|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Vatican cracks down on liberal nuns
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
"I'm not a rebel. I'm just saying my piece!" Heck, I've used that one. Real meaning. "I AM a rebel but I don't like the thought of leaving".
Is it a lie, IngoB? Probably. But it's also a cry of pain from within. YMMV about whether that has any value at all.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
I am completely at a loss to understand what there is to discuss here. Sr Farley is a member of a religious institute. She teaches theology. As a theologian and particularly as a theologian who is a religious, she has an obligation to teach the Catholic faith. She writes a book in which she proposes a number of positions that are contrary to or not consonant with the Catholic faith. The Vatican dicastery charged with oversight of the work of Catholic theologians conducts a thorough review of the work, including obtaining clarifications from Sr Farley. At the end of that review the dicastery issues a notification saying that the positions proposed in Sr Farley's book are contrary to or not consonant with the Catholic faith. Sr Farley says she wasn't trying to teach the Catholic faith.
The only question that seems to be unanswered is why Sr Farley thinks that, as a member of a religious institute, she is free to teach theology but doesn't have the obligation to teach the Catholic faith?
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
Why quote one thing and then call her a liar for saying something else altogether?!
WTF? I precisely quoted what I called her a liar for. She just happened to say something in the same breath that probably is correct. Here, let me try to help your reading comprehension by removing the likely correct part from what I did quote, leaving the one I think she lied about: "I can only clarify that the book was not ... aimed specifically against this teaching. It is of a different genre altogether."
Well I haven't read the book so I can't say exactly what she wrote, but if she states it's not intended to be official teaching and it is clear that it is at odds with official teaching and if, one assumes, the book in question does not include any statement claiming her opinions therein expressed to be official Catholic teaching why all the fuss?
Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
I am completely at a loss to understand what there is to discuss here. Sr Farley is a member of a religious institute. She teaches theology. As a theologian and particularly as a theologian who is a religious, she has an obligation to teach the Catholic faith. She writes a book in which she proposes a number of positions that are contrary to or not consonant with the Catholic faith. The Vatican dicastery charged with oversight of the work of Catholic theologians conducts a thorough review of the work, including obtaining clarifications from Sr Farley. At the end of that review the dicastery issues a notification saying that the positions proposed in Sr Farley's book are contrary to or not consonant with the Catholic faith. Sr Farley says she wasn't trying to teach the Catholic faith.
The only question that seems to be unanswered is why Sr Farley thinks that, as a member of a religious institute, she is free to teach theology but doesn't have the obligation to teach the Catholic faith?
I think my question is basically this:
Do catholic theologians have academic freedom to thoughtfully and critically engage like other scholars? This critical engagement means criticizing orthodox teaching if necessary.
If not, then what's the purpose of catholic theology if everything that has been revealed is in the Catechism?
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
The rights, duties and obligations of Catholic theologians are helpfully set out in this document. It seems clear to me that Sr Farley understands her vocation very differently. She is, of course, entirely free so to do. What she seems less inclined to do is to face the consequences/pay the price for the choice she has made.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
"I'm not a rebel. I'm just saying my piece!" Heck, I've used that one. Real meaning. "I AM a rebel but I don't like the thought of leaving".
Is it a lie, IngoB? Probably. But it's also a cry of pain from within. YMMV about whether that has any value at all.
Why should Farley be upset? The Roman Catholic Church teaches the same thing about human sexuality it's taught since way before Farley became a nun. "The Spirit of Vatican II" didn't and isn't going to change it.
Farley's position strikes me as being intellectually dishonest. Is the Roman Catholic Church what it claims to be? If so, why is she, as a theologian, teaching doctrine that is contrary to the Magisterium? If it isn't, then why is she still a Roman Catholic? The Roman Catholic Church isn't the only game in town. Why continue to be affiliated with an institution you believe to be wrong on so many important issues? I don't buy the whole, "this is my church," thing either. The average lay person saying something like that sort of makes sense. She isn't an average lay person. She's both a nun and a theologian. I would expect more.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
The rights, duties and obligations of Catholic theologians are helpfully set out in this document. It seems clear to me that Sr Farley understands her vocation very differently. She is, of course, entirely free so to do. What she seems less inclined to do is to face the consequences/pay the price for the choice she has made.
Yes. That's very clear. From my nonconformist understanding, if you seek to dissent openly, you can do so as a matter of conscience, but you mustn't wriggle! "Say your piece, and take your lumps" is the price you pay for the exercise of conscience.
And of course you may be wrong. Being in submission (a good principle) within the church order to which you belong does not mean burying your brain. But it does mean that if you get to the point of public declaration, (rather than private exploration with whoever your spiritual mentor is), then you've deliberately taken "a walk on the wild side". For better, or for worse.
Are you a prophet, or just an idiot? A heretic, or a voice that needs to be heard?
That's the territory of conscience. But Dissenters can't have their cake, and eat it, any more than anyone else can.
[xposted with Beeswax Altar, who may be surprised to discover the level of agreement]
[ 07. June 2012, 22:46: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
When will these people either display an ounce of humility and a grain of integrity and accept that it is the office of the Bishops in the Church that gets to determine what is in accordance with the deposit of faith not them, that it has decided and that is an end to it, or face up to the fact that they've moved beyond the Catholic faith and it's communion and face the consequences.
While I respect your intellect no end, I disagree with you that this can ever be a valid statement. Of course, that may be why I am not Catholic and you are. I understand the argument that the tradition of the Church is to be seen as true and important; more important than the latest trend in theological thought.
That being said, the Holy Mother Church has changed throughout history. The faith of 500 A.D. is not the same faith of today. In fact, I think it safe to say that we do not even think the same way as they did. That is not to invalidate their thinking; we just think differently because we are informed by different sources. If that can be acknowledged, it means that sources and forces outside of an entrenched establishment have been heard and might even have been correct.
These nuns seem to have choices. If they wish to have dialogue, they need quite a lot of patience. As you say, the dialogue has gone on for quite some time now and seems to have gotten them exactly nowhere.
They could just toe the line like good little nuns and listen to their betters. Or, at least to the people GOD Himself* has chosen to make the rules.
They could just leave the Holy Mother Church and keep to their chosen theological line. Of course, they would have to figure out where to live and how to pay for the food.
Trisagion, we just disagree. That does not mean that I do not admire your conviction and how you carry out your faith; I do. That does not mean I think I am smarter than you, or have a better faith than you do. We just disagree.
_______
*Can't buy the they are the only ones with authority at all. Probably because I was not brought up to that and have different expectations.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mary LA
Shipmate
# 17040
|
Posted
Are there documents or teachings that relate to the right of public dissent from non-infallible teaching in the Roman Catholic Church?
I agree that as a Sister of Mercy, Margaret Farley's position is ambiguous. I would be inclined to see her following on from Catholic theologians like Curran, Kung or Boff in critically engaging with the Church, but also with secular and ecumenical ways of thinking on ethics. I'm not sure it is possible to work within Yale or Harvard and not do that.
In her own statement, Farley seems to be trying to describe the position she took and that she was not just restating the traditional Catholic position of sexual ethics but did consider herself to be working within a broader understanding of natural law.
"...this book was designed to help people, especially Christians but also others, to think through their questions about human sexuality. It suggests the importance of moving from what frequently functions as a taboo morality to a morality and sexual ethics based on the discernment of what counts as wise, truthful, and recognizably just loves. Although my responses to some particular sexual ethical questions do depart from some traditional Christian responses, I have tried to show that they nonetheless reflect a deep coherence with the central aims and insights of these theological and moral traditions."
--------------------
“I often wonder if we were all characters in one of God's dreams.”
― Muriel Spark
Posts: 499 | From: Africa | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
Well I haven't read the book so I can't say exactly what she wrote, but if she states it's not intended to be official teaching and it is clear that it is at odds with official teaching and if, one assumes, the book in question does not include any statement claiming her opinions therein expressed to be official Catholic teaching why all the fuss?
If a chief officer of the Atheist Society Incorporated wrote a book "... designed to help people, especially atheists but also others, to think through their questions about spirituality. It suggests the importance of moving from what frequently functions as a taboo religion to a religion and spirituality based on the discernment of what counts as wise, truthful, and recognizably just worship. Although my responses to some particular spiritual questions do depart from some traditional atheist responses, I have tried to show that they nonetheless reflect a deep coherence with the central aims and insights of these intellectual and spiritual traditions."
And if she then claimed "I can only clarify that the book was not ... aimed specifically against the rejection of worship. It is of a different genre altogether." - what would I say?
Liar, liar, pants on fire...
And no, this is not a "rebel" attitude at all. Rebels rebel. This is fifth column work.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mary LA
Shipmate
# 17040
|
Posted
IngoB, even the most militant atheist is entitled to an agnostic moment or two --
Richard Dawkins to Rowan Williams:
'On a scale of seven, where one means I know he (God) exists, and seven I know he doesn't, I call myself a six.'
Professor Dawkins went on to say he believed was a '6.9', stating: 'That doesn't mean I'm absolutely confident, that I absolutely know, because I don't.
Apologies for the tangent/
--------------------
“I often wonder if we were all characters in one of God's dreams.”
― Muriel Spark
Posts: 499 | From: Africa | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
Mary LA, writing a book is not a "moment".
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
When will these people either display an ounce of humility and a grain of integrity and accept that it is the office of the Bishops in the Church that gets to determine what is in accordance with the deposit of faith not them, that it has decided and that is an end to it, or face up to the fact that they've moved beyond the Catholic faith and it's communion and face the consequences.
Re humility, Jesus said, "Blessed are the meek (i.e., the humble)" but i guess the Magesterium (i.e., the Office of Bishops) interprets that as not applying to themselves.
Re integrity, (and apologies for the tangent, but it speaks to the point made) it is rich to use the word "integrity" in reference to that, as a whole, child-molester-enabling crew (yes, based on observable fact, that crew as a whole has cruelly demonstrated that it is more interested in protecting the criminals than ministering in a Christ-like way to the innocent victims.).
Humility and integrity indeed.
[ 08. June 2012, 10:35: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by malik3000:
(and apologies for the tangent, but it speaks to the point made)
No, it doesn't.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
Re humility, Jesus said, "Blessed are the meek (i.e., the humble)" but i guess the Magesterium (i.e., the Office of Bishops) interprets that as not applying to themselves.
In what way do you see that working? Is there a way of Bishops exercising the authority that the same Jesus gave them to loose and bind and to protect those in their pastoral charge in such a way that meets your definition of meekness? Could you also explain how according to your definition Sr Margaret Farley should behave?
quote:
Re integrity, (and apologies for the tangent, but it speaks to the point made) it is rich to use the word "integrity" in reference to that, as a whole, child-molester-enabling crew (yes, based on observable fact, that crew as a whole has cruelly demonstrated that it is more interested in protecting the criminals than ministering in a Christ-like way to the innocent victims.).
Humility and integrity indeed.
Bollocks. Your argument is nothing other than prejudice and bigotry clothed in pretended righteous anger. Your suggestion that it speaks to the subject under discussion is an insultnto the intelligence of your shipmates and is nothing more than a disingenuous attempt to camouflage malice.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
Trisagion, I didn't know that you have ESP, long-distance ESP at that. I don't wish to take this argument to a personal level, so i will simply wonder how you are so sure of my internal motives for what i have written.
I have no malice toward the church of my birth and upbringing. But it offends me and many to observe that people who are entrusted with the role of leadership in the have been more interested in covering their institution than in fully and uninhibitedly making their absolute number-one first priority the healing of the innocent victims of crimes perpetrated by members of that institution.
I apologize for thinking that their behavior in this matter is lacking in conscience.
(i hasten to add the vast majority of priests in said institution who are not guilty should be protected from false allegations).
It may make you feel justified to call what i said "a disingenuous to camouflage malice" but but since you don't know me I respectfully submit that this is an unfounded assumption, and if i chose i could call "bollocks".
I simply don't like bullying by people in positions of power. And so i think bringing this issue up in response to your use of the word "integrity" is valid, (and must respectfully disagree with Beeswax Altar) and strongly disagree with your contention that i am insulting the intelligence of my fellow shipmates.
I haven't really followed the issue of Sr. Margaret and her book and don't have a specific thing to add on that . Like i said above -- i was addressing the use of the word "integrity" in your previous post. (I do think it is a tribute to love for their church sisters such as her must have that they continue to fight from within.)
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
While accepting your motives, malik3000, bringing the contentious issue of abuse of children into this particular thread is not in accord with Purgatory Guideline 3 - Stick to the Point.
It just doesn't strike me as an aid to serious debate on this thread topic, or any other thread involving the Catholic hierarchy, or doctrines, to throw that subject into the mix. It is bound to be provocative, bound to draw attention away from the main thread purpose, bound to derail, at least to some extent.
I think you should drop it here. It's best discussed in a separate thread. We've had a number of those anyway - here and in Hell. It's not as if you can't raise it that way.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
+ Irl Gladfelter
Shipmate
# 14732
|
Posted
A note to the LCWR: If you can not and will not truly believe and teach Roman Catholic doctrine according to "The Catechism of the Catholic Church" and other magisterial documents and infallible Papal teachings in the area of faith and morals, and oppose the way the Catholic Church operates,; goodbye. Please close the door on your way out.
--------------------
Blessings,
Irl
Posts: 74 | From: Kansas City, MO | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
I have yet to see any response to Ruth's comment WAAAAAY back on page 1 or 2, and the the comments made on NPR in response--
The specific charge that seems to be bubbling out of this rebuke is "less time on social justice, more time opposing abortion and same sex marriage".
Historically, haven't nuns always been focused on aiding the poor, sick and hungry? Since when are they supposed to arguing publically for Vatican statements? Isn't that the role of the priests?
And further, is this not the Vatican saying "Pay less attention to the stuff Jesus actually talked about (feeding the hungry, helping the poor, tending the sick) and more attention to stuff he never mentioned at all (abortion and same sex marriage)? Please help me understand.
--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
No, Siegried it isn't. It is about the Vatican saying to the Vatican created and accredited body for the superiors of women's religious congregations, whose purpose is to collaborate with the rest of the Catholic Church, many of your activities as a conference, many of the speakers you have invited and honoured and many of the positions you have promoted are not part of your mission and, far from collaborating in the work of the Church are actually working against the Church.
Let's shoot this fox about opposing social justice and pro-life activity. The CDF note praises their work in many areas of social justice but notes their virtual silence in the face of the holocaust of abortion. You are entitled to your views on abortion, you are entitled to disagree with the Catholic Church's view that it is absolutely wrong and you are entitled to believe the preposterous notion that Jesus was unconcerned about such things. But then you are not a Catholic. You are not a Catholic who is a member of a religious order in the Catholic Church. You are not a religious superior of such a congregation. You are not such a religious superior who is a a member of the leadership conference whose very reason for existence is to collaborate with the Vatican and the US Catholic Bishops' Conference. If you were, you would would not be entitled to hold, espouse or promote such views. As Cardinal Levada said yesterday: “Too many people crossing the LCWR screen, who are supposedly representing the Catholic church, aren’t representing the church with any reasonable sense of product identity."
There other Sisters who seem to have a perspective worth considering.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mockingale
Shipmate
# 16599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
As Cardinal Levada said yesterday: “Too many people crossing the LCWR screen, who are supposedly representing the Catholic church, aren’t representing the church with any reasonable sense of product identity."
What a remarkably frank and unflattering way to put it.
Catholicism: The Rite Choice!
Catholicism: Now With 20% More Inquisition!
Posts: 679 | From: Connectilando | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
I have yet to see any response to Ruth's comment WAAAAAY back on page 1 or 2
I didn't think it necessarily called for one, to be honest. And I'm with Trisagion on this, just from the other side of the fence. The nuns are trying to have it both ways -- be in the Catholic Church somehow but not stand up for everything that entails. I know a lot of people admire the sisters who agitate for change from within, but I think they should vote with their feet, which is why I quoted the stock phrase from the TEC signs: "The Episcopal Church welcomes you." But that's me, a Protestant.
I think Tortuf's bit here, one of the nuns' choices --
quote:
They could just toe the line like good little nuns and listen to their betters. Or, at least to the people GOD Himself* has chosen to make the rules.
-- is an unfair characterization. The nuns are adults with free will living in a free country, and they're smart and educated. They really can make a free choice to submit to the discipline of the Catholic Church, discipline that the church is clear about, and if they don't like the set-up, they really can leave. I'm sure leaving would be a difficult road, with a lot of heartbreak involved in leaving a church they evidently love and to which they feel a great deal of loyalty. But saying that the Catholic Church should change to suit them is saying that the Catholic Church shouldn't be what it is, which makes me wonder what they think the church is in the first place.
As for "product identity"? Unfortunate phrasing, but ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
The CDF note praises their work in many areas of social justice but notes their virtual silence in the face of the holocaust of abortion.
<snip>
If you were, you would would not be entitled to hold, espouse or promote such views.
In what sense can "virtual silence" be considered "espousing", "promoting", or even reasonable proof of "holding" a view? That seems to be a roundabout way of calling for "more time opposing abortion and same sex marriage", to borrow from Siegfried's post.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
Croesus, their silence, when taken with those they have honoured and the pro-choice advocacy of some of the LCWR leadership over the years counts very much as espousal.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Croesus, their silence, when taken with those they have honoured and the pro-choice advocacy of some of the LCWR leadership over the years counts very much as espousal.
How does one "advocate" and yet be "virtually silent"? Some sort of sign language? Examples, please?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Croesus, their silence, when taken with those they have honoured . . .
And does the Vatican really want to start playing Six Degrees of Evil Separation?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Croesus, their silence, when taken with those they have honoured . . .
And does the Vatican really want to start playing Six Degrees of Evil Separation?
Godwin's Law anyone.
[code edited]
[ 14. June 2012, 21:57: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Godwin's Law isn't applicable to that post, as it says long online discussions inevitably lead to comparisons to Hitler and the Nazis, and Croesus didn't compare the Catholic Church to the Nazis. He said the Catholic Church signed a treaty with the Nazis, which they did. They are rather asking for that history to be brought in when they refer to the "holocaust" of abortion.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Croesus, their silence, when taken with those they have honoured . . .
And does the Vatican really want to start playing Six Degrees of Evil Separation?
Godwin's Law anyone.
[code edited]
Not applicable. Godwin's Law covers Nazi analogies. It's not supposed to be used to suppress discussion of the actual Nazi party.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
I find it more in keeping with the story of the Good Samaritan.
If, in order to help the poor and needy, they have to occasionally associate with those who hold positions contrary to Rome, is it okay?
I find it analogous to the priest who walks on by knowing that the man is hurt and needs help, but can't because that will soil him in the eyes of God. Technically true by the Law, but Jesus seemed to have a whole different idea of what should have really been done...
--------------------
That's between you and your god. Oh, wait a minute. You are your god. That's a problem. - Jack O'Neill (Stargate SG1)
Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
I find it more in keeping with the story of the Good Samaritan.
If, in order to help the poor and needy, they have to occasionally associate with those who hold positions contrary to Rome, is it okay?
It's not only okay, it is a Gospel imperative. But "occasional" association is quite different from the systematic, continuous and long-standing association with and the adoption of the positions of those who hold positions contrary not just to Rome but to the Catholic Church. That is what the US bishops complained to Rome about, that is what the CDF were asked to investigate and that is what they found considerable evidence of as a result of that investigation. They also found - as Sr Simone Campbell appears to admit - that they have dissociated themselves from those who hold positions in agreement with the Catholic Church are seeking to help protect the lives of the unborn.
Oh, and Croesus, your distinction is entirely disingenuous. Your earlier post was a clear attempt to associate the Vatican with Nazism...at least if it wasn't then what it did mean is entirely lost on me.
[ 14. June 2012, 23:06: Message edited by: Trisagion ]
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Godwin's Law isn't applicable to that post, as it says long online discussions inevitably lead to comparisons to Hitler and the Nazis, and Croesus didn't compare the Catholic Church to the Nazis. He said the Catholic Church signed a treaty with the Nazis, which they did. They are rather asking for that history to be brought in when they refer to the "holocaust" of abortion.
Why?
The old tu quoque (you also) isn't any better than violating Godwin's Law.
Why would the nuns take a vow of obedience to an institution that signed a treaty with the Nazis? Most living nuns took their vows after the Vatican signed a treaty with the Nazis. All threads dealing with an action of the Roman Catholic Church eventually end with the slinging of generic Anti-Roman Catholic crap not remotely related to the topic. Might as well just start all the threads in Hell from now on.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Godwin's Law isn't applicable to that post, as it says long online discussions inevitably lead to comparisons to Hitler and the Nazis, and Croesus didn't compare the Catholic Church to the Nazis. He said the Catholic Church signed a treaty with the Nazis, which they did. They are rather asking for that history to be brought in when they refer to the "holocaust" of abortion.
Whereas I entirely agree with your earlier post about "The Episcopal Church welcomes you", I think you are way off the mark here.
Croesus's analogy sought to suggest that if I were to condemn the LCWR for their lauding of pro-abortion advocates, I'd have to deal with the objection that in signing the Reichskonkordat, the Vatican stood in the same position to the Nazis. That is to say that if I believe some of the LCWR are complicit fellow travellers with the pro-choice advocates, I have to accept that the Catholic Church is a complicit fellow-traveller with the Nazis. Pretty close to as good an example of Godwin's Law as I've seen for a while.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
I find it more in keeping with the story of the Good Samaritan.
If, in order to help the poor and needy, they have to occasionally associate with those who hold positions contrary to Rome, is it okay?
It's not only okay, it is a Gospel imperative. But "occasional" association is quite different from the systematic, continuous and long-standing association with and the adoption of the positions of those who hold positions contrary not just to Rome but to the Catholic Church.
And as the US becomes more and more polarized, and those who seek to help those in poverty are more and more hand in hand with those who are pro-choice, and those who are pro-life and anti-gay marriage become more and more for the poor to help themselves, and for the sick to have to care for themselves, then what?
Yes, the polarization is yucky, and shouldn't be, but let's be honest that things can get very sticky when the rubber meets the road...
--------------------
That's between you and your god. Oh, wait a minute. You are your god. That's a problem. - Jack O'Neill (Stargate SG1)
Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
I have to add one comment that it wasn't Crœsos who first mentioned the Holocaust if one is going to accuse violation of Godwin's law...
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
I should add, the nuns should probably have put out some statement that while they work with those involved in social justice who might not agree with Catholic theology, they still hold fast the teachings of their church. That would make it crystal clear the positions of both the Vatican and the Nuns - whether it's an issue of abdicating the vows they took. BTW, since it was mentioned, isn't the nuns vow to God primarily and not just the Catholic church?
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
I have to add one comment that it wasn't Crœsos who first mentioned the Holocaust if one is going to accuse violation of Godwin's law...
Not unless the word "holocaust" means one thing and one alone. I would have thought that on these boards, at least, one could avoid that.
No one is accusing the Sisters of breaking their vows. They are being called to respond to them.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
I have to add one comment that it wasn't Crœsos who first mentioned the Holocaust if one is going to accuse violation of Godwin's law...
Not unless the word "holocaust" means one thing and one alone. I would have thought that on these boards, at least, one could avoid that.
The very first thing that comes to mind for a majority of people is that "one thing". We've tried in other instances to invoke holocaust and it generally fails to invoke the same passion as that one. When one brings up the word, there are going to be responses referring to the Nazis and those who were associated with them
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
No one is accusing the Sisters of breaking their vows. They are being called to respond to them.
I was more referring to BA's post in my reply. What would satisfy the Vatican at this point? Would it be enough for them to working with other groups while making it known they still hold fast the teachings of their church? In the case of Obama Care the reason they aligned themselves is pretty much that they want health care available to all and it became evident that that goal wouldn't be met any other way. The current law has objectionable parts in it for everyone, but no one is budging and people are suffering. Sometimes you have to work with people you don't necessarily agree with to gain a greater good for all.
[ 15. June 2012, 00:28: Message edited by: Niteowl2 ]
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
No one is accusing the Sisters of breaking their vows. They are being called to respond to them.
Err...huh? Clarification please. That sounds like, "You aren't breaking the law, but you need to follow it." Which makes no sense....
--------------------
That's between you and your god. Oh, wait a minute. You are your god. That's a problem. - Jack O'Neill (Stargate SG1)
Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
I was more referring to BA's post in my reply. What would satisfy the Vatican at this point? Would it be enough for them to working with other groups while making it known they still hold fast the teachings of their church? In the case of Obama Care the reason they aligned themselves is pretty much that they want health care available to all and it became evident that that goal wouldn't be met any other way. The current law has objectionable parts in it for everyone, but no one is budging and people are suffering. Sometimes you have to work with people you don't necessarily agree with to gain a greater good for all.
The CDF's document is nothing to do with the Affordable Health Care Act. You should read the relatively short document here.
quote:
PataLeBon originally posted:
Err...huh? Clarification please. That sounds like, "You aren't breaking the law, but you need to follow it." Which makes no sense....
It goes something like this: the CDF says to the LCWR (note to them, not to the individual sisters), "The reason for your existence as a Conference is to promote and facilitate collaboration between your member organisations, the US Bishops and us, under our authority. Your behaviour is not doing that. We require you to amend that behaviour."
What this nun or that nun has done is a fact-sensitive matter that goes to the question of whether the behaviour is promoting or facilitating that collaboration. It is, however, for the CDF to make that call. They have done so and have set out their reasons. The matter for debate is not whether this act or that for this nun or that nun is morally justifiable or not, but whether it does or does not promote or facilitate that collaboration.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Croesus's analogy sought to suggest that if I were to condemn the LCWR for their lauding of pro-abortion advocates, I'd have to deal with the objection that in signing the Reichskonkordat, the Vatican stood in the same position to the Nazis.
Very true. And I'm amazed that anyone considers referring to the government of the Third Reich as "Nazis" to be a Godwin violation. Reminds me of a satirical blog post I came across once portraying Churchill's war room trying to discuss military strategy without violating Godwin's Law.
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
That is to say that if I believe some of the LCWR are complicit fellow travellers with the pro-choice advocates, I have to accept that the Catholic Church is a complicit fellow-traveller with the Nazis.
Pretty much. If you're going to play guilt-by-association, it helps to not have a history of cozying up to a group widely considered to be the worst people ever. I still haven't heard a decent explanation from you for why the Vatican gets to live by a different standard than it imposes on others.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
When is Godwin's Law not Godwin's law?
Well, I'm not going to make a ruling there. But I suggest you try to find a way of discussing the current issue without bringing in allusions to the appropriateness of 80 year old treaties as a point to be made in the discussion. One way or another. I'm just reminding Shipmates of the letter and spirit of Purgatory Guideline 3.
And, no, I'm not ruling on who started it either. Try another road.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
I've taken the issue to the Styx.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
I was more referring to BA's post in my reply. What would satisfy the Vatican at this point? Would it be enough for them to working with other groups while making it known they still hold fast the teachings of their church? In the case of Obama Care the reason they aligned themselves is pretty much that they want health care available to all and it became evident that that goal wouldn't be met any other way. The current law has objectionable parts in it for everyone, but no one is budging and people are suffering. Sometimes you have to work with people you don't necessarily agree with to gain a greater good for all.
The CDF's document is nothing to do with the Affordable Health Care Act. You should read the relatively short document here.
Ah, but it is part of the issue as a whole based on the documentation. The issue came up prior to the legislation, but is part and parcel of the same discussion. My question still stands. Is there any way they can be part of a movement advancing women's health issues while making clear they still stand by the RCC's theology.
As to the feminism issue, I won't comment because I disagree with the RCC and my take would be biased. If I were the LCWR I'd probably leave the RCC altogether and become part of another denomination. They seem to want to remain part of the RCC and are probably aiming to bring change from within. The fact they are women to me means that will never happen.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edgeman
Shipmate
# 12867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
BTW, since it was mentioned, isn't the nuns vow to God primarily and not just the Catholic church?
Not entirely. The vows of every religious are vows to God and the church. Religious are representatives and examples to the whole church. Their consecration to God does not make them exempt from certain parts of church law. Actually, the exact opposite is true. If you read the documents of Vatican II and those after it on the religious life, religious are integral to the ministry of the church. They are consecrated to the church, and to the church's mission, whatever ministry they work has to be in accordance with and under the approval of the church. That's just the way it works. Male or female, it doesn't matter. Just taking a look at John Paul II's Vita Consecrata, AT THE SECTION ON THE COMMUNION BETWEEN RELIGIOUS AND THE CHURCH,probably the most important paragraph is this:
quote:
A distinctive aspect of ecclesial communion is allegiance of mind and heart to the Magisterium of the Bishops, an allegiance which must be lived honestly and clearly testified to before the People of God by all consecrated persons, especially those involved in theological research, teaching, publishing, catechesis and the use of the means of social communication.Because consecrated persons have a special place in the Church, their attitude in this regard is of immense importance for the whole People of God.
In other words, whether people agree or not, becoming a consecrated religious means consecrating oneself to upholding the party line. I completely deny that any religious formed after Vatican II was unaware of this fact.
I really don't understand how anyone could be shocked or surprised that after years of doing the opposite of what they were formed and what they vowed to do, that someone might remind them of heir formation and purpose.
--------------------
http://sacristyxrat.tumblr.com/
Posts: 1420 | From: Philadelphia Penns. | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
Thanks for the indepth response St.Silas the carter. It does make sense that it would be a dual obligation to both God and the RCC, though personally my main obligation would always be to God and I'd resign if I felt the RCC was asking me to stop something I felt called to do. That is why I made the comment about the nuns probably should leave the RCC if they truly wanted to pursue female leadership roles with a church setting and find a church that will accommodate them.
Edited to add: I've always been a bit of a non conformist. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
[ 16. June 2012, 08:59: Message edited by: Niteowl2 ]
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
I see that Lisa Cahill, a Professsor of Theology and Ethics at Boston College, makes the point that
quote:
The method of critique adopted by the authors of the notification does not effectively promote either the specific contents of Catholic sexual teaching or the basic idea of objective morality based on the natural law. The notification simply asserts that Farley's views are not official Catholic teaching, then reiterates official positions without engaging any of the substantive arguments for or against them. This strategy creates the unfortunate impression that engaging Farley's arguments is superfluous because the condemnation of her book was predetermined and the investigation a mere formality. It raises the suspicion there are, in fact, no reasonable arguments to back the positions asserted by the notification, and even that the CDF itself has abandoned the grounding of moral theology in objective reasoning – relying, instead, on the sole authority of past conclusions.
She also makes the point that theology is quote:
a process of seeking, inquiry and exploration in a dynamic and critical relation to other theological positions. Theologians do not see or present their work as "official Catholic teaching" and few of the faithful are confused about this fact
There once was a Catholic Church that encouraged this, but not, it seems, any longer. Ms. Farley's sin seems to be that she understands that there are theological questions inherent in the present age, while the Magisterium (as opposed to the Pope, interestingly) is still obsessed with a different age.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Re Horseman Bree's post, I wondered if this was accurate and up to date, so far as the scope and responsibilities of theologians was concerned.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
