVERENCE. How is this so bad?

[quote]The concern should be the desire to have special reverence in the presence of God Incarnate sacramentally present and perpetuating the Sacrifice of the Cross.[/quote]

If anything, he's being overzealous in reverence.

Rereading the thread, you haven't shown evidence of him saying that not wearing a veil is a sin. He looks to the discontinuation of its use as a sign of what reverence towards Jesus has become--and he's absolutely right about that; people are ridiculously free with their dress and their conduct, even in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament. I think you're taking your argument a little far by saying that he's saying that not wearing a veil is a sin.

Edited July 26, 2006 by jiyoung